UPDATED - Let's call the whole thing off - Not liveblogging Democracy Watch before the Federal Court ...

… but hope springs eternal, right? And if they forcibly de-berry me, I’ll report back as soon as I’m out of the courtroom.

(Background details on the case available here.)

UPDATE: As I feared, it was a berry-free zone. I’ll try to throw together a quick recap in a separate post, but in a nutshell:

Peter Rosenthal, the lawyer for Democracy Watch, did his best to make the case for an expedited, warp speed, when-you-absolutely-positively-need-to-stop-an-illegal-federal-election-by-next-Tuesday hearing, he was unable to explain why, if time was so very much of the essence and the fate of Canadian democracy hung in the balance, his client had waited more than three weeks to file an application for judicial review. (In Rosenthal’s defence, he’s apparently only been on the case since September 23, but still.) He also seemed a little shaky on federal court rules and procedure; the prothonotary – R. Aronovitch, a no-nonsense woman that I’m sure I’ve covered before, but I can’t think when or where – was sympathetic, but seemed unmoved by his excuses.

Meanwhile, the lawyer for the government – Eric Robert, I believe, although I’ll have to doublecheck (or, in this case, check) the spelling – was clearly nettled at being dragged into court, and grumbled and grouched his way through what was, however, a pretty compelling argument against allowing the case to go forward next week.

The judge didn’t rule right away, but given the way the hearing unfolded, and Aronavitch’s line of questioning with Rosenthal, in particular, I think it’s safe to say that the election will go ahead as scheduled.

Looking for more?

Get the Best of Maclean's sent straight to your inbox. Sign up for news, commentary and analysis.