IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REX v. JOHN KOOPMAN

The PHO and the Deputy PHO oppose the subpoena application on the following grounds: (i) the doctrine of deliberative privilege applies to the PHO and Deputy PHO. [...] (ii) Further, and the in the alternative, Pastor Koopman has failed to meet his burden to show that the PHO or Deputy PHO are likely to provide material evidence with respect to the abuse of process application, including because: a) the majority of the evidence sought by Pastor Koopman from the PHO and Deputy PHO seeks to contradict findings made by the British Columbia Supreme Court and the Cour. [...] The applicant has not established that either the PHO or the Deputy PHO are likely to provide material evidence on the abuse of process application for two reasons: (i) The evidence on this application does not support the applicant’s allegations and does not establish that the PHO or the Deputy PHO are likely to provide material evidence with respect to the allegations. [...] Under the two-stage approach in O’Connor, the applicant must first demonstrate that the information contained in the records is likely to be relevant either to an issue in the proceedings or to the competence to testify of the person who is the subject of the records.56 55. [...] However, if the information is likely relevant to an issue at trial or to the competence of the subject to testify, the court must move to the second stage of the O’Connor framework and weigh the positive and negative consequences of production, with a view to determining whether, and to what extent, production should be ordered.60 57.