The Federal Court ruling today dodged the issue of the legality of the Conservatives’ 2006 federal election ad spending scheme issue even more than Aaron hints at, as the ruling went in favour of the candidates only because the basis of the “balance of convenience” principle means that they should be reimbursed for their full expenses now because the legality of the scheme is yet to be determined.

So, in order to have the issue of the legality of the scheme ruled upon by the courts, Elections Canada must proceed with a prosecution through the Director of Public Prosecutions, and/or an appeal of today’s ruling to the Federal Court of Appeal.

In the meantime, based on this ruling and to save court resources, Elections Canada should reimburse all expenses to all the candidates who participated in the scheme (again, while at the same time prosecuting them all).

It is in the public interest to have the legality of the scheme ruled upon by the courts so that everyone will know what is legal for the next, and future, federal elections, so hopefully Elections Canada will appeal and/or proceed with a prosecution.

Hope this helps.

Whatever makes you feel better, but there is nothing here that contradicts anything I said before.

Nice try though.

Don't worry – I'm sure you guys are manufacturing another 'scandal' as we speak! They seem to come every week or so..

The Federal Court ruling today dodged the issue of the legality of the Conservatives’ 2006 federal election ad spending scheme issue even more than Aaron hints at, as the ruling went in favour of the candidates only because the basis of the “balance of convenience” principle means that they should be reimbursed for their full expenses now because the legality of the scheme is yet to be determined.

So, in order to have the issue of the legality of the scheme ruled upon by the courts, Elections Canada must proceed with a prosecution through the Director of Public Prosecutions, and/or an appeal of today’s ruling to the Federal Court of Appeal.

In the meantime, based on this ruling and to save court resources, Elections Canada should reimburse all expenses to all the candidates who participated in the scheme (again, while at the same time prosecuting them all).

It is in the public interest to have the legality of the scheme ruled upon by the courts so that everyone will know what is legal for the next, and future, federal elections, so hopefully Elections Canada will appeal and/or proceed with a prosecution.

Hope this helps.

Whatever makes you feel better, but there is nothing here that contradicts anything I said before.

Nice try though.

Don't worry – I'm sure you guys are manufacturing another 'scandal' as we speak! They seem to come every week or so..

I suspect they will not appeal because the case turned on whether Maynard had the authority to withhold the money.

The Court specifically refused to rule on the legality of the scheme. It will be up to EC to determine if they want to prosecute, and, if they take the hint from this case, they may want to have more evidence this advertising was paid for by the CPC before they actually lay any charges.

I do note EC seized a number of documents from CPC headquarters when the warrant was executed. As far as I know those documents are still under seal and in the custody of the court. If they are released to EC they may find the evidence they need. Or not.

Your suggestion this has all come about due to bias towards the CPC is unfounded. This is not something all the parties have done before because the reason EC acted in this case is the In and Out scheme permitted the CPC to spend over the cap. Even if other parties had done the same thing, those expenses, if allocated to the party instead of the candidate, would not have resulted in spending over the cap.

Plus, if you read the Judges ruling in the in-and-out case he administers a pretty significant spanking on how poorly constructed and unlegalistic Mayrand's decisions letters were…

What the heck is Mayrand thinking? and who the heck is giving him legal advice?

The way it was when we had (by pure coincidence) the CBC TV and sound crew and the Liberal$ follow the RCMP and Elections Canada in Conservative Headquarters.

The way they had article after article on the homepages and in newspapers as then leader of the opposition Stephane Dion hammered away at it day after day in parliament.

The in and out 'scandal' was the focus of the opposition for many weeks – burning up valuable taxpayer resources in parliament and headlining many news casts.

This issue, as evidenced by the time the opposition Liberal$ spent on it in parliament and the attention it garnered in the media, was front and centre in terms of national significance in their eyes.

So please – can someone tell me why the resolution of this issue doesn't matter to these same Liberal$ and this same media?