Watt v. Canada (Transport Canada), docket T-154-97

    

     Date: 20001117

     Docket: T-154-97

OTTAWA, ONTARIO, TUESDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2000

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE EDMOND P. BLANCHARD

BETWEEN:

THOMAS WATT,

     Plaintiff

     - and -

     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

(Transport Canada),

     Defendant

     REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

    

BLANCHARD J.:

[1]      On June 28-29, 2000 the cross-examination and examination for discovery of Bruce Ogilvie took place in Ottawa, Ontario.

[2]      Before me, the parties agreed that only 4 litigious issues remained, namely the three following objections and the unsigned statement of Mr. Lowe:

1. The question as to whether or not Mr. Ogilvie had an honest belief that the plaintiff was being harassed by Mr. Lowe.

2. The question to Mr. Ogilvie that if the grievance would have been allowed, the remedial action would have been up to July 30, 1989.

3. The question to Mr. Ogilvie asking if he agreed that the grievance and the claims in the lawsuit are not identical.

[3]      As for the unsigned statement of Mr. Lowe, counsel for the defendant requires an order of this court to supercede the trust condition that affects the document.

THE OBJECTIONS AT CROSS-EXAMINATION

[4]      The first objection must stand. In fact, the question asks the witness to state his opinion as to the plaintiff's state of mind. As stated in Phillips Export B.V. v. Windmere Consumer Products Inc.: " ...a party cannot be asked to express its position in terms of mental attitudes."¹. Hence the question needs not to be answered.

[5]      The second objection must stand. The question is improper because it requires a legal opinion, namely on the remedies available to the plaintiff. As stated by MacKay J. in Sydney Steel Corp. v. Omisalj (The) : "...the questions as asked seem to me to require the defendants to speculate upon possible actions..."². Therefore, the objection must stand.

[6]      The third objection must also stand. Based on the arguments presented before me, I believe that such a question is a question of law. As stated for in the Reading & Bates Construction Co. case³, the Court should not compel the answering of questions which are asking for a legal opinion. Therefore, the objection stands.

[7]      As for the unsigned statement of Mr. Lowe, based on Rules 242 and 244 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, Counsel for the defendant must, without further delay, provide the plaintiff's counsel with Mr. Lowe's unsigned statement.

[8]      For these reasons, the motion brought by the plaintiff, Thomas Watt, before me is allowed in part.

ORDER

     THIS COURT ORDERS:

1.      Counsel for the defendant, Her Majesty the Queen (Transport Canada),without further delay, to provide the plaintiff's counsel with Mr. Lowe's unsigned statement.

    

2.      No order as to costs.

     "Edmond P. Blanchard"

     Judge

__________________

¹      Phillips Export B.V. v. Windmere Consumer Products Inc (1986) 1 F.T.R. 300 at p. 302.     

²      Sydney Steel Corp. v. Omisalj (The), [1992] 2 F.C.193 at p. 204.     

³      Reading & Bates Construction Co. v. Baker Energy Resources Co. (1988), 25 F.T.R. 226.