Noël,
J.:—This
is
an
application
by
the
respondent,
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue,
for
an
order
pursuant
to
Rules
131
and
135
of
the
General
Rules
and
Orders
of
this
Court
that
:
(a)
it
be
granted
leave
to
have
a
second
examination
for
discovery
of
the
appellants
(if
such
an
order
is
required)
;
(b)
that
a
number
of
individuals
be
examined
for
discovery
as
respective
directors
of
the
ten
inter-connected
appellant
corporations
whose
trial
by
consent
were
ordered
to
be
heard
together
on
common
evidence.
The
application
is
opposed
by
counsel
for
the
appellants
on
the
ground
that
James
G.
Greenough,
manager
of
each
of
the
appellant
corporations,
was
on
September
29,
1965,
examined
for
discovery
by
the
respondent
and
that
the
evidence
thus
given
is
available
to
him;
that
Rule
181
read
in
conjunction
with
Rule
156(b)(1)
indicates
that
one
discovery
is
available
to
a
party
only
when
the
opposite
party
is
a
body
corporate
or
a
joint
stock
company
;
and,
finally,
that
in
any
event
if
the
appellants’
manager’s
answers
were
not
satisfactory
or
if
he
could
not
give
answers
to
the
questions
asked,
counsel
for
the
respondent
could
have
and
should
have
required
him
to
inform
himself
on
such
matters.
The
key
issue
in
these
appeals
is
whether
the
ten
appellants
are
associated
or
not
under
subsection
(4)
of
Section
39
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
and
for
the
purpose
of
determining
the
above
issue
it
is
necessary
for
the
respondent
to
obtain
information
with
regard
to
the
manner
in
which
the
outstanding
Class
A
shares
of
the
appellant
corporations
(the
holders
of
which
being
the
only
shareholders
entitled
to
elect
or
appoint
directors)
are
held
by
a
number
of
individuals
residing
in
the
Bahamas.
This
information
is
essential
to
the
respondent
in
order
to
be
able
to
deal
with
the
appellants’
allegation
3
of
their
respective
notices
of
appeal
which
reads
as
follows
(the
individual
names
having
been
dropped
as
they
vary
in
the
ten
appeals)
:
“3.
During
the
relevant
taxation
years,
2
Class
‘A’
common
shares
were
issued
and
outstanding,
one
having
been
registered
in
the
name
of,
and
being
owned
by
.
.
.
and
the
other
having
been
registered
in
the
name
of,
and
being
owned
by,
.
.
.”
Mr.
Greenough,
the
appellants’
manager,
was
examined
in
this
regard
at
pp.
77
et
seq.
and
pp.
89
to
96
of
the
examination
for
discovery,
and
although
he
was
informed
on
matters
dealing
with
the
activities
of
the
various
Canadian
appellant
corporations
involved
in
these
appeals
in
Canada,
did
not
know
the
holders
of
the
Class
“A”
shares
of
the
appellant
corporations,
nor
could
he
give
any
satisfactory
information
on
the
manner
in
which
they
held
these
shares
and
particularly
whether
they
were
the
legal
holders
thereof
or
whether
the
beneficial
or
equitable
title
resided
in
somebody
else.
From
a
complete
examination
of
the
discovery
transcript,
I
am
satisfied
not
only
that
Greenough
has
no
personal
knowledge
regarding
the
manner
in
which
the
Class
“A”
shares
are
held
but
that
it
is
doubtful
that
he
could,
if
he
was
requested
to,
inform
himself
on
such
matters,
obtain
and
give
satisfactory
information
thereon
having
regard
also
to
the
fact
that
the
shareholders
all
reside
outside
of
the
jurisdiction.
The
rule
that
a
witness
must
inform
himself
on
matters
not
within
his
knowledge
is
intended
as
a
supplement
to
and
not
a
substitute
for
discovery
and
I
do
not
feel
that
in
the
present
case
the
ends
of
justice
would
have
been
fully
served
if
the
manager
of
the
appellant
corporation
had
been
instructed
to
inform
himself.
On
the
facts
herein
it
is
apparent
that
the
respondent
has
not
obtained
the
discovery
to
which
he
is
entitled
and
leave
should
therefore
be
granted
for
a
second
examination
for
discovery
unless,
as
submitted
by
counsel
for
the
appellants,
the
provisions
of
orders
131
and
156(b)
(1)
of
the
Rules
of
this
Court
prohibit
such
double
discovery.
I
do
not
believe
that
the
above
rules
can
be
construed
as
restricting
the
right
of
a
party
to
the
examination
of
one
witness
only
although
in
most
cases
the
appointment
of
one
member
or
officer
of
a
corporation,
fully
informed,
should
be
sufficient
to
allow
the
party
examining
him
to
obtain
all
the
information
required
as
to
the
facts
or
as
to
the
admissions
he
is
entitled
to.
It
is
only
when
the
Court
is
satisfied
that
such
a
result
cannot
be
obtained
from
the
examination
of
the
first
witness
that
recourse
should
be
had
to
the
examination
of
a
second
witness.
I
should
add
that
in
no
case
should
such
a
request
be
granted
when
it
appears
that
it
is
made
for
the
purpose
of
unnecessarily
harassing
the
other
party
or
of
enquiring
for
ulterior
business
purposes
and,
finally,
in
some
cases
such
an
examination
should
be
permitted
only
upon
terms
as
to
the
matters
to
be
investigated.
It
therefore
follows
that
a
second
discovery
can
be
authorized
only
upon
an
order
of
the
Court
if
a
proper
determination
of
its
necessity
or
of
the
conditions
under
which
it
is
to
be
conducted
is
to
be
assured.
I
am
satisfied
that
the
conditions
required
have
been
met
in
the
present
applications
and
leave
will
therefore
be
granted
the
respondent
to
have
a
second
examination
for
discovery
of
the
appellants;
it
is
also
ordered
that
the
individual
directors
of
the
appellants,
as
agreed
to
between
the
parties,
shall
be
examined
for
discovery
in
regard
to
each
of
the
appellants
under
Rule
135
of
the
Rules
of
this
Court
and
the
said
examinations
for
discovery
shall
take
place
either
at
Nassau,
in
the
Bahamas
Islands,
or
elsewhere
at
a
convenient
date.
Should
the
parties
have
any
difficulty
in
settling
either
the
choice
of
the
individuals
to
be
examined,
the
place
of
examination
or
the
terms
of
such
examinations,
the
matter
may
be
further
spoken
to.
Costs
in
the
cause.
Email this Content