, with both Sulyma and Sauvageau’s lawyer saying they had never encountered a similar situation in their combined 85 years of legal practice.She accepted Sauvageau’s claim that despite her testimony being protected by absolute privilege, the threat of a lawsuit made her afraid to give evidence. Denis later
to the court through his lawyer, but Sulyma rejected his characterization of the situation as a “misunderstanding.”Last week, Denis’s lawyer in a single-justice hearing, asking the high court to stay Sulyma’s contempt finding pending a full appeal.Article content Brendan Miller said the contempt hearing should have been dealt with by a separate judge as part of a three-part process, including a chance for Denis to cross-examine Sauvageau and call evidence. He argued Sulyma combined the first two parts of the hearing “although it was not urgent or necessary to do so.”” ahead of a full appeal of the contempt conviction.
edmontonjournal just who do you think you are Denis the law is only for the peons