Is cross-examination of the councillors to determine whether they are "capable of persuasion"?

The appellants take issue with the trial judge’s conclusion that cross-examination of the councillors would have been of no benefit. They submit that she relied inaptly on the minority judgment of La Forest J. in Save Richmond Farmland Society v. Richmond (Township) et al. In the appellants’ submission, the majority in that case had reached the opposite conclusion in its determination that the court’s role is precisely to gauge whether a councillor is “capable of persuasion”. Moreover, they contend, the case is of no assistance since it dealt with bias and “openness” to persuasion. In their submission, the trial judge mistakenly analyzed this case as one containing allegations of bias or improper motive rather than improper or irrelevant considerations.