CEDAW/C/51/D/19/2008 State party further argues that the author did not exhaust all domestic appeal routes in respect of any of her three court actions: for the first action, she did not appeal to the Court of Appeal for the Northwest Territories; for the second action, she did not appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; and the third action was dismissed by the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. Therefore, the State party submits that the entire communication should be deemed inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies under article 4, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 4.5 The State party is of the view that the communication neither singles out any particular legislation or policy of the Government of Canada or the Government of the Northwest Territories as being discriminatory, nor points to any pattern of discrimination, and does not otherwise demonstrate how the Government of Canada or the Government of the Northwest Territories, or its agents, have discriminated against the author or women in general on the basis of sex, marital status, cultural heritage or place of residence, or any other ground of discrimination. The State party further argues that the communication is not sufficiently substantiated, as the author has not submitted any evidence which would substantiate the allegation of discrimination against the author or women in general. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 In her submission of 1 March 2010, the author, in response to the State party’s submission on admissibility, claims that the communication should be dealt with on the merits in accordance with both the doctrine of ―equity contra legem,‖ as the use of equity in derogation of the law, where, under the circumstances of the case, an exception to the law is needed to achieve an equitable and just result; and the doctrine of ―equity intra legem,‖ as the Court’s power to interpret and apply the law to achieve the most equitable result. The author also submits that the legal system did not understand the aboriginal way of solving disputes or the particular spiritual connection that the author had with the land. 5.2 With regard to the admissibility ratione temporis, the author submits that discrimination has continued after the date of the critical event. In relation to the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies, the author claims that she did not have entire control over the delays in taking action on her case. She also claims that the application of certain domestic remedies would have been unreasonably prolonged and unlikely to give effective relief. The author further claims that she would not have been approved for legal assistance to file an appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada. State party’s further submission on admissibility 6.1 By further submission on 13 April 2010, the State party reiterates that the communication is inadmissible on the following grounds: ratione temporis pursuant to article 4, paragraph 2(e) of the Optional Protocol; non-exhaustion of domestic remedies pursuant to article 4, paragraph 1; and manifestly ill-founded pursuant to article 4, paragraph 2(c), of the Optional Protocol. Issues and proceedings before the Committee concerning admissibility 7.1 During its 47th session, from 4 to 27 October 2010, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women decided, in accordance with rules 64 and 66 of its rules of procedure, to consider the question of admissibility and the merits of the communication separately. 7.2 The Committee considered the admissibility of the communication, in accordance with rules 64 and 66 of its rules of procedure. In accordance with article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, the Committee was satisfied that the same matter has not been or is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7