The appellant sought judicial review of the Human Rights Commission's refusal to refer her discrimination complaint to a board of inquiry and sought broad pre-hearing examination and production under r. 39.03.
The Court of Appeal split on whether further disclosure could be compelled from the Commission, with the majority holding that deliberative secrecy and the absence of general discovery on judicial review do not bar a focused examination where there is an objectively reasonable concern that undisclosed facts, arguments, considerations, or strategic factors may have informed the decision.
The court held that the appellant was entitled to examine a senior Commission official on what additional material was before the commissioners, whether strategic concerns influenced the decision, and whether unrevealed reasons existed.
The appeal from the order striking portions of the appellant's affidavit was dismissed, but the appeal concerning the scope of examination was allowed and costs were awarded to the appellant.
