Harris v. Canada
Court headnote
Harris v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2001-04-18 Neutral citation 2001 FCT 347 File numbers T-2407-96 Decision Content Date: 20010418 Docket: T-2407-96 Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 347 BETWEEN: GEORGE WILLIAM HARRIS Plaintiff -and- HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Defendants REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER HENEGHAN J. [1] The Plaintiff brought a notice of motion seeking an Order to allow him to cross-examine Roy Shultis upon the amended certificate filed by him pursuant to the Canada Evidence Act, R.S. 1985, c. C-5, section 38(2) (the "Act"). [2] The Plaintiff argues that since the Defendants have the right to cross-examine him upon his affidavit filed in support of the notice of motion seeking disclosure pursuant to the Federal Court Rules, 1998, Rule 229, the interests of fairness dictate that he should be allowed to cross-examine Mr. Shultis. [3] Furthermore, the Plaintiff submits that he should be allowed to explore the bases for the opinions expressed by Mr. Shultis in paragraphs 7 to 9 and 17 to 17 of his certificate. [4] The Defendants submit that there is no right, according to statute or the common law, for cross-examination on a certificate issued pursuant to the Act. As well, the Defendants say that the sufficiency of the certificate is a matter to be considered upon the hearing of the notice of motion seeking disclosure under Rule 229. [5] I accept the submissions made by the Defendants and choose to follow the decisi…
Read full judgment
Harris v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2001-04-18 Neutral citation 2001 FCT 347 File numbers T-2407-96 Decision Content Date: 20010418 Docket: T-2407-96 Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 347 BETWEEN: GEORGE WILLIAM HARRIS Plaintiff -and- HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Defendants REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER HENEGHAN J. [1] The Plaintiff brought a notice of motion seeking an Order to allow him to cross-examine Roy Shultis upon the amended certificate filed by him pursuant to the Canada Evidence Act, R.S. 1985, c. C-5, section 38(2) (the "Act"). [2] The Plaintiff argues that since the Defendants have the right to cross-examine him upon his affidavit filed in support of the notice of motion seeking disclosure pursuant to the Federal Court Rules, 1998, Rule 229, the interests of fairness dictate that he should be allowed to cross-examine Mr. Shultis. [3] Furthermore, the Plaintiff submits that he should be allowed to explore the bases for the opinions expressed by Mr. Shultis in paragraphs 7 to 9 and 17 to 17 of his certificate. [4] The Defendants submit that there is no right, according to statute or the common law, for cross-examination on a certificate issued pursuant to the Act. As well, the Defendants say that the sufficiency of the certificate is a matter to be considered upon the hearing of the notice of motion seeking disclosure under Rule 229. [5] I accept the submissions made by the Defendants and choose to follow the decision in Kevork et al. v. The Queen et al., [1984] 2 F.C. 753. [6] The decision to allow or refuse cross-examinations on a certificate issued under the Act is a discretionary one. The exercise of discretion is related to the evidentiary basis laid by the party seeking the discretionary order. [7] In the present circumstances, I am not satisfied that the Plaintiff has shown why he should be allowed to cross-examine Mr. Shultis on his certificate. The Plaintiff has not shown a compelling reason why the general rule should not apply. ORDER [8] The motion is dismissed, no order as to costs. "E. Heneghan" J.F.C.C. Toronto, Ontario April 18, 2001 FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record COURT NO: T-2407-96 STYLE OF CAUSE: GEORGE WILLIAM HARRIS Plaintiff -and- HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Defendants DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 2001 PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: HENEGHAN J. DATED: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2001 APPEARANCES BY: Teleconference: Mr. Norm Cuddy, and Mr. Michael Conner For the Plaintiff Mr. Peter Kremer For the Defendants SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Scurfield, Tapper, Cuddy Barristers & Solicitors 1000-330 Saint Mary Ave. Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 3Z5 Public Interest Law Centre Legal Aid Manitoba 402-294 Portage Ave. Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 0B8 For the Plaintiff Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Defendants FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA Date: 20010418 Docket: T-2407-96 Between: GEORGE WILLIAM HARRIS Plaintiff -and- HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Defendants REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca