Could we maybe have a clarification with respect to the process of summary conviction? How would that happen? I think I understand that there is a commission of an offence, the offence being that there isn't sufficient insurance, or there hasn't been sufficient proof that a decent attempt was made to acquire the prescribed insurance. I understand that, but how can that be adjudicated upon if the process is one of summary conviction?
My understanding of summary conviction is that there really isn't a hearing, there isn't required a hearing, that there is a fine and the normal litigation period is much more akin to a hanging than a judicial process. Maybe you could just give us an idea of what's involved in summary conviction hearing.