It is not necessary, at this stage, to decide which view is more nearly correct. Looking only at the words of s. 37, there are obvious difficulties with the petitioner's proposed interpretation. But that section contemplates future political action and so the question as to what will come out of the conference cannot be answered merely by reading it. Even if the petitioners are wrong in their view as to the final effect of a decision by the conference, it does not follow that they have nothing to preserve in the meantime. An order which will preserve the status quo until that point is reached may well have a useful practical effect. It is a matter of discretion whether to grant a declaration which will have no legal effect but may have some practical effect: Landreville v. R., 1977 CanLII 1739 (FC), [1977] 2 F.C. 726 at 760, 75 D.L.R. (3d) 380 (Collier J.).
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.