What is the state of the law in Canada on the basis of the fact that the Attorney General was not advised of the issue until May 28, 2000?

The only explanation is he was not advised of these matters until May 28, 2000. The proposition appears to be that this was done to provide evidence of facts that could be used to confirm positions taken on behalf of the plaintiffs. In that sense, from the perspective of the Government, it continues the fraud. (Canada v. Granitile Inc., supra, at paras. [259] to [261])