A good question for Great Lawyer™

In a letter to the Telegram today, Burf Ploughman asks, "What happened to the legal challenge?":

I am referring to the sealing industry and to some of the major anti-sealing groups.Some of these groups raise in excess of $100 million annually to carry on their illegal activities and, if convicted under the Federal Competition Act, could be ordered to forfeit these funds to the court.

...Mr. Rideout had to say:“The idea is a novel one and he admits it hasn’t been explored up to this point by the government. The request for information was, by his own account, the first he had heard of it.”But he said the idea is worth having a look at and that’s exactly what he intends to have his officials do.

What happened to the legal challenge?

Almost certainly the same thing that happened to the Ed Byrne/Tom Rideout Charter challenge to the food fishery rules.

The same thing that happened to the Vic Young, Ed Hearn, et al. s. 92(a) challenge to the "Upper Churchill" contract.

The same thing that happened to Sam Synard's plan to test Term 32 in court over Marine Atlantic service.

(Shamelessly edited, hours later, to add) The same thing that happened to Danny's musings about joining the aborted Saskatchewan court challenge to the entire equalization formula.

And the same thing that happened to Roger Grimes' and Loyola Hearn's eagerness to "sue" DFO for negligence.

Bar-admitted adult supervision stepped in.