Mr. Speaker, there are two factual errors in the question as put.
The first is that there was an interruption of a hearing for the purposes of the appointment. That is not so. The second is that the appointment was made before there was a decision on the complaint. That is not so.
As I mentioned to the member when he put this same matter to me 10 days ago, there was a complaint by a former client to the law society in relation to John Desotti from the days when he was in practice. The law society investigated the complaint and determined that there was no foundation to it and that the law society would not proceed against Mr. Desotti. There was no hearing under way and no complaint that was authorized by the law society.
After that happened his name came forward for consideration for appointment and I brought his name to cabinet because he is going to be a very good judge.
The procedure of the law society enables the client to seek a review of the initial decision before a single bencher of the law society. It was while that review was pending that his name came forward. I took into account the nature of the complaint and the facts.