Simon's Megalomaniacal Legal Resources

Immunity - Adjudicative ('Deliberative Secrecy')

. Bokhari v. Top Medical Transportation Services

In Bokhari v. Top Medical Transportation Services (Div Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court faced a JR, this against main and reconsideration decisions regarding HRTO applications which "alleged discrimination with respect to employment because of disability". Within the JR, the HRTO brought (and the court granted) two motions - one to quash summons and the other to strike part of the JR record.

Here the court considers 'deliberative secrecy' (akin - or identical - to 'adjudicative privilege' or 'adjudicative immunity'):

[35] Deliberative secrecy protects the decision-making process. It is a core component of judicial independence: Commission scolaire de Laval v. Syndicat de l’enseignement de la région de Laval, 2016 SCC 8, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 29, at para. 57

[36] Although the principle of deliberative secrecy does not apply as strongly to administrative tribunals as to courts, the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that deliberative secrecy is the general rule for administrative tribunals: Summitt Energy Management Inc. v. Ontario Energy Board, 2012 ONSC 2753 (Div. Ct.), at para. 80; Grogan v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2023 ONSC 2980 (Div. Ct.), at para. 16.

[37] Under “the rule of deliberative secrecy, members of administrative tribunals generally cannot be required to testify about how or why they reach their decisions”: Summitt Energy, at para. 80.

[38] Deliberative secrecy “also favours administrative consistency by granting protection to a consultative process that involves interaction between the adjudicators who have heard the case and the members who have not, within the rules set down in [Consolidated-Bathurst]. Without such protection, there could be a chilling effect on institutional consultations, thereby depriving administrative tribunals of a critically important means of achieving consistency”: Ellis-Don Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), 2001 SCC 4, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 221, at para. 53.

[39] Deliberative secrecy extends to internal communications and the administrative aspects of the decision-making process: Summitt Energy, at para. 79; Chestacow v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), 2023 BCCA 389, at paras. 33-34. However, the secrecy of the administrative decision-making is not absolute and will yield where there is an evidentiary basis to allege that the right of natural justice has been infringed: Tremblay v. Québec (Commission des affaires sociales), 1992 CanLII 1135 (SCC), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 952; Payne, at para. 168; Chestacow, at para. 34.

[40] The secrecy can be lifted if a litigant can show a “clearly articulated and objectively reasonable concern that a relevant legal right may have been infringed… [I]n view of the importance of the principle of deliberative secrecy in the administrative decision-making process, examinations based on conjecture or mere speculation will not be allowed”: Payne, at para. 172.

. Derenzis v. Gore Mutual Insurance Co. [deliberative secrecy as opposed to adjudicative/deliberative privilege]

In Derenzis v. Gore Mutual Insurance Co. (Div Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed a LAT SABS joint appeal-JR (Yatar), here where an issue was the admission in evidence of allegedly privileged affidavit "information and internal Tribunal documents that the affiant obtained as a Tribunal adjudicator".

Here the court considers 'deliberative secrecy':

[135] Deliberative secrecy grants the adjudicators the right to refuse to give evidence, but it does not prevent a member from voluntarily giving evidence: Tremblay v. Quebec (Commission des affaires sociales), 1992 CanLII 1135 (SCC), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 952. Its scope does not extend to administrative matters or policies and procedures set out in the affidavit filed. It does not protect the evidence, information or testimony related to the process.

....

[140] In Grogan v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2023 ONSC 2980 (Div. Ct.), the applicant sought to compel production of an adjudicator’s notes on the strength of an affidavit from a retired tribunal member who had served on the panel in the proceeding. The affidavit was admitted as evidence but was found to be vague and speculative.

....

Legal Framework

[147] In Tremblay, at p. 968, the Supreme Court held that administrative tribunals cannot rely on deliberative secrecy in the same manner as judicial tribunals. It can be lifted when a litigant believes that the process did not follow the rules of natural justice. In that case, the issues raised by the litigants did not deal with matters of substance or the “decision makers’ thinking”, but instead was directed at the formal process established to achieve consistency in its decisions. The matters dealt with the “institutional setting in which the decision was made and how it functioned, and second with its actual or apparent influence on the intellectual freedom of the decision makers”: at pp. 964-65.

[148] However, the Supreme Court was concerned that the consultation network could “impede the ability or freedom of the members of the tribunal to decide according to their consciences and opinions, or create an appearance of bias in the minds of litigants.” In that case, compulsory consultation created an appearance of a lack of independence, if not actual constraint, circumventing the will of the legislature, by seeking to establish a prior consensus among persons not responsible for deciding the case. In addition, “[t]here [were] other facts which support[ed] this conclusion of an apparent lack of independence”: at p. 975.

[149] In Cherubini Metal Works Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), 2007 NSCA 37, 282 D.L.R. (4th) 538, Cromwell J.A. (as he then was) discussed the Tremblay decision and confirmed that deliberative secrecy covers tribunals’ internal processes and means of assigning cases to adjudicators. In Tremblay, deliberative secrecy is related

not only to “matters of substance or the decision-makers’ thinking on such matters”, but also to matters relating to the “formal process established by the Commission to ensure consistency in its decisions.”… The party seeking to have the court lift deliberative secrecy with respect to the tribunal’s process of decision-making has a threshold to meet. As expressed by Gonthier, J. in Tremblay, the party must show that there are “valid reasons” for doing so. [Citations omitted.]

[150] In Grogan, the Divisional Court stated that:

[16] Deliberative secrecy prevents the disclosure of how and why decision-makers reached their decision. The Supreme Court has described deliberative secrecy as a “core component of the constitutional principle of judicial independence”: Commission scolaire de Laval v. Syndicat de l’enseignement de la region de Laval, 2016 SCC 8, at para. 57. The doctrine of deliberative secrecy promotes collegial debate and the finality of decisions. Under the doctrine, a judge cannot be compelled to testify about deliberations, the substance of the decision-making process, or how or why a particular decision was reached: Agnew v. Ontario Association of Architects (1987), 64 O.R. (2d) 8, 1987 CanLII 4030 (Div. Ct.).

[17] Deliberative secrecy also applies to the decision-making process of an administrative tribunal. The principle protects against the production of notes created by adjudicators during the deliberation process. In 156621 Canada Ltd. v. Ottawa (City) (2004), 70 O.R. (3d) 201, 2004 CanLII 66333 (S.C.), the applicant in a judicial review application of a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board brought a motion for production of an adjudicator’s notes. In dismissing the applicant’s motion on the basis of deliberative privilege, the court stated as follows (at para. 4(e)):

Deliberative privilege attaches to all matters which are at the heart of or integral to the decision-making process since the purpose of the privilege is to prevent the decision-making process from being penetrated. Notes made by a board member during a proceeding for the purpose of assisting the member to reach a decision and prepare reasons are integral to the decision-making process and are therefore protected by deliberative privilege, and are not compellable.

[18] However, secrecy “may nonetheless be lifted when the litigant can present valid reasons for believing that the process followed did not comply with the rules of natural justice”: Canada (Privacy Commissioner) v. Canada (Labour Relations Board, 1996 CanLII 4084 (F.C.), aff’d on appeal, [2000] 180 F.T.R. 313, 2000 CanLII 15487 (F.C.A.).

...

[20] In Payne v. Ontario Human Rights Commission, [2000] O.A.C. 357, 2000 CanLII 5731 (C.A.), at para. 172, Sharpe J.A., for the majority, held that:

... it seems to me that an applicant for judicial review who seeks to conduct an examination that will touch upon the deliberative secrecy of the decision maker must present some basis for a clearly articulated and objectively reasonable concern that a relevant legal right may have been infringed. I would emphasize that, in view of the importance of the principle of deliberative secrecy in the administrative decision-making process, examinations based on conjecture or mere speculation will not be allowed. [Emphasis added in Grogan.]

[21] In Payne, Sharpe J.A. rejected the argument that the party seeking to examine establish a “reasonable evidential foundation” or that they had to provide “reasonable, reliable, relevant evidence” to meet a “high threshold.” Setting the onus too high would require an applicant to prove their case before being able to avail themselves of the Rules and would be “inimical to the inherent power of judicial review”: Payne, at para. 171.

[22] As noted above, deliberative secrecy may be lifted where “the litigant can present valid reasons for believing the process followed did not comply with the rules of natural justice”.

[151] In Shuttleworth, the court accepted evidence of institutional bias where the Executive Chair of the Tribunal interfered with an adjudicator’s decision. In that case, the adjudicator decided that the threshold of “catastrophic impairment” had not been met but later learned by an anonymous letter that before the decision was released, the Executive Chair had reviewed and reversed her determination. The applicant brought an application for judicial review of the adjudicator's decision. The Divisional Court found that:

a. The SLASTO Legal Services Unit generally sent decisions to the executive chair without assent or input from the adjudicator;

b. The adjudicator in this case did not request the review and was unaware of it until it had taken place;

c. There was no formal or written policy protecting the adjudicator's right to decline to participate in the review or to decline to make changes proposed by the executive chair;

d. A manual describing the tribunal's procedure made no reference to the voluntariness of peer review; and

e. The executive chair had power over the reappointment of adjudicators.

[152] The Divisional Court concluded that the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of a lack of adjudicative independence and the decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

[153] In Bokhari v. Top Medical Transportation Services, 2025 ONSC 1208, Matheson J. was also dealing with an affidavit of a prior adjudicator that spoke of the adjudicators’ activities, the development of tribunal processes and case management, and development of standards. The court found that certain challenged portions of the affidavit were properly struck out as protected by deliberative secrecy.

[154] Matheson J. summarized the law in this area, and it is worth repeating here:

[35] Deliberative secrecy protects the decision-making process. It is a core component of judicial independence: Commission scolaire de Laval v. Syndicat de l’enseignement de la région de Laval, 2016 SCC 8, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 29, at para. 57.

[36] Although the principle of deliberative secrecy does not apply as strongly to administrative tribunals as to courts, the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that deliberative secrecy is the general rule for administrative tribunals: Summitt Energy Management Inc. v. Ontario Energy Board, 2012 ONSC 2753 (Div. Ct.), at para. 80; Grogan, at para. 16.

[37] Under “the rule of deliberative secrecy, members of administrative tribunals generally cannot be required to testify about how or why they reach their decisions”: Summit Energy, at para. 80.

[38] Deliberative secrecy “also favours administrative consistency by granting protection to a consultative process that involves interaction between the adjudicators who have heard the case and the members who have not, within the rules set down in [Consolidated-Bathurst]. Without such protection, there could be a chilling effect on institutional consultations, thereby depriving administrative tribunals of a critically important means of achieving consistency”: Ellis-Don Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board) 2001 SCC 4, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 221, at para. 53.

[39] Deliberative secrecy extends to internal communications and the administrative aspects of the decision-making process: Summit Energy, at para. 79; Chestacow v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), 2023 BCCA 389, at paras. 33-34. However, the of the administrative decision-making is not absolute and will yield where there is an evidentiary basis to allege that the right of natural justice has been infringed: Tremblay v. Québec (Commission des affaires sociales), 1992 CanLII 1135 (SCC), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 952; Payne, at para. 168; Chestacow, at para. 34.

[40] The secrecy can be lifted if a litigant can show a “clearly articulated and objectively reasonable concern that a relevant legal right may have been infringed ... [I]n view of the importance of the principle of deliberative secrecy in the administrative decision-making process, examinations based on conjecture or mere speculation will not be allowed”: Payne, at para. 172.

[155] Ultimately, the court in Bokhari found that the applicant had not met this threshold as the court found that there was no objectively sound argument that the applicant’s rights were infringed by the fact that there was a different internal policy that applied to his application that constrained the Adjudicator’s discretion: at para. 41.

[156] The court found at para. 42 that “[t]he applicant’s ‘onus is not discharged on the basis of speculation, conjecture or simple allegation alone: there must be a foundation before the court for the allegation that not only raises an issue of procedural fairness, but also justifies displacing the privilege in order to adjudicate the procedural fairness issue’: LifeLabs LP v. (Ontario) Information and Privacy Commissioner, 2022 ONSC 5751 (Div. Ct.), at para. 17.”

. Botosh v. Soric

In Botosh v. Soric (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal considered what I have called 'absolute privilege', here described as a form of immunity:

[8] Nor was there any basis properly pleaded by the appellant for her claims against the adverse parties’ expert witness, investigators or lawyers for acting on behalf of their clients. It is well-established that witnesses enjoy broad immunity from suit: Samuel Manu-Tech Inc. v. Redipac (1999), 1999 CanLII 3776 (ON CA), 38 C.P.C. (4th) 297 (Ont. C.A.); Reynolds v. Kingston, 2007 ONCA 166, 84 O.R. (3d) 738, at para. 14. So, too, do lawyers and their agents in acting for their own clients because they generally owe no duty of care or fiduciary duty to an opposing party: Yan v. Hutchinson, 2023 ONCA 97, at para. 17. The appellant’s claims as pleaded are not exceptional and do not fall outside the scope of these immunities.

. Yan v. College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario

In Yan v. College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario (Div Court, 2022) the Divisional Court considered issues of 'adjudicative immunity' and statutory (RHPA/HPPC) investigative privilege, when a JR applicant sought to allege HR discrimination against an RHPA adjudicator and investigation under the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario:

[3] On June 4, 2019, Ms. Yan filed an application with the HRTO against the College alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and creed. Ms. Yan’s application references the College’s investigation into her practice as well as College conduct following the hearing before the Discipline Committee.

[4] Following the receipt of written submissions and an oral preliminary hearing, the HRTO dismissed Ms. Yan’s application on several bases. .... Second, the HRTO determined that the application was outside of its jurisdiction because it called for a review of another adjudicator's decision. Finally, the HRTO concluded the application should be dismissed because Ms. Yan would not be able to prove the allegations due to the confidentiality provision contained in the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991. This provision creates a prohibition against the admissibility of evidence pertaining to the College's investigation and discipline process in subsequent civil proceedings.

....

[30] The other two bases on which the HRTO dismissed Ms. Yan’s application were the doctrine of adjudicative immunity and the confidentiality provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code. With respect to the doctrine of adjudicative immunity, the Tribunal noted that the decisions and actions of an adjudicator while performing adjudicative functions are beyond its jurisdiction. The Tribunal found that Ms. Yan had failed to point to any evidence to suggest that College’s timely actions were unrelated to its adjudicative functions. Ms. Yan has not raised any basis for this Court to interfere with this conclusion.

[31] Finally, s. 36(3) of the Health Professions Procedural Code creates a prohibition against the admissibility of documents pertaining to the College’s investigation and discipline process in subsequent civil proceedings. The Tribunal applied this provision to conclude that those documents would be inadmissible before the Tribunal in this case. Ms. Yan would not be able to rely on any of the investigatory or discipline documents in support of her position that the College’s actions were discriminatory. As a result, Ms. Yan’s allegations would have no reasonable prospect of success. Ms. Yan did not raise any basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision on this point.