Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
responsibility for interpreting provisions of G.L.c. 138 rests with Court, not Commission). Although the Court acknowledges that the Commission’s “experience, technical competence, specialized knowledge and discretionary authority” are entitled to “due weight,” this principle is “one of deference, not abdication.” Brown-Forman, 65 Mass.App.Ct. at 503 (quoting Leopoldstadt, Inc. v. Commissioner of Div. of Health Care Finance & Policy, 436 Mass. 80, 91 (2002). Accord Arnone v. Commissioner of Dep’t of Social Services, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 33, 34 (1997) (“[t]he approach is one of judicial deference and restraint, not abdication”). In this regard, no deference is owed to analysis of the Commission falling outside the purview of its institutional expertise. Brown-Forman, 65 Mass.App.Ct. at 504 . ANALYSIS Applying the foregoing standards to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding nondeferential review warranted because the commission drew no inferences from the unambiguous agreement other than its ultimate finding which no matter how couched is in fact a conclusion of law that an agency relationship existed
B. holding that no special relationship existed between the school and student
C. holding no liability existed under the circumstances
D. recognizing that the existence of an agency relationship is ordinarily a question of fact
E. holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to exclude an agency finding of no discrimination on the ground that the report would suggest to the jury that it should reach the same conclusion as the agency
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.