OTTAWA -- "At the very least, Mr. Justice Binnie owes an apology to Maritime fishermen," said John Cummins, M.P. (Delta-South Richmond).

The Court received hundred's of pages of Prof. Patterson's testimony yet in its decision it relied on a short excerpt that had been submitted by Marshall's lawyers. (An historian, Prof. Patterson was the expert witness for the Crown who gave evidence on the meaning and intent of the treaty.)

"I don't believe that Binnie ever bothered to read Patterson's testimony," said Cummins.

Mr. Justice Binnie in the Marshall decision seemed inclined to believe that the honour of the Crown demanded that when faced with two opposing arguments he was obliged to choose the one most favourable to natives, rather than the one that most corresponded with the facts.

His misapprehension of what the honour of the Crown required led him to adopt an argument submitted by the accused that misrepresented Patterson's testimony at trial.

The testimony that the Court consulted in its decision involved the fundamental issue that was before it, that of whether the treaty gave a right to trade.

"The Court has now rewritten the part of its decision involving Patterson's testimony. My concern is not so much about the change and how unusual it is -- and it is unusual -- but whether the Court in its deliberations relied on a misrepresentation of the key witness' testimony on the fundamental issue."

"If so, did their confusion lead them to the wrong conclusion over what Patterson actually said? Did they make a fundamental error which then led to their finding of a right to trade?