It should be recalled however that even for the trial of any possible "unlawful beligerant" not considered either POW or a civilian but rather in a separate category outside of the Geneva Convention, the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognised as indispensable by civilised people is strictly forbidden.

It is estimated that the Minister of Justice receives about 50 to 70 applications for ministerial review each year (8) Generally, the Department of Justice requests the following material in support of an application: a description of the reasons behind the claim of a miscarriage of justice, and any new information to support the claim; the trial transcripts; a copy of all court judgements in the case; and the factums filed on appeal (9) Once these materials are provide ...[+++]d, Justice Department counsel conduct a preliminary assessment of the file to determine whether there is an “air of reality” to the applicant’s claims, based on new and significant information that was not available at trial (10) If this threshold is met, the applicant’s claims will be investigated and then a recommendation will be made to the Minister (11)

It is estimated that the Minister of Justice receives about 50 to 70 applications for ministerial review each year (34) Generally, the Department of Justice requests the following material in support of an application: a description of the reasons behind the claim of a miscarriage of justice, and any new information to support the claim; the trial transcripts; a copy of all court judgements in the case; and the factums filed on appeal (35) Once these materials are provi ...[+++]ded, Justice Department counsel conduct a preliminary assessment of the file to determine whether there is an “air of reality” to the applicant’s claims, based on new and significant information that was not available at trial (36) If this threshold is met, the applicant’s claims will be investigated and then a recommendation will be made to the Minister (37)

1. The particulars of each clinical trial must contain sufficient detail to allow an objective judgement to be made:

c) “accidents involving complex machinery” could occur. See R. v. Caine at trial, Appellant’s Record in Caine, Reasons for judgement of the trial judge Vol. VII, p.1163.

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cools calling the attention of the Senate: (a) to the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the sexual assault case Her Majesty the Queen v. Steve Brian Ewanchuk, delivered February 25, 1999, which judgment reversed the Alberta Court of Appeal's judgment upholding the trial court's acquittal; (b) to the intervenors in this case, being the Attorney General of Canada, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, Disabled Women's Network Canada and Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton; (c) to the Supreme Court of Canada's substitution of a conviction for the acquittals of two Alberta ...[+++]courts; (d) to the lengthy concurring reasons for judgment by Supreme Court of Canada Madame Justice Claire L'Heureux-Dube, which reasons condemn the decision-making of Mr. Justice John Wesley McClung of the Alberta Court of Appeal and the decision of the majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal; (e) to Mr. Justice John Wesley McClung's letter published in the National Post on February 26, 1999, reacting to Madame Justice L'Heureux-Dube's statements about him contained in her concurring reasons for judgement; (f) to the nation-wide, extensive commentary and public discussion on the matter; and (g) to the issues of judicial activism and judicial independence in Canada today.