Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Podins, docket T-1093-97

Date: 19980624

Docket: T-1093-97

BETWEEN:

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

     AND IMMIGRATION,

     Plaintiff,

     - and -

     EDUARDS PODINS,

     Defendant.

     REASONS FOR ORDER

LUTFY, J.

[1]      The plaintiff's motion under Rule 272 for the taking of commission evidence in Latvia will be granted.

[2]      The Memorandum of Understanding between Canada and Latvia is with respect to the "... commencement of legal proceedings against persons in Canada who are suspected of having committed War Crimes against Humanity as defined by Canadian law, ..." during World War II. In an exchange of correspondence in April 1998, the Latvian authorities have been made aware that this proceeding is to revoke the defendant's Canadian citizenship and they have extended their ongoing assistance. The defendant points to some language in the Memorandum of Understanding to suggest that its scope is limited to criminal proceedings. The reiteration in April 1998 of the co-operation of the Latvian authorities in this citizenship revocation proceeding renders moot, at least for the purposes of this motion, whether the Memorandum of Understanding was intended to be limited to criminal proceedings. The specific and recent commitment of the Latvian authorities, in and of itself in the circumstances of this case, meets any requirement of establishing the foreign state's collaboration prior to the issuance of an order under Rule 272.

[3]      I do not accept, particularly in the absence of any evidence, the defendant's submissions that by introducing the Memorandum of Understanding in this motion, the plaintiff has caused prejudice to the defendant. In my view, no reasonably informed person with knowledge of this proceeding would draw any adverse inference concerning the defendant simply on the basis of the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding.

[4]      A letter of request will issue to the judicial authorities in Latvia upon the granting of the plaintiff's motion. The defendant's suggestion that the letter of request may not comply with the laws of Latvia, if it has any merit, is not an issue to be resolved by this Court.

[5]      The defendant, in the alternative to his opposition to the plaintiff's motion, also seeks commission evidence from witnesses he has identified in Latvia and from one witness in the United Kingdom. The plaintiff has no substantive opposition to the defendant's motion and has agreed to bear the costs of obtaining the commission evidence for the witnesses called by both parties in Latvia. Accordingly, orders will issue forthwith granting the relief sought by both parties concerning the commission evidence in Latvia.

[6]      However, the issue of the payment of any supplementary costs that may be incurred to obtain the evidence from the witnesses in the United Kingdom remains outstanding. If the parties cannot reach agreement, the Court will receive affidavit evidence, if necessary, and further oral submissions concerning the payment of the supplementary costs prior to the issuance of the order with respect to the commission evidence in the United Kingdom.

                             (Sgd.) "Allan Lutfy"

                                 JUDGE

Vancouver, British Columbia

24 June 1998

     FEDERAL COURT TRIAL DIVISION

     NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT NO.:              T-1093-97

REASONS FOR ORDER OF:

LUTFY, J.

dated June 24, 1998

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

     Mr. Gordon Maynard and