The Court held that personal notes made by individual members of a collegiate planning decision-making body (SCAP) are not 'objective evidence' of the body's deliberations and are not discoverable in judicial review proceedings, as they are subjective records not prepared for the purpose of advising other members or producing minutes. The Court articulated a three-part test for interrogatories in judicial review: (1) the decision-maker's state of mind is only rarely relevant unless good faith is in issue; (2) interrogatories underpinned by mere allegation or suspicion without an evidential or inferential foundation will not be allowed; and (3) even where a foundation is established, the interrogatories must further the UCR's object of just, efficient, timely, cost-effective and proportionate resolution. The Court inclined to the view that the [name withheld] principle applies to SCAP but expressly did not finally decide the point.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.