The date and time for the second hearing was determined this morning. We'll be proceeding at 10AM on Thursday, April 9th. I've had a chance to dig deeper into the counterarguments and one thing that I've noticed is that there was no mention of the section 52(1) argument that was the foundation of my originating application. I considered the Charter violations to be a sub-argument within the larger matter, but the two issues do stand independently. Ignoring a Charter rights violation still leaves the overwhelming rule of law violation standing. The argument put forward by the Respondents shows that the Attorney General consent privilege is a convenience in maintaining a free and democratic society, not a fundamental necessity. To make the rule of law supreme as the Charter requires, these powers should devolve onto a committee of public officials elected to hold the office for set terms, not appointed by political authority in continued violation of the rule of law.