Humane Society of Canada Foundation v. Canada (National Revenue) (March 28, 2018 – 2018 FCA 66, Webb J.A.).
Précis: The appellant brought a motion to compel the production of additional documents by the Crown based on allegations of bias and absence of procedural fairness. Justice Webb found that the allegations were unsupported by evidence and dismissed the application with costs in any event of the cause.
Decision: In this case the Crown made considerable efforts to satisfy the appellant, but to no avail. Justice Webb found that the Appellant was essentially engaged in a fishing expedition:
 Therefore, a bald assertion of bias is not sufficient and cannot support an order for production of documents to allow the appellant to go on a fishing expedition to see if something can be found to support the allegation of bias.
 During the hearing of this motion, counsel for the appellant was asked whether there was any document, in the more than 2,000 pages of documents that were submitted as part of this motion record, that would support the allegation of bias. Counsel for the appellant was unable to identify any document in the voluminous motion record that could support the allegation of bias. It, therefore, seems clear that the appellant was on a fishing expedition.
 Counsel for the appellant submitted during the hearing that the breach of procedural fairness argument was based on a lack of evidence. If the Minister has any document to counter the breach of procedural fairness argument, then the Minister has an interest in disclosing it.
 As a result of discussions and concessions made during the hearing of the motion, the issue was reduced to the question of whether certain documents that were submitted by the Minister to the Court in a sealed envelope should be disclosed to the appellant. Documents comprising a total of 281 pages were included in this sealed envelope. Most of these pages were part of the documents that had been disclosed as a result of the ATIP Request, although parts had been redacted. During the hearing, counsel for the Minister, without admitting the relevancy of any of the documents and to simply move the matter along, agreed to provide the appellant with unredacted copies of these documents.
 As a result only a few documents in the sealed envelope (comprising approximately 60 pages) remained for consideration. These consisted of copies of e-mails and copies of draft letters. Having reviewed these documents, in my view, none of these documents is relevant and, therefore, there is no basis to order disclosure of these remaining documents.
In what appears to be an indication of displeasure with the appellant’s position Justice Webb awarded costs to the Crown in any event of the cause.