As I see it, NDP-1 proposes to replace proposed subsection 696.4(4) entirely to allow the commission to decide that an application is admissible even if a court of appeal has not rendered a final judgment based on any factor that may have constrained the applicant’s ability or opportunity to appeal the finding or verdict.
In addition, the motion would amend proposed subsection 696.4(2) of that same provision, which is the exhaustion of appeals admissibility criterion to allow applicants to include information they believe should be taken into account by the commission in deciding whether to admit the application despite their not having exhausted their rights of appeal.
One thing I did observe, though, in the manner in which the motion is worded, is that the amendment to proposed subsection 696.4(4), the exception provision, says that it's “despite” proposed paragraph 696.4(3)(b), I believe. I'm trying to find the motion itself. It doesn't speak to what would happen with (3)(b), which is when someone had an issue that they could have appealed to the Supreme Court.
In terms of operationalizing that, I'm not quite sure what effect that would have.