I thought that to do justice to my colleague's thinking, I would read the note that he left on this, explaining the rationale:
It is difficult for a complainant to know whether there are grounds for asking for judicial review of a dismissal at the screening level or a decision of a review panel without having the full legal reasons for the outcome. Currently, and continuing under C-9, complainants only receive the decision and a summary of the reasons from the CJC. Ironically, once an application for judicial review has been filed the full legal reasons must be disclosed to the complainant. Both logic and transparency seem to demand that the legal reasons be disclosed at the earlier point in the process.
I would note that I believe Professor Craig Scott from Osgoode Hall law school spoke to this point when he appeared as a witness before the committee.
Mr. Garrison went on to say:
As it stands C-9 inadvertently makes the process more secretive as it reduces the number of opportunities for outside review in its attempt to simplify the process and shorten timelines for resolving complaints. The amendments proposed in NDP Amendments 2 and 3 aim to provide more transparency by providing the complainant with a copy of the reasons for decisions by a review panel as well as the reasons in case of dismissal of a complaint at the initial stage.