Initial Dispute: Dr. Lukács' complaint about CBSA's refusal to provide records under the Access to Information Act was deemed unfounded by the Information Commissioner, leading to a judicial review application??.
Document Disclosure Agreement: Parties agreed on the provision of some documents, leaving only six minor redactions contested??.
Case Management Decision
Supplementary Affidavit: Dr. Lukács sought to file a supplementary affidavit for his judicial review application and preliminary motions. The case management judge allowed it only for the application, not the motions??.
Errors Alleged by Dr. Lukács: He claimed the judge made errors in denying additional evidence and not incorporating the document agreement into the order??.
Appeal and Court’s Analysis
Judicial Discretion: Emphasized that case management judges require leeway in managing cases; interference only warranted in clear misuse cases??.
Evidence Admission Criteria: The judge correctly applied the test for admitting evidence, considering admissibility, relevance, and potential prejudice??.
Relevance and Delay Considerations: No errors found in the judge's relevance assessment or in considering procedural delays and material volume??.
Order Amendment Unnecessary: The judge's decision not to amend the order to include the parties' document agreement was justified??.
Conclusion
Appeal Outcome: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the case management judge's decision without finding any legal or significant factual errors??.
