Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The threshold for granting pre-appeal discovery in appellate proceedings is examined, with emphasis on its exceptional nature.

• The doctrine of res judicata and its application to repeated judicial review attempts is central to the dispute.

• Allegations of judicial bias and the test for reasonable apprehension of bias are scrutinized, including the relevance of judicial and counsel relationships.

• The principle of deliberative secrecy and judicial independence is invoked to deny disclosure of internal court communications.

• The plausibility and evidentiary sufficiency of claims regarding government collusion and improper conduct are critically assessed.

• The court’s discretion to allow fresh evidence and the restrictive criteria for such applications are reaffirmed.

Facts of the case

Ms. Corinne Pereira initiated a judicial review proceeding in February 2025 to challenge decisions made by the British Columbia Labour Relations Board (LRB). Her former employer, Horizon North Camp & Catering Inc., and her former union, Unite Here Local 40, were named as respondents. The Attorney General of British Columbia also participated in the proceeding, opposing Ms. Pereira’s claims. This judicial review was Ms. Pereira’s second attempt to overturn the same LRB decisions; her first judicial review had been dismissed, and that dismissal was affirmed on appeal.

Following the filing, Horizon North applied to strike the 2025 judicial review on the grounds of res judicata, arguing that the matter had already been decided and could not be relitigated. On April 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, per Justice Morley, allowed the application, struck Ms. Pereira’s petition, and dismissed the proceeding. Subsequently, Horizon North and the union sought and obtained a vexatious litigant order against Ms. Pereira on May 2, 2025, preventing her from commencing further proceedings without leave of the court. Ms. Pereira then applied for reconsideration, alleging that Justice Morley was disqualified due to a reasonable apprehension of bias based on his prior professional relationships and his spouse’s employment. Justice Morley reconsidered but rejected the bias claim, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

Application for pre-appeal discovery and legal framework

On appeal, Ms. Pereira’s primary argument focused on alleged judicial bias. She sought orders for pre-appeal discovery, requesting disclosure of various documents and communications, including retainer agreements, internal court scheduling emails, RCMP records related to a wellness check, and information about a government lawyer’s relationship with the judge. Ms. Pereira claimed these disclosures were necessary to substantiate her allegations of bias, improper conduct, and a broader theory of government collusion.

The Court of Appeal, presided over by Justice Gomery, considered the relevant statutory framework, particularly sections 18(2) and 30 of the Court of Appeal Act. These provisions grant the court discretionary powers to make incidental and interim orders and to analogize to Supreme Court procedures where necessary. The court emphasized that pre-appeal discovery is highly exceptional and generally only available where it could plausibly support a fresh evidence application on appeal. The test for admitting fresh evidence is restrictive, requiring that the evidence could not have been obtained earlier with due diligence, is potentially decisive, and could reasonably affect the outcome. The court also discussed the doctrine of deliberative secrecy, which protects the confidentiality of judicial decision-making and internal court communications, as well as the principle of judicial independence.

Analysis of the application and outcome

Justice Gomery systematically addressed each of Ms. Pereira’s requests for disclosure. The court found that her theories were speculative, the evidence sought was either irrelevant or privileged, and there was no realistic prospect that the requested disclosures would support a fresh evidence application or materially affect the appeal. The court reaffirmed the importance of deliberative secrecy and judicial independence, noting that judges cannot be compelled to explain their reasoning beyond their written reasons. The court also found that the doctrine of res judicata applied, barring Ms. Pereira’s repeated attempts to challenge the same LRB decisions.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court of Appeal dismissed Ms. Pereira’s entire application for pre-appeal discovery. The respondents—including the British Columbia Labour Relations Board, Horizon North Camp & Catering Inc., Unite Here Local 40, the Attorney General of British Columbia, and others—were successful in opposing the application. No costs or damages were specified or awarded in this procedural decision, as the matter did not address the merits of the underlying claims and was limited to the issue of pre-appeal discovery.