“The work is lawful,” the judge said, “and to call it a crime is just a slogan, not an argument.”

“The judge also said Sandborn’s argument of an imminent risk of peril from the ongoing use of fossil fuels fell flat because the expansion hadn’t yet been built and could take “months, if not years.”

Affleck cited a 1984 Supreme Court of Canada decision that said, if the necessity defence is to be allowed, it must be “strictly controlled.” More specifically, a defendant must show there was “no other viable option” but to commit the criminal act and that there was an “imminent risk of an immediate peril.”

What I find very intriguing about this Judges’ comments , to which of course Justice Affleck has more knowledge of the case sets up an interesting suite at Tom Sandborn’s  “who chose to represent himself, said outside the courtroom he was not surprised by the ruling, likening his application to “swimming upstream against a torrent.””

“He said he will consult with advisers about other arguments he might make when his trial rolls around in June, but said he has no regrets about his actions thus far.”

Essentially, activist Sandborn is left to himself to consider his next step. Which brings us as to why was he representing in this most conflicting adage which states a man who represents himself is a fool. Is this true or a myth. Is not David Sushi and Elizabeth May in this Kinder Surprise?