Justice Hansen sided with The Crown in its quibling over the correct measurement of the six-month waiting period: "The Ministers take the position that at the earliest the decision is made on the date of the delivery of the reasons or, at the latest, the date of the order. In light of this position and the fact that at the time of the filing of this motion for a review of conditions neither of these dates has been reached it is not necessary to consider this question further. Accordingly, I conclude that six months have not elapsed since the date of the conclusion of the preceding review. Mr. Jaballah is not entitled to a review of conditions at this time." 2) On the matter of easing of some of the bail restrictions on Mr. Jaballah

Here Justice Hansen is again callous and unfair to Mr. Jaballah. "With the exception of attendance at a gym [...] he has not provided any evidence of change in relation to the “chief risk” identified by Justice Dawson or any other evidence that could lead to the conclusion that supervision of these activities is no longer necessary to address the perceived risk. In my opinion, the evidence adduced does not demonstrate that there has been a material change in the circumstances that led to the July 13, 2010 order. Accordingly, there is no need to consider the specific variations requested. " (PDF format, English, 21 pages)