I'm having a really hard time understanding the relevance of some of the things you say but you know more about it than I do. If what you say is correct about the information released so far then what we "know" could be very incomplete (and all I know is based on media reports so it could well be "completely nothing").
Highwood's lawyer made a number of, ah-hem, "misrepresentations," that stood uncorrected. The dissenting appeal court judge made particular reference to these inaccuracies, viewing them as facts in his dissenting remarks. These inaccuracies will not stand uncorrected before the Supreme Court.
Western courts are typically based on an adversarial system where it's up to the opposing counsel to object to any mis-statements and present counter-evidence to refute it in order to convince the judge and / or jury of the facts of the case. Failure to do this can be taken as acceptance or acknowledgement of some fact in an issue which I would guess is the reason a judge from another court, referencing the case, would refer to them as such.
The opposing lawyers job is to present things in the best light for their client - while we'd hope lawyers are all decent and honest (ha) it's not really their job, I guess.
It is of note that the Governing Body directly approved, both the Alberta Appeal, and the Supreme Court Appeal. (Branch Manual - chapter 3, paragraph 27)
That sounds more like the instructions of the procedure to follow - whether it can be claimed that the "Governing Body directly approved the appeals" would depend on what what / who the "Coordinators Committee" is. Anyone know that?
