In Summary Chief Justice Bauman said in his written decision of Sept 16, 2010:
“While I appreciate the Association’s wish for some clarity in this regard so as to better focus its evidence and argument, I decline to grant the relief sought.”
CPAA Lawyer, John Ince responds:
“Even though our application was rejected, I think the exercise was valuable in familiarizing the judge with polyamory generally, in starting the discussion in the media, and in getting clearer where the prov AG is thinking.”
Arguments presented in response to the CPAA application by both the Provincial and Federal Attorneys General underscore the vagueness of section 293 in regards to multi-partner unions which are not patriarchal polygamy. The BC AG was unclear on whether polyamory would be criminal behaviour in general or even specifically as practiced by the five families witnessing on behalf of the CPAA but indicated a primary focus on patriarchal polygamy. The Federal AG was disinclined to comment at all and jeopardize any future potential prosecution of these families in other provinces.
Further Chief Justice Bauman says in his decision:
“The Court is not bound by the positions the Attorneys General take on the reference questions. Nothing precludes the Court from deciding them differently. The Association should therefore not necessarily restrict itself to responding to the positions advanced by the Attorneys General. It may well wish to develop its own views as to the constitutionally permissible reach of s. 293, and to file supporting evidence accordingly.”