Justice committee  No, that's the government review.

Justice committee  All right.

Justice committee  That's a question that comes up frequently. I did some research on the American literature. Since Professor Owen Fiss's paper called “Against Settlement”, where he argues against ADR for constitutional cases because it's public, whereas mediation is private, it is non-compulsory.

Justice committee  I would just say that the cases mentioned did indeed clarify the law, which is the main purpose of the program.

Justice committee  Can I add something on that because I'm the one putting the recommendation to the committee? Not meeting the criteria is usually two things. First of all, it's not a constitutional right. And I would tag onto my colleague's comment that a renewed program should be enlarged to

Justice committee  In short, the answer is no, because if it's appealed it's because some parties think there has been a problem with the first decision. Since the mandate of the program is to clarify the rights, a decision of a court of appeal is always useful.

Justice committee  I can't remember a case where we refused funding on appeal.

Justice committee  It depends on who the appellant is. Many times, it's the government, because the government gets slammed by the trial judge and decides to appeal. Now the other party, the minority language organization or individual, will come to us and say that the government is appealing and