Two Applicants, Jarrett Campbell and Jaskaran Sandhu (together, the “Originating Applicants”), brought separate Originating Applications appealing decisions of the Chief Electoral Officer of Alberta (the “Officer”) under the Election Act, RSA 2000, c E-1 (the “Act”). The Officer applied to the Court for guidance regarding the content of the certified record to be produced by the Officer. Specifically, the Officer sought to redact from its investigative file any information that was private and confidential, and neither relevant nor material to the issue under appeal in the Originating Applications.

Justice Feehan noted that Rules 3.15 through 3.24 provide assistance regarding Originating Applications for Judicial Review, and that the Originating Applicants had made use of a form for a Notice to Obtain Record of Proceedings pursuant to Rule 3.18 despite the fact that the Originating Applications were statutory Appeals, not Applications for Judicial Review. Feehan J. indicated that the Rule applicable to the Originating Applications was Rule 3.14(1)(d).

Justice Feehan reviewed the law with respect to the production of records in litigation, referring to Rules 5.2 and 5.6. Justice Feehan noted the lack of statutory guidance regarding what should be included in a record in a statutory Appeal under the Act and determined that it was appropriate for the Court to apply the general rules of production. Feehan J. applied the general rules of production and held that the Officer could redact the cell phone numbers and email address of the individuals contacted by the investigator, but that the name of the complainant should not be redacted. Justice Feehan further directed the Officer to use discretion to determine whether to redact the names of individuals who were interviewed or investigated, but not the contents of the interviews or investigations. Feehan J. ordered the Officer to revise the record in accordance with the Court’s directions and to send it to the Originating Applicants. If the parties continued to disagree, the Court would view the unredacted record and determine what information would be redacted.

Justice Feehan indicated that the result would have been similar by relying on Rules 1.7, and Rules 3.18 to 3.20, by analogy, to the current facts. Feehan J. noted that the Rules would have been modified as required by the duty of confidentiality imposed on the Officer by the Act.