What is the effect of the delay in making proper disclosure of a recommendation made by a committee to close a restaurant?

Second, the respondent's submission that the appellant suffered no prejudice as a result of the delay is pure speculation. Indeed, an argument could be made that earlier disclosure would have affected the appellant's conduct. Immediately after the committee hearing and before the council meeting, the appellant decided to open for business notwithstanding the absence of a liquor licence. If proper disclosure had been made, the appellant would have known well before the hearing date that the failure to open was the basis of the recommendation. As a consequence, it may for example have commenced operation of the business well prior to the committee hearing. How the decision maker would have responded to any of this changed conduct is irrelevant. It is not for this court to speculate as to whether the result would have been the same had there been timely and adequate disclosure:see Cardinal v. Kent Institution, supra, at p. 661 S.C.R. Conclusion