so, they're admitting that there should have been an investigation into the legality of the arrest, and then essentially submitting a review to the court, in the absence of the one i rejected. that's why the factum is so long - it essentially has the review i asked for in the first place in it.

they're doing some weird things.

they're citing a case from 1979 to argue that the arrest was legal. the law i'm citing was written in 1985 and would overpower the precedent by means of parliamentary supremacy. it is exceedingly unusual to see pre-charter cases cited as precedent in canada, so this is kind of an admittance of defeat. they're just going through the motions, pardon the pun.

they're also citing a case from 1999 on the question of whether being annoyed is enough to be harassed, and i know i can defeat that on appeal with newer precedents, if i have to. i don't expect the judge to fall for that.

so, there's an argument here, but it's not a very good one, and we'll have to let the judge work it out.

this is going to the next level...