Exactly.
The applicant who had been hired for the position had all the qualifications required to fill it. After the judge called the University of Toronto, everything fell apart for her. What the judge had done was exercise a form of lobbying.
When the complaint was made, the vice president determined that there might be suspected partiality and for that reason, the appointment process was to resume.
The lobbying by Justice Spiro was indirect, unlike the lobbying by Justice Donald McLeod, who met with ministers and members of Parliament on behalf of a non-profit organization. That's why we say that, however subtle, lobbying is still lobbying.
We want Bill C‑9 to take into account all forms of lobbying to avoid any differences in interpretation.
Does that answer your question?