SAC refutes the arguments of the Accused

In a very well written report, available here, the SAC responds to the protests of the Accused parties and very handily dismisses them all as reasons for not submitting to the Arbitration.

They conclude that it is only in the best interests of the Accused to participate, since they would be able to substitute the Chief Electoral Officer in the place of the Accused candidates.

The report isn't all negative towards the Accused parties. But by releasing the whole back story, it no doubt makes them look bad.

From the report
By way of background, the respondent candidates brought a motion to dismiss the current action and intended to lead evidence to that effect. Before sending their evidence to the SAC, they asked that the SAC not divulge the information to the appellants. The SAC gave the assurance that the information would not be shared, and the respondent candidates forwarded the confidential information.

SFUO legal counsel subsequently informed the SAC that the SAC should not have
received confidential information from the respondent candidates. This is due to the fact
that information considered by a judge or arbitration panel must be available to all parties
to the dispute, and a judge or arbitration panel should not have communications with one
party that cannot be revealed to all other parties. In other words, the SAC’s dealings with
all parties must be open and transparent.

It has been ruled that the evidence cannot be brought forward by the Appellants, unless it is first done so by the accused. Sounds fair, like something we would hear on Law & Order.

But by revealing to everyone that the accused tried to get evidence submitted that wouldn't be able to be scrutinized by the appellants makes them seem even more devious, I mean, wasn't one of their complaints that they did not receive the evidence against them in a timely manner? Yet they wanted to surprise the appellants with secret evidence?

Let's get this show on the road! Again, we are trying to figure out if these four individual intentionally violated our constitution. If they did, she should be removed, whether or not the new evidence was received after a deadline. There should be no statute of limitations on this.