When you look at page 3 of the bill, the proposed subsection 696.4(4), “Exception”, currently says “Despite paragraph (3)(b)”.
That means exceptions can be made when someone has not sought an appeal at the Supreme Court.
NDP-1 proposes to change that to say, “Despite paragraph (3)(a)”, which applies to when someone has not sought an appeal at the court of appeal. It doesn't speak to what would happen if there was an appeal sought at the court of appeal and then, let's say, it was unsuccessful and there's perhaps still an issue that could be raised at the Supreme Court.
I'm not sure what would happen if it just says, “Despite paragraph 3(a)” and doesn't also include paragraph 3(b), because proposed subsection 696.4(4) canvasses all the considerations the commission would have to look at in determining whether it could admit an application despite appeals not having been completely exhausted.