In Shuttleworth, the letter her lawyer received alleged that the adjudicator’s decision was “reviewed by the executive chair of the umbrella organization, the Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Ontario . . . who ‘changed the decision to make the applicant not catastrophically impaired.’”

Mazin then filed a Freedom of Information request to find out details of how the adjudicator had come to her decision, and he used the records as part of the argument that there was a possibility that the adjudicator’s original decision had been changed.

“The Applicant claims the process followed does not meet the requirements established by the Supreme Court of Canada to allow for consultation in the decision-making process while protecting the independence of the decision-maker,” said the ruling.

Divisional Court justices Julie Thorburn, Michael McKelvey and Frederick Myers allowed the anonymous letter to be admitted as evidence.

In the ruling, they noted there was no finding that “any actual impropriety” had happened and there was no proof “the executive chair did anything to force the adjudicator to change her decision.”

However, they ruled that the decision should still be set aside and should be sent back to the LAT for a new hearing.