The Appellants challenged the Chambers Judge's Decision dismissing their Application for production of psychological records under Rule 5.13. The Court upheld the Decision, finding no errors in the Chambers Judge’s reasoning or application of the law.

The Chambers Judge correctly interpreted Rule 5.13 and applied the test for relevance and materiality as per Terrigno v Butzner, 2023 ABCA 124. The Appellants provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate that therapeutic records contained relevant or material information, particularly on the claims of paranoia affecting the Respondent’s credibility. The Chambers Judge relied on the psychologist’s assessment over speculative assertions by the Appellants and emphasized that materiality could not be established without preliminary expert evidence.

The Appellants further argued that the Chambers Judge was biased because of comments suggesting their Application escalated the dispute and exploited the Respondent’s vulnerabilities. The Court found no merit to this argument. The Chambers Judge’s comments were directed at the merits of the Application and did not reflect a predisposition to decide unfairly. The strong presumption of judicial impartiality remained intact.

The Appeal was dismissed, with the Court affirming the Chambers Judge’s findings and reasoning under Rule 5.13.