Jérome,
ACJ:—This
application
for
an
order
compelling
the
duly
authorized
representative
of
the
defendant
to
nominate
Mr
Harry
Longstaff,
a
departmental
officer
of
the
Crown,
to
be
examined
for
discovery
by
the
plaintiff,
came
on
for
hearing
at
Toronto,
on
November
2,
1981,
together
with
a
similar
application
in
Donald
Kilgour
Campbell
v
Her
Majesty
the
Queen,
Court
No
T-2445-80,
which
is
the
same
dispute,
involving
a
different
taxpayer,
so
that
evidence,
argument
and
reasons
in
this
matter
apply
equally
to
it.
At
the
conclusion
of
argument,
I
indicated
from
the
Bench
that
I
would
grant
the
order
and
that
written
reasons
would
follow.
I
did
so
because
the
factual
situation
so
closely
parallels
that
which
faced
this
Court
in
an
earlier
decision
by
Collier,
J
in
John
A
Carruthers
v
Her
Majesty
the
Queen
(unreported).
The
only
factual
issue
in
these
actions
is
the
value
on
Valuation
Day,
December
31,
1971,
of
certain
real
property.
The
plaintiff
seeks
to
examine
for
discovery
a
departmental
officer
of
the
Ministry
of
National
Revenue
who
prepared
an
appraisal
which
was
a
major
factor
in
the
defendant’s
position
on
evaluation.
The
documentary
evidence
satisfies
me
that
Mr
Longstaff,
while
undoubtedly
not
the
most
senior
officer
in
this
line
of
responsibility,
is
certainly
in
a
position
of
sufficient
general
responsibility
to
be
an
acceptable
nominee
for
discovery
and
would
be
in
a
position
to
accept
instructions
and
to
make
admissions
on
behalf
of
the
defendant
for
the
purpose
of
an
examination
for
discovery.
His
personal
knowledge
of
the
appraisal
which
forms
such
a
significant
aspect
of
the
defendant’s
position,
adds
further
justification
for
his
nomination.
The
situation
is
an
exact
parallel
of
that
in
the
Carruthers
matter
in
which
Collier,
J
granted
the
order
on
the
basis
of
his
reasoning
in
the
earlier
case
of
Irish
Shipping
Ltd
v
The
Queen,
Leslie
Arthur
Davis
Jones,
Arthur
Joseph
Warren
and
Pacific
Pilotage
Authority,
[1974]
1
FC
445.
He
expressed
the
view
that
if
the
applicant
can
satisfy
the
Court
that
it
is
in
the
interest
of
justice
that
someone
more
suitable
than
the
person
nominated
by
the
Crown
is
in
a
position
of
sufficient
responsibility
to
provide
answers
binding
upon
the
Crown,
the
Court
should
nominate
the
more
suitable
person.
I
consider
myself
bound
by
the
decision
of
Collier,
J
in
both
cases
and,
in
any
event,
I
am
in
complete
agreement
with
the
expression
of
principle
from
the
Irish
Shipping
case.
I
would
add
only
that
were
I
in
doubt,
which
I
am
not,
I
would
think
it
appropriate
to
lean
on
the
side
of
leniency
when
we
are
dealing,
as
we
are
here,
in
an
action
brought
by
a
taxpayer
against
the
Crown.
For
these
reasons,
an
order
will
go
directing
the
duly
authorized
representative
of
the
defendant
to
nominate
Mr
Harry
Longstaff,
a
departmental
officer
of
the
Crown,
to
be
examined
for
discovery
by
the
plaintiff.
Email this Content