relation to the explosion of Air India Flight 182 and the intended explosion of Air India Flight 301 attend a judicial investigative hearing for examination pursuant to the aforementioned provision. The application was granted and a number of terms and conditions were set to govern the conduct of the Judicial investigative hearing, among others, the hearing was to be conducted in camera with the notice of hearing given to the accused in the Air India trial, to the press or to the public. As the counsel for the Named Person applied to challenge the constitutional validity of s. 83.28, the constitutional challenge and the application to set aside the order were heard in camera where the judge presiding at the hearing concluded that the order was validly issued and section 83.28 was constitutionally sound. However, given the unusual circumstances of this case, she varied the order to permit the counsel for the accused to attend at the investigative hearing and examine the "Named Person" under the proviso that they leave the hearing if information unrelated to the trial was elicited. They were also prohibited from disclosing any information or evidence obtained at the hearing to the public or to the accused. Aggrieved, f the "Named Person" successfully sought leave of appeal. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada held inter alia that, the purpose of the Anti-terrorism Act is to prosecute and prevent terrorism offences and that although terrorism necessarily changes the context in which the rule of law must operate, it does not call for the abdication of law. Besides, the Court added that, the challenge regarding balancing of an effective response to fundamental democratic values respecting the importance of human life, liberty in the battle against terrorism is well met Page 16 of 37