From this comes the proverbial expression “to cut the Gordian Knot”, meaning to cut right to the heart of a matter without wasting time on external details.

There are two ways to attack a seemingly insurmountable difficulty: 1) by studied analysis; or 2) by brute force. Employing the latter may have the appearance of success but it may fail to address the root cause.

As small a compliment as it is, my career as a country lawyer afforded me ample opportunity for studied analysis. Never was there to my thinking value in hurried or brutish resolution. Often this meant the appearance of tedium and deliberate protraction as I attempted methodically to wade through the murky swamp of facts which imperilled the legal objective.

Just to be clear, there were competing inclinations to this often onerous enterprise. For one, reliance on subcontractors such as title searchers and land surveyors.  As compelling as they were, the “buck stopped at my desk”. On occasion – by force of my education and proclivity – I confronted what was an esoteric dilemma not immediately apparent. For example, the source of the issue in one case was what had been employed as a convenience for one party (say, by the municipality to sidestep Planning Act approval) but which failed to meet the need of the property owner (say, a legitimate entitlement to a water right-of-way). The homeowner, if relying upon the municipal right-of-way, would unwittingly deprive himself of the legitimate benefit even though the municipality had no immediate reason to cancel its right-of-way. At worse it was an issue that might arise on sale – the ultimate test of propriety and profitability – Nemo dat quod non habet (no one gives what he does not have). By similar experience, after having once recommended a new survey (in order to prevail contractually if necessary upon its authority and lawful remedy) I encountered an error of 11feet throughout the entire subdivision. Fortunately the discovery was in the era of title insurance (which we invoked as a tolerable risk and thus spirited closure of the deal – unlike the municipal right-of-way problem which contaminated and collapsed the deal).

Frequently in these and similar occurrences, there is an effort to overlay or overlook the exposure to fallout arising from the disputed peril. In fact there is a mechanism whereby 2 solicitors – if they agree by mutual endorsement – may sanctify an ambivalence but of course the exercise must be honest and considered.  In the result one is guided by the broad tradition that “one cannot do indirectly what cannot be done directly”.

Furthermore when there is an urge to override a seemingly picayune controversy – even with the corporate approval of the interested parties – the brusque attempt to do so risks defeat at the hand of the Supreme Court of Canada which summarily ruled, “Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done” (by which decision the legality of Marshall Crowe as chairman of the National Energy Board was overturned because he was formerly employed by the same oil and gas companies interested in the adoption of the McKenzie Valley Pipeline application for approved before the Board).

Less this devotion to legal taradiddle should seem superfluous, it is a fabulous detail that the dispute in this instance arose from the very silken gowned and rustling choir of solicitors who represented the oil and gas companies interested in the outcome – not the wealth of similarly attired barristers representing the Indigenous people whose land was at risk of expropriation.

I did however make mistakes. Fortunately for me i was never challenged in a court of law. Instead my oversight was noted by an astute client for whom i had drafted the document. She pointed out my oversight in describing the division of proportionate shares of her estate; namely, shares of the whole rather than shares of a progressively diminished estate.

Finally there was an occasion when my inquiry into the collateral issue of zoning revealed that the conversion of a riparian cottage to a year-round residence was illegal. As you might expect the intelligence was unwelcome by the proposed purchasers (my clients). Their dislike of this disclosure fomented the ruin of our professional relationship). Such can be the consequence of particularity. I did not feel however that obscuring the underlying zoning contradiction would improve their lot ultimately.

To this day I continue to be guided by accurate details, not desirable outcome. It is my own inescapable Gordian knot!

Yes, most certainly, you might readily question the utility of such pedantic and arcane knowledge, threads of which entwine an otherwise manageable interrogation. But such is the penalty of perspicuity. The distinction between transparency and clarity is one without a difference. Either we play by the rules or we do not. Mine is a simple and weighty decision – burdened by the strength of karat gold, the purity of an orange carrot, the command of an eagle’s wings. To loosen the tie to the myth of detail is but a contemplation of its construction, a start at the beginning, the staircase to the ruling prospect whence derives the cherished outlook.

It was in this vaporous humour that we gratified ourselves today at Mississippi Golf Club with an early and exceedingly tasty luncheon.

Turn him to any cause of policy,
The Gordian Knot of it he will unloose,
Familiar as his garter
— Shakespeare, Henry V, Act 1 Scene 1. 45–47