Beyond mere expressions of surprise, the Applicant presented no argument contesting either the law or facts of the Respondent’s response to his request for production of evidence.

The Tribunal found that the requested evidence was irrelevant.

The Tribunal acknowledged the legitimate security issues implicated in the request, especially in light of the Applicant’s bald claim that an unidentified expert required these documents to develop or support an undisclosed opinion.

The broad request for security log books monitoring staff movements at the compound did not seem to be relevant to the fair or expeditious resolution of the case. The request did not indicate whose movements the Applicant wished to document with the log books. The request appearer to be a mere “fishing expedition”.

It was not the Tribunal’s responsibility to speculate about how the security log books were relevant to the Applicant’s testimony. It was the Applicant's obligation to demonstrate the relevance of the requested information, and he did not do so.

The request was made just 14 working days before the scheduled hearing. There was no explanation given for the eleventh-hour request for production of evidence. Granting the request at that late time would require a postponement of the hearing, contrary to the purpose of staff rule 18.2.