I am little confused here. People keep saying lawsuits.
I thought the case is a judicial review of the Children and Family Services order. I thought the case was about the parents (aka the WTS lawyers) believing that they did not have the time to review the information and bring an appeal/objection to the Children and Family Services order before the Court. The WTS lawyers believe that there is jursiprudence suggesting that no matter what the Court has to hear all evidence before allowing the transfusion. They will argue that the government should ought to have known there was a liklihood of a blood therapy and thus, should ought to have gotten the order in front of the Court much sooner than they did. Of course the Crown is arguing there was insufficient time due to the health of the little ones was at stake.
Personally I don't know how a group of men from Glen How's little group in the Georegtown Bethel can look at the Court and say a blood transfusion is okay if it is for testing the blood (even when the tube holding the blood is disconnected during the procedure) but other types of blood transfusions for sustaining one's life is not okay. Maybe everyone should go read the 1944 Ballard case by the USA Supremes and then ask if the JW leadership honestly and in good faith believes in their partial blood ban doctrine. Then maybe the Crown up here should start enforcing s. 217 to 219 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
hawk