Rowe T.C.J.:
1 HIS HONOUR: I have before me an application on a motion pursuant to rule 117 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules requesting a termination of the written examination for discovery being conducted by the Appellants, or, as an alternative, to limit the scope to the questions as set forth in paragraph 5 of the affidavit of Karen A. Truscott, which was filed in support of the motion and to add questions 41 and 42 from the list of questions submitted by the Appellant, John English. Pursuant to an order of the Honourable Judge Bowman dated April 11th, 1997, John D. English was permitted to represent Pacific Rim Resorts Properties Inc., referred to as Pacific Rim, in all appeals dealt with in that particular order.
2 Examinations for discovery were directed-at a Status Hearing-to be completed not later than November 14thand the appeals were set down on a peremptory basis for hearing commencing at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, January 12th, 1998 for a duration of two days. All appeals were directed to be heard together on common evidence or as the presiding judge directed.
3 Then, by order dated November 14th, 1997 the Honourable Judge Bowman ordered that the time for completing the examinations for discovery be extended to December 19th, 1997. It was further ordered that the examinations for discovery be conducted by way of written questions and answers and that each party provide to the opposing party a list of the questions by November 28th, 1997.
4 The Appellant, John English, submitted a list of questions, 325 in number, purportedly in the course of exercising his right to examination for discovery. The list of questions and other material is attached to the affidavit of Karen Truscott.
5 It is obvious that the overwhelming majority of those questions are irrelevant, unnecessary to determine the matters at issue in the various appeals, and are, for the most part, completely improper. The questions are nonsensical, not material to the proceedings and have the appearance of being authored by someone intending to exercise bad faith and otherwise to annoy and embarrass the party being examined.
6 The questions put forth by the Appellant, John English, on behalf of himself and Pacific Rim, the corporation, except as otherwise referred to herein, are vexatious, demeaning and totally at odds with the scope of an examination for discovery pursuant to the rules. Having perused the list of questions in its entirety, I hereby order the examination for discovery is limited to the extent - the Respondent is required to respond only to the following questions: questions 41, 42, 44, 45, 157, 158, 159, 173, 174, 175, 181 to 195 inclusive and question 297.
7 For the reasons stated, all other questions contained in the list of questions are improper and will not be responded to by the Respondent. The Appellant, earlier this week and today, requested an adjournment of the motion today and had an agent appear for that limited purpose. John Douglas English filed an affidavit, together with certain material requesting, inter alia, an adjournment of the proceedings on a variety of bases and included therein further and other material and allegations in the affidavit which are consistent with the nonsense and drivel that was contained in the list of questions.
8 The egregious and outrageous nature of the questions contained in the list of questions is such that any court would be justified even on an ex parte basis, in excising and striking those questions, except otherwise permitted, from the scope of the written examination for discovery.
9 It is also ordered that the time for completing the examinations for discovery be extended to December 30th, 1997. The Respondent is entitled to costs of this motion.
10 MS. JUNKIN: Your Honour, may I just clarify is this cost regardless of the outcome of the appeal?
11 HIS HONOUR: Yes.
12 MS. JUNKIN: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 HIS HONOUR: Costs of the motion are costs of the motion.
Email this Content