Date: 20020403
Docket: A-55-98
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 126
CORAM: STRAYER J.A.
BETWEEN:
DR. GERALD E. GAVELIN
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Docket: A-56-98
ALLAN N. RAUW
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Docket: A-57-98
DR. WILLIAM N. CAMPBELL
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Docket: A-58-98
DR. WILLIAM N. CAMPBELL PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
STRAYER J.A.
[1] The respondent Crown has asked that Mr. Goldenberg be precluded from presenting argument because he is the source of advice or opinion cited in the affidavit of Roger K. MacDonald. At the same time the respondent objects to such advice from Mr. Goldenberg being included as the source of the deponent's information and belief because the deponent cannot be effectively cross-examined on it. The respondent requests that paragraphs 25, 26, 27, 28, 34, 40, 51, 55, 56 and 63 be struck from the MacDonald affidavit for this reason.
[2] I am not striking these paragraphs at this time but will leave the use if any of this evidence to be decided by the panel which disposes of the appellants' motions filed on February 15, 2002 to set aside the Tax Court decision originally under appeal and the two orders of this Court dismissing, and refusing reconsideration of the dismissal, of the appeal from the Tax Court. That panel will have to consider whether the affidavit comes within the exception in Rule 81(1) allowing affidavits on information and belief. If so, it will still have to consider if these paragraphs have any relevance to the matter now in issue. For example, in the absence of some further explanation paragraphs 20, 22, 27, and 28 appear to relate to the issue of delay which has already been addressed by this Court in its decision to dismiss for failure to prosecute the appeal. The panel will have to consider what weight it should give to such hearsay evidence when the "counsel" who supposedly provided the information is not named. If that counsel is, as the respondent alleges, Mr. David Goldenberg (who has signed the written representations in the motion as counsel) then the panel will have to consider whether it should draw an adverse inference as provided in Rule 81(2) from the circumstance that the person having personal knowledge of these facts has failed to provide the evidence himself.
[3] With respect to the respondent's request under Rule 82 that Mr. Goldenberg should be prevented from appearing on this matter, I do not consider this to be necessary because the evidence in the affidavit is not per se the evidence of Mr. Goldenberg but of Mr. MacDonald. If this matter goes to an oral hearing it may be necessary for the Court to reconsider the question of whether Mr. Goldenberg should be allowed to argue it but for the present I believe, since the appellants as moving parties on these motions have already filed their submissions, the Court should await further developments.
[4] These reasons apply equally to all four appeals and should be placed in each file.
(s) "B.L. Strayer"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-55-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: DR. GERALD E. GAVELIN v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
DOCKET: A-56-98
STYLE OF CAUSE:ALLAN N. RAUW v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
DOCKET: A-57-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: DR. WILLIAM N. CAMPBELL v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
DOCKET: A-58-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: DR. WILLIAM N. CAMPBELL PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
REASONS FOR ORDER: Strayer, J.A.
DATED: April 3, 2002
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Mr. David M. Goldenberg FOR THE APPELLANT
Mr. Shawn McLeod FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
David M. Goldenberg FOR THE APPELLANT Professional Corporation
Calgary, Alberta
Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada