Administrative tribunals generally have a high degree of flexibility in determining what evidence they will hear in a given matter. They are not bound by the same rules of evidence that govern proceedings in Court. This brings on a degree of variability and uncertainty into administrative hearings that can make navigating these waters challenging for even the most experienced counsel. Given that tribunal decisions are, for the most part not binding, Court decisions in these matters are particularly useful.

A recent BC Court of Appeal decison, British Columbia v. British Columbia Government and Service Employees’ Union, 2005 BCCA 14, considers the issue of pre-hearing disclosure of medical records, including psychological records, of an employee making a benefits claim.

The decision examines Jones, Halliday and Ryan orders in the context of a labour arbitration and gives an extensive summary of the case law and arbitral jurisprudence in this complex and varied area of evidentiary procedure.

The case is a good authority for matters involving pre-hearing disclosure of medical records and is a useful read for anyone dealing in this difficult area of law.