Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Fast, 2002 FCT 542 (CanLII) | Cases | Cases

Former Department of Justice
- Canada Immigration Lawyer

(905) 451-1550

Canadian Immigration Cases

Search:

Date: 20020424

 

Docket: T-453-00

 

Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 542

 

 

BETWEEN:

                       

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

 

Plaintiff

 

 

-and-

 

 

 

 

 

JACOB FAST

 

Defendant

 

                                                                             

 

REASONS FOR ORDER

 

 

PELLETIER J.

This is my disposition of the issues arising from the questions and answers from the Examination for discovery of Mr. Fast which Mr. Vita seeks to have read into the record as part of his case. I had ruled earlier that counsel for Mr. Fast could seek to have other parts of Mr. Fast's discovery evidence read in as clarifying or explaining Mr. Fast's evidence. Clarifying or explaining refers to ensuring that the portions read in are not, within the four corners of the questions and answers themselves, misleading. Clarifying or explaining does not mean that other questions and answers


where Mr. Fast has given a different answer to the same question must be read in to clarify or explain the original answer.    One must bear in mind that the process of reading in questions and answers is one of putting the opposite party's admissions on the record. That party always has the option of taking the stand to explain away or qualify those admissions. But it is not the rule that those qualifications must go as part of the examining party's case. So, in dealing with requests for inclusions of clarifying or explanatory questions and answers, I generally asked myself whether the qualifying material showed either that Mr. Fast did not understand the particular question, or that the portion being read in was misleading in the sense of suggesting that Mr. Fast, at that point, was saying one thing when in fact he was saying another.

 

One of the issues in this matter is Mr. Fast's mental condition. In some cases, it was sought to have material read in to show that he was confused or that his answers were non-responsive to the question. I did not give effect to these submissions. Non-responsive answers are just that, non-responsive answers. They have very little evidentiary value. But if a party wishes to put them in as part of its case, that is its privilege. Similarly, the fact that Mr. Fast was at various times confused is not relevant except to the extent that it can be shown that he is confused about the particular question. If the answers to particular questions appeared to me to be coherent, I did not allow the surrounding questions and answers to be read in for the purpose of showing that apparently lucid answers were in fact not lucid.

 


The defence was also allowed to challenge the inclusion of questions and answers where there were untranslated exchanges between the interpreter and Mr. Fast. I reviewed the videotape for the purpose of assessing these exchanges. I did not strike every question and answer in which there was an untranslated exchange because some of them seemed to me to be trivial, as for example a place name is repeated by both Mr. Fast and the interpreter. In the main however, I struck questions and answers where there were uninterpreted passages of any substance. Such passages created an unacceptable doubt as to whether the question answered was the question asked.

 

Finally, as a result of the process of exchanging positions on the questions and answers, many objections were resolved by agreement. Where that was the case, I have consolidated the two so that I only identified as contentious those questions on which there was no agreement. That said, what follows is the list of questions and answers that will go in as part of the plaintiff's case, subject to hearing further representations on questions 257 to 260 of Volume 1, and as to the inclusion of the videotapes, or portions of them, in evidence.

 

Uncontested                  Opposed                      Clarification       Decision

Volume 1

77

 

Uncontested                  Opposed                      Clarification       Decision

 

90-100             101-103                                                excluded for translation

109

111-118

122-130

132-145

220-224

229-238

248-252                                                included: answers are sufficiently responsive to show understanding of question

257-260                        261-268            submissions to be made

270                                                       included: challenged for responsiveness

278                                                      

280


281                                                                   V.2 362-364    excluded: not clarification but simply a different answer to the question.

295-304                                                            videotape          to be dealt with under status of video.

322-323                                                            305-321            included: 322 and 323 are responsive. 305-321 do not qualify but merely show confusion.

331-332

339

 

Volume 2.

p2. lines 5 - 12

11-12                                                    excluded for translation

48-49                                                    excluded for translation

51-60                                                    included except 56 which is excluded for translation

64-66                                                    included: translation not material

75-78                                                                79-82                excluded: 79 not clarification 80-82 excluded for translation.

104-107                                                included: translation problems not material

109                                                       excluded: translation

113-117                                                excluded: for translation 113-114

included: 115-117

119-129                                                excluded: for translation 119-123

included: 124-129

131-132                                                excluded: for translation

153-160

 

Uncontested                  Opposed                      Clarification       Decision

 

229-233                                                            234-239            excluded: Q. 229 to 233 unambiguous, no clarification required.

240-241                                                            242-245            excluded: does not clarify Q. 240-241. No confusion about ages.

254-259                                                included: except for 257 which is excluded for translation

260-262                                                included: translation not material

266-267                                                excluded: for translation

268                   excluded: does not clarify

269                                                       included: translation not material

270-275            excluded: does not clarify Q. 269

285-315                                                included: unopposed 307-309, 314-315


excluded: for translation 285-297, 302-303

included: 298-301, 304-307

310-313                                                excluded: for translation 310-311

included: 312-313

326-340                                                included: 326-328, 330, 332, 336, 339-340

excluded: for translation 329, 331, 333, 335, 338

366-369                                                excluded: for translation 367, 369

358-365            excluded: these are different answers to the same question. They do not clarify questions about application for naturalization

371                                                       included: no answer does not preclude inclusion

382-383                        384                                                       included: no answer does not preclude inclusion

389-391                                                            386-388            excluded: do not clarify following answers

396

400-403                                                excluded: for translation

405

408-411                                                excluded: for translation

418                                                       included: no answer does not preclude inclusion

414-451                       

 

 

Uncontested                  Opposed                      Clarification       Decision

 

Volume 3

 

1-22

34-40

41-42                           

43                                                         included: no answer does not preclude inclusion

59-74                                                                75-76                excluded: does not clarify

77-80

81-86

87-112                                                 113-118            included: clarifies issues of mother's nationality

119-128

143-144

147-149

151                                                       included: no answer etc.


157                                                       translation: cannot dispose of because my copy of tape is blank

158-161

167                                                       included: no answer etc

175                                                       included: no answer etc

185-186                        187                                                       included: no answer etc.

 

Volume 4

 

9-24

27-28

 

After counsel have reviewed this document to ensure that I have not made transcription errors or errors in the interpretation of their positions, there will be an order that the uncontested and included questions be considered as having been read into the record. The question of the exhibits will be dealt with separately.

 

 

"J.D. Denis Pelletier"

_________________________

 

Pelletier J.A.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

 

            Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

 

COURT NO:                      T-453-00

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION

                                                                     Plaintiff

- and -

 

JACOB FAST

                                                                     Defendant

 

DATE OF HEARING:         WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2002

 

PLACE OF HEARING:       TORONTO, ONTARIO

 

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:    PELLETIER J.

 

DATED:                   WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2002

 

 

APPEARANCES BY:       Mr. Peter A. Vita, Q.C.

Ms. Catherine Vasilaros

Mr. Jeremiah A. Eastman

 

For the Plaintiff

 

Mr. Michael Davies

Mr. Harold Mattson

 

For the Defendant

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

 

For the Plaintiff

 

Bayne, Sellar, Boxal

Barristers & Solicitors

200 Elgin Street

Suite 500

Ottawa, Ontario

K2P 1L5

 

For the Defendant


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

 

 

            Date: 20020424

 

                                          Docket: T-453-00

 

 

BETWEEN:

 

 

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

 

                                Plaintiff

 

 

- and -

 

 

 

 

JACOB FAST

 

                                Defendant

 

 

 

                                               

 

 

REASONS FOR ORDER