Collier,
J.
[ORALLY]—Mr.
Chhabra,
I
am
going
to
dismiss
your
appeal
against
the
order
that
the
prothonotary
made,
and
my
reasons
are
these.
I
realize
the
difficulty
you
have
in
this
case,
in
that
apparently
the
Revenue
Department
got
a
lot
of
information
on
which
it
based
its
reassessments
and
on
which
it
seized
funds
to
pay
those
assessments
from
persons
in
California.
You
wish
to
examine
for
discovery
those
persons,
either
in
one
or
both
of
these
actions.
Unfortunately,
under
the
Rules
of
Court,
the
only
persons
you
are
entitled
to
examine
are,
in
the
case
of
Her
Majesty
The
Queen,
officers
of
the
Crown.
You
are
not
entitled
to
examine
persons
who
are
not
officers
of
the
Crown,
and
your
nephew
and
niece
in
San
Bruno,
California,
and
the
accountant,
who
apparently
looked
after
the
affairs
of
that
financial
transaction
down
there,
are
certainly
not
officers
or
servants
of
the
Fedeal
Crown,
and
on
that
basis
alone
the
prothonotary
was
right
in
refusing
your
motion.
There
are
ways
in
which
you
can
get
the
evidence
of
those
witnesses
at
a
trial,
but
you
would
have
to
be
very
careful
how
you
went
about
that,
and
I'm
certainly
not
going
to
tell
you
how
to
do
it,
or
warn
you
of
the
pitfalls,
if
you
went
another
route.
But
I
have
absolutely
no
power,
under
the
Rules
of
Court,
and
nor
did
the
prothonotary,
to
make
an
order
that
these
three
people
from
California,
who
are
not
officers
of
the
Crown,
be
available
to
you
for
examination
for
discovery.
So
I
must
dismiss
your
application
in
that
respect.
Now
as
to
whether
or
not
you
wish
to
ask
further
questions
of
Mr.
Bruce,
as
to
what
he
based
the
assessment
on,
that
is
a
matter
that
you
may
want
to
consider,
and
it
may
require
an
application
for
a
further
examination
for
discovery.
I
commend
the
Crown
to
take
a
very
charitable
and
easy
view,
if
this
man
requests
further
discovery.
After
all,
while
it
is
an
adversarial
process,
he
is,
after
all,
a
citizen
and
a
taxpayer
of
this
country,
and
the
Crown,
or
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue,
or
the
Revenue
Department,
is
not
a
little
department
apart,
it's
really
the
other
taxpayers
of
this
country.
So
if
this
gentleman
wishes
to
have
further
discovery
of
Mr.
Bruce,
as
to
what
American
documents
he
relied
on,
I
say
the
Crown
should
take
a
charitable
view.
In
respect
of
the
discovery
and
in
Action
1929
of
1983,
no
examination
for
discovery,
as
I
understand
it,
has
taken
place
in
that
action.
You
are
entitled,
in
that
action,
to
examine
an
officer
of
the
Crown,
but
you
are
not
entitled
to
examine
those
three
California
residents,
for
the
reasons
I
have
already
given.
The
normal
procedure
is
for
the
parties
to
agree
as
to
which
officer
of
the
Crown
will
be
produced
for
examination
for
discovery
by
you.
So,
again,
I
suggest
that
you
and
Mr.
Erlichman,
or
whatever
solicitor
is
acting
in
that
action,
get
together
and
see
if
agreement
can
be
reached
as
to
what
officer
of
the
Crown
is
to
be
examined
for
discovery.
I'm
also
going
to
direct,
as
I
think
I
have
the
power
to
do,
that
the
Crown
will
file
a
448
affidavit
in
Action
1929
of
1983.
In
the
circumstances
I
am
not
going
to
make
an
order
as
to
costs.
Order
accordingly.
Email this Content