Date: 20011022
Docket: T-848-01
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 1145
BETWEEN:
JOSH WALLACE
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
IN RIGHT OF CANADA
Defendant
[1] This is a motion for an order to strike questions 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 of the written examination of the representative of the defendant, the whole with costs to follow.
[2] I have read the pleadings and the materials filed by the parties and having heard the parties I find that questions 1, 2 and 3 are irrelevant to the case as pleaded, and will order the questions struck.
[3] With regards to questions 6 and 7, I am of the view that a Court may choose to consider evidence of any prior dealings between the parties. I find that questions 6 and 7 could be relevant and is therefore permissible but should be restricted to prior contracts between the parties. This should help address any privacy concerns raised by the defendant. I will therefore order with respect to questions 6 and 7 that the defendant produce the ten last translations reviewed by the defendant which involved translation contracts between the plaintiff and the defendant. I will also order with respect to questions 6 and 7, that the defendant produce any prior translation that was reviewed by Brian Mossop, and which involved a translation contract between the within parties.
[4] Questions 13 through 19 refer to general statistical and financial data dealing with translation contracts entered into by the defendant. A relevant question must relate to an issue pleaded in the case. This case is principally one of breach of contract. There is no basis in the statement of claim to justify the relevance of these questions. Questions 13 through 19 appear to relate to question 20, which questions whether some pretext be found by officers of The translation Bureau, to reject certain texts for budgetary reasons. The statement of claim does not allege that the defendant's alleged breach of contract is motivated by a lack of resources. Again the pleadings do not set the necessary foundation that would justify the relevance of these questions.
[5] For the above reasons I find questions 13 through 20 (inclusive), to be irrelevant to the case, and will order the questions struck.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Questions 1, 2 and 3 are struck;
2. The defendant produce, within 30 days of the date of this order, the ten last translations reviewed by the defendant which involved translation contracts between the plaintiff and the defendant;
3. The defendant produce, within 30 days of the date of this order, any translation that was reviewed by Brian Mossop and which involved translation contracts between the within parties;
4. Other requests to produce, made in questions 6 and 7, are struck, save and except requests, specifically dealt with in paragraphs 2 and 3 above;
5. Questions 13 trough 20 (inclusive) are struck;
6. There will be no costs on this motion.
"Edmond P. Blanchard"
Judge
Montreal (Quebec)
October 22, 2001
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-848-01
STYLE OF CAUSE:
JOSH WALLACE
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA
Defendant
PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: October 22, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER OF: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BLANCHARD
DATED: October 22, 2001
APPEARANCES:
|
Mr. Josh Wallace Montreal, Quebec |
FOR THE PLAINTIFF (himself) |
|
Mr. Dominique Guimond |
FOR THE DEFENDANT |
SOLICITOR OF RECORD:
|
Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montreal, Quebec |
FOR THE DEFENDANT |