Thanks. That's a great question.
First of all, each of us looked at all the applications individually without communicating with one another, so there was no groupthink in our discussions. We each looked at the candidates because different people might respond to a different aspect of a candidate. We tried to give them the fairest possible consideration, and sometimes we would get into arguments where one person would ask, “What about this?” We really did try to give the fullest possible review.
Also each of the candidates had references, and we talked to a great many of them to try to supplement what we understood about them.
Second, we did read their case law, their judgments. We read them from the point of view of clarity of expression, knowledge of the law, etc. We felt that the philosophy of their views was really more something for the government to consider and that is why, after we had done our role, the minister and her staff and the Prime Minister's staff looked very closely at the judicial profiles of the candidates, but, yes, we did look at this.
Of course, one of the reasons why filling out the application is so onerous is that they have to give us a list of all the cases they have been involved in and have written about. Yes, we go beyond the application.