Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it's important to reiterate that the bar is very high in terms of this test, the test of whether or not someone is a vexatious litigant. This is not intended to stop those who are coming before the courts with the defence in the case where they are unfamiliar with process, the proceedings in court; they may have what the courts would view as, maybe, unsophisticated defence is the wrong term, but at least are unfamiliar with the proceedings of court. That's not at all the intention here.
This is meant to stop, in the event -- and we don't have any cases before us that have prompted us -- but in the event someone were to come forward time and time again with a frivolous and vexatious case that really had no substantiation and amounted to an abuse of the court process, clogging up the courts and preventing other people from being able to come before the court. So judges, in making this decision, would do so very carefully. They would consider the precedent before them, would look at what has happened in other jurisdictions where this has been made, and we've indicated that there are six provinces and the federal court that currently have this provision. So it is a very high test. Judges would not make the decision lightly, and I'm comfortable that the judges would use this in the manner that we are setting it out for, and use it responsibly. Thank you, Madam Chair.