I double-checked the structure. It's definitely.... What we're talking about are a judge and possibly the pleading officer in terms of going up out of the system.
The right of judicial review is not taken away from complainants. It already exists as part of the broader system. It certainly is not ousted by Bill C-9. If anybody thought it was, then you put in a clause saying that it's not ousted. Otherwise, complainants are made even worse off than ever.
Judicial review is a separate thing from an appeal. When it usually happens is when a matter is dismissed. The reasons do not appear adequate in the letters that complainants receive, and they want to challenge that. That currently happens rarely, but it's possible. That isn't touched by this legislation. I hope, again. I'm looking at Mr. Anandasangaree.
The other thing is that the lay point is extremely important. It also goes to the second kick at the can. The judge gets to say that if the review panel doesn't like it, then within 30 days they want a reduced full hearing. Part of that is they get to swap out a lay person for a lawyer. The lay person's role is there, but then can be stripped out at the instance of the judge.