Date: 19971208
Docket: T-2408-96
IN THE MATTER of revocation of citizenship pursuant to sections 10 and 18 of the
Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29, as amended and section 19 of the Canadian
Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1952, c.33, as amended;
AND IN THE MATTER of a request for reference to the Federal Court pursuant to
section 18 of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29, as amended;
AND IN THE MATTER of a reference to the Court pursuant to Rule 920 of the Federal
Court Rules.
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Applicant
AND:
VLADIMIR KATRIUK
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
NADON, J.
[1] The Applicant seeks an Order of this Court compelling the Respondent to submit to an examination for discovery. The Applicant also seeks an Order for costs.
[2] These are proceedings brought by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration pursuant to sections 10 and 18 of the Citizenship Act and rule 920 of the Federal Court Rules.
[3] On March 24, 1997 McKeown J. issued an Order prescribing the schedule to be followed by the parties herein. By his Order, McKeown J. directed that the Applicant complete its oral examination for discovery of the Respondent by November 15, 1997.
[4] On October 21, 1997 I presided a conference call during which it was agreed by the parties that the Respondent would be examined by the Applicant in Montreal on November 12 and 13, 1997.
[5] On November 6, 1997 the Respondent filed an application seeking an Order staying the proceedings, pursuant to Section 50 of the Federal Court Act. In a letter sent to counsel for the Applicant, counsel for the Respondent advised him that his client would not be attending the examination on discovery scheduled for November 12 and 13, 1997.
[6] At the request of counsel for the Applicant, I heard, by way of a conference call, arguments by counsel regarding whether or not the Respondent should attend the examination on discovery scheduled for November 12 and 13, 1997.
[7] At the end of the hearing, I made the following Order:
| "the examination on discovery of the Respondent by the Applicant shall take place in Montreal, commencing on November 12, 1997 at 10:00 a.m." |
[8] The Respondent appealed my Order. The appeal was heard in Toronto on November 28, 1997. The Court of Appeal disposed of the matter as follows:
| "The appeal is dismissed with costs." |
[9] Before me Mr. Lucas, for the Applicant, argued that, further to my Order of November 7, 1997 I should order the Respondent to submit to an examination on discovery in Montreal. Mr. Lucas also argued that he was entitled to be reimbursed the costs incurred by reason of the Respondent's failure to attend the examination on discovery on November 12, 1997. Specifically, Mr. Lucas seeks costs in respect of the attendance of a court reporter and of an Ukrainian-English interpreter.
[10] Mr. Rudzik, for the Respondent, opposes the Applicant's motion. Mr. Rudzik argued that discovery, written and oral, was not contemplated by Rule 920. In support of his arguments, he referred me to the judgment of McKeown J. rendered on May 15, 1997 in the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Peteris (Peter) Arvidis Vitols, T-310-97. In Vitols, as is the case here, the Minister brought proceedings pursuant to sections 8 and 10 of the Citizenship Act and rule 920 of the Federal Court Rules. Mr. Justice McKeown concluded that in the circumstances of the case before him it would not be appropriate to order the examination on discovery of the Respondent.
[11] Mr. Justice McKeown summarized the Respondent's arguments as follows:
| The Respondent submitted that in disciplinary matters, examinations for discovery are generally not permitted. The party sought to be disciplined has already been questioned extensively, formally or informally, as part of the investigation. As stated earlier, the Respondent has already provided to the R.C.M.P. with responses during two interviews. Accordingly, the discovery process followed by administrative tribunals in disciplinary matters is relevant to the present case. Furthermore, examinations for discovery are not usually appropriate for hearings of a summary nature such as hearings under Rule 920 of the Federal Court Rules. |
[12] It would appear that because the Respondent had been interviewed by R.C.M.P. officers on two occasions, Mr. Justice McKeown was of the view that it would not be appropriate to allow the Minister to examine the Respondent on discovery.
[13] The arguments made Mr. Rudzik before me were similar to those made before Mr. Justice McKeown in Vitols. I need not take a position on these arguments since, in my view, they are not open to the Respondent at this stage of the proceedings.
[14] The Minister's application stems from the Respondent's failure to attend for discovery in Montreal on November 12, 1997. It will be recalled that I had issued an Order on November 7, 1997 ordering the Respondent to so attend. My Order was confirmed by the Court of Appeal on November 28, 1997. The arguments made in Vitols and by Mr. Rudzik before me on December 4, 1997 were not made when I heard the parties on November 7, 1997. Those arguments, in any event, ought to have been made before the Court of Appeal at the time of the hearing before that Court.
[15] In the circumstances, I cannot see how I can refuse the Minister's Application. Consequently, the Order which the Minister seeks shall be made. At the end of the hearing on December 4, 1997 I informed the parties that I would render my Order by noon on December 8 and that if the application was allowed I would convene a conference call in the afternoon to fix a date for the examination on discovery of the Respondent.
[16] With respect to the Order for costs, I informed the parties during the hearing of December 4, 1997 that the Minister was, in my view, entitled to the costs incurred as a result of the attendance of a court reporter and translator on November 12, 1997.
Marc Nadon
Judge
FEDERAL COURT OF TRIAL
Date: 19971208
Docket: T-2408-96
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Applicant
AND:
VLADIMIR KATRIUK
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NUMBER: T-2408-96
BETWEEN: THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Applicant
AND:
VLADIMIR KATRIUK
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal(Quebec)
DATE OF HEARING: December 4th, 1997
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: NADON, J.
DATED: December 8th, 1997
APPEARANCES: Mr David Lucas
Ms. Martine Valois for the Applicant
Mr. Orest H.T. Rudzik for the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa (Ontario) for the Applicant
Orest H.T. Rudzik
Toronto (Ontario) for the Respondent