On appeal, our review of the trial court's judgment is governed by the substantial evidence rule and we must determine "`"whether the findings and judgment of the trial court are supported by substantial, credible and competent evidence."'" ( Evans v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 398, 407 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 782, 703 P.2d 122].) All conflicts in the evidence must be resolved and all inferences drawn in favor of the judgment.

Where questions of law are presented, the appellate court conducts an independent review and does not defer to the trial court’s decision. (Evans v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 398, 407, 216 Cal.Rptr. 782, 703 P.2d 122; Rodriguez v. Solis (1991) 1 Cal. App.4th 495, 502, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 50.) [3–6] Since this appeal concerns the possible application of a constitutional provision enacted by initiative (Proposition 218), "our task is ascertaining the intent of the voters.

In such cases, as in other instances involving matters of law, the appellate court is not bound by the trial court's decision, but may make its own determination. Statutory construction is such a question of law for the courts. (Evans v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 398, 407, [216 Cal.Rptr. 782, 703 P.2d 122].) II.

" 'In reviewing a decision of the [Unemployment Insurance Appeals] Board, the superior court exercises its independent judgment on the evidentiary record of the administrative proceedings and inquires whether the findings of the administrative agency are supported by the weight of the evidence.' [Citations.]" (Sanchez v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 575, 585 (Sanchez); accord, Evans v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 398, 407 (Evans).) Exercising its independent judgment requires the superior court to reweigh the evidence and examine the credibility of witnesses.

“‘In reviewing a decision of the [Unemployment Insurance Appeals] Board, the superior court exercises its independent judgment on the evidentiary record of the administrative proceedings and inquires whether the findings of the administrative agency are supported by the weight of the evidence.’” (Sanchez v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 575, 585; accord, Evans v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 398, 407.) An exercise of independent judgment requires the court to reweigh the evidence and examine the credibility of witnesses.

. . ." ( Evans v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 398, 407 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 782, 703 P.2d 122].) "The applicable canons of statutory construction which guide our interpretation of [statutes] are also well settled.

Although writ review of discovery orders is typically judged under an abuse of discretion standard, we are not reviewing the merits of the discovery order itself; we are determining whether the notice provisions apply to an application for disclosure of additional information following a successful Pitchess motion. The construction of a statute and its application to a particular case is a question of law. ( Evans v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 398, 407 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 782, 703 P.2d 122].) In Pitchess, the California Supreme Court "`recognized that a criminal defendant may, in some circumstances, compel the discovery of evidence in [a] law enforcement officer's personnel file that is relevant to the defendant's ability to defend against a criminal charge. "

[Citation.] All conflicts in the evidence must be resolved and all inferences drawn in favor of the judgment." ( Cooper v. Kizer (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1291, 1299 [ 281 Cal.Rptr. 421, 282 Cal.Rptr. 492], quoting Evans v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 398, 407 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 782, 703 P.2d 122]; see also, e.g., Lake v. Reed (1997) 16 Cal.4th 448, 456 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 860 940 Cal.Rptr. 311].) In other words, where "the trial court is authorized to conduct a limited trial de novo . . . the province of the appellate court is analogous to that assumed by it in an ordinary civil appeal. . . ."

"In reviewing the trial court's ruling on a writ of mandate, the appellate court is ordinarily confined to an inquiry as to whether the findings and judgment of the trial court are supported by substantial evidence. ( Evans v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 398, 407 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 782, 703 P.2d 122].) However, where the facts are undisputed and the issues present questions of law, the appellate court is not bound by the trial court's decision but may make its own determination. ( Ibid.)

In such cases, as in other instances involving matters of law, the appellate court is not bound by the trial court's decision, but may make its own determination. [Citations.]" ( Evans v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 398, 407 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 782, 703 P.2d 122]; accord, County of San Diego v. State of California (1997) 15 Cal.4th 68, 109 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 134, 931 P.2d 312].) We review discovery of misconduct issues for substantial evidence.