Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Dueck, (1998) 146 F.T.R. 89 (TD)

JudgeNoël, J.
CourtFederal Court (Canada)
Case DateMarch 27, 1998
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1998), 146 F.T.R. 89 (TD)

Can. (M.C.I.) v. Dueck (1998), 146 F.T.R. 89 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.048

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (applicant) v. Johann Dueck (respondent)

(T-938-95)

Indexed As: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Dueck

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Noël, J.

April 7, 1998.

Summary:

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration filed a Notice of Reference seeking a declaration that Dueck obtained his citizenship through false representation, fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances. Dueck sought an order directing the Minister to file a further and better affidavit of documents. The Minister moved to take commission evidence in Ukraine.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, ordered the Minister to file and serve a better affidavit of documents. The court ordered that a commission issue and travel to Ukraine on the dates requested by the Minister.

Editor's Note: for related proceedings, see 139 F.T.R. 262.

Practice - Topic 3726

Evidence - Commission evidence - Grounds for denial - The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration filed a notice of reference seeking a declaration that Dueck obtained his citizenship through false representation, fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances - The Minister moved to take commission evidence in Ukraine - Dueck objected, asserting that, inter alia, the Minister had failed to establish the cooperation of the Ukrainian authorities - Dueck claimed that the Memorandum of Understanding between Canada and the Ukraine related solely to war crime prosecutions under the Criminal Code - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the Minister's motion - The court took judicial notice of the fact that two commissions dispatched to the Ukraine had enjoyed the full cooperation of the Ukrainian authorities, notwithstanding that the commissions arose out of citizenship references - See paragraphs 14 to 16.

Practice - Topic 3726

Evidence - Commission evidence - Grounds for denial - The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration filed a notice of reference seeking a declaration that Dueck obtained his citizenship through false representation, fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances - The Minister moved to take commission evidence in the Ukraine - Dueck objected, asserting that, inter alia, the Minister had failed to establish the usefulness of the proposed commission since the supporting affidavit did not directly affirm the relevancy of the Ukrainian witnesses' testimony - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the Minister's motion - Dueck's objection was based on a pure technicality which must be overlooked - See paragraph 17.

Practice - Topic 3731

Evidence - Commission evidence - Time for taking of - The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration filed a notice of reference seeking a declaration that Dueck obtained his citizenship through false representation, fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances - The Minister requested that a commission issue now to take evidence in the Ukraine - The Minister stated that witnesses had died, another had become mentally incapacitated and the remaining witnesses were elderly - Dueck replied that it would be premature to issue a commission having regard to the limited degree of disclosure - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the Minister's motion - The Minister's ability to prove her case was threatened by every additional month that passed - The issuance of a commission at this time was not oppressive or unfair to Dueck - See paragraphs 18 to 27.

Practice - Topic 4638

Discovery - Affidavit or list of documents - Sufficiency of statement of grounds of privilege - In its affidavit of documents, an applicant severed the documents over which it claimed privilege into distinct bundles - All the bundles contained a multitude of documents described as "correspondence, memoranda and other communications passing between officers, servants or employees of the Applicant and their legal advisors" as well as "documents created or assembled and information acquired by or for the use of Applicant's counsel in the litigation, including investigation reports, briefs, memoranda, translations and working papers." - The only commonality among the documents was the claim of privilege - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the applicant did not meet a standard of due diligence in preparing its affidavit - The applicant was ordered to file a further and better affidavit - See paragraphs 1 to 13.

Practice - Topic 4639

Discovery - Affidavit or list of documents - Description of documents - [See Practice - Topic 4638 ].

Practice - Topic 4648

Discovery - Affidavit or list of documents - Order for further and better affidavit or list - [See Practice - Topic 4638 ].

Cases Noticed:

Hill v. Hart-Davis (1884), 26 Ch. D. 470 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 4].

Cooke v. Smith, [1891] 1 Ch. 509 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 4].

Vickery v. Canadian Pacific Railway, [1921] 2 W.W.R. 517 (Sask.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 4].

Morse v. Moore Brothers (1916), 10 W.W.R. 966 (Sask.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 4].

Creaser v. Warren and Warren (1987), 77 N.S.R.(2d) 429; 191 A.P.R. 429; 36 D.L.R.(4th) 147 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 5].

Descôteaux et Centre Communautaire Juridique de Montréal v. Mierzwinski et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 426; 141 D.L.R.(3d) 590, refd to. [para. 11, footnote 6].

Birmingham & Midland Motor Omnibus Co. v. London & North Western Railway, [1913] 3 K.B. 850 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11, footnote 7].

Buffalo et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al., [1996] 2 F.C. 528; 110 F.T.R. 96 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 11, footnote 8].

Northrop Corp. v. Canada, [1974] F.C.J. No. 918 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 9].

Textron Canada Ltd. v. Rodi & Wienenberger Aktiengesellschaft, [1973] F.C. 667 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 9].

R. v. Hanson, [1998] O.J. No. 429 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 9].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Bogutin (1997), 136 F.T.R. 40 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 10].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Kisluk (1998), 141 F.T.R. 155 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 10].

Crestbrook Forest Industries Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1993] 3 F.C. 251; 153 N.R. 122 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 12].

Doyle v. Minister of National Revenue, [1978] C.T.C. 597 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 12].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules, rule 448 [para. 5].

Counsel:

Donald MacIntosh and Cheryl Mitchell, for the applicant;

Donald Bayne and Peter Doody, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

Bayne, Sellar, Boxall, Ottawa, Ontario and Scott & Aylen, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

These motions were heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 27, 1998, before Noël, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on April 7, 1998.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Privileges, Protections, and Immunities
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Evidence. Eighth Edition
    • June 25, 2020
    ...Oland ] (declining to characterize spousal privilege as a “substantive rule”); Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Dueck (1998), 146 FTR 89 (FC) (characterizing litigation privilege as a “substantive rule” and citing Descôteaux , above note 6; and C(JMN) v Winnipeg Child & Fa......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Evidence. Eighth Edition
    • June 25, 2020
    ...[2008] 2 SCR 125..................................................... 478 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Dueck (1998), 146 FTR 89 (FC) .............................................................................288 Canada (Privacy Commissioner) v Blood Tribe Department ......
  • Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Dueck, (1998) 155 F.T.R. 1 (TD)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • December 21, 1998
    ...or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances. Editor's Note: for previous proceedings in this matter see 130 F.T.R. 262 , 146 F.T.R. 89, 147 F.T.R. 157 ; 154 F.T.R. 265 , 154 F.T.R. 241 , 156 F.T.R. 150 ; [1997] F.T.R. Uned. 637 , [1998] F.T.R. Uned. 273 and [1998] F.......
  • Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis, (2010) 362 F.T.R. 242 (FC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • January 7, 2010
    ...Band et al., [2001] F.T.R. Uned. 226; 2001 FCT 456, refd to. [para. 14]. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Dueck (1998), 146 F.T.R. 89, appld. [para. Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. et al. (2004), 259 F.T.R. 238; 33 C.P.R.(4th) 387 (F.C.), affd. (2005), 331 N.R. 144; 38 C.P......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 cases
  • Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Dueck, (1998) 155 F.T.R. 1 (TD)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • December 21, 1998
    ...or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances. Editor's Note: for previous proceedings in this matter see 130 F.T.R. 262 , 146 F.T.R. 89, 147 F.T.R. 157 ; 154 F.T.R. 265 , 154 F.T.R. 241 , 156 F.T.R. 150 ; [1997] F.T.R. Uned. 637 , [1998] F.T.R. Uned. 273 and [1998] F.......
  • Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis, (2010) 362 F.T.R. 242 (FC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • January 7, 2010
    ...Band et al., [2001] F.T.R. Uned. 226; 2001 FCT 456, refd to. [para. 14]. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Dueck (1998), 146 F.T.R. 89, appld. [para. Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. et al. (2004), 259 F.T.R. 238; 33 C.P.R.(4th) 387 (F.C.), affd. (2005), 331 N.R. 144; 38 C.P......
  • Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Dueck, (1998) 154 F.T.R. 241 (TD)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • October 13, 1998
    ...of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the motion. Editor's Note: for other proceedings involving the same parties see 139 F.T.R. 262, 146 F.T.R. 89 and 147 F.T.R. 157, [1997] F.T.R. Uned. 637, [1998] F.T.R. Uned. 273, [1998] F.T.R. Uned. 487. Aliens - Topic 2504 Naturalization - General - Re......
2 books & journal articles
  • Privileges, Protections, and Immunities
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Evidence. Eighth Edition
    • June 25, 2020
    ...Oland ] (declining to characterize spousal privilege as a “substantive rule”); Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Dueck (1998), 146 FTR 89 (FC) (characterizing litigation privilege as a “substantive rule” and citing Descôteaux , above note 6; and C(JMN) v Winnipeg Child & Fa......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Evidence. Eighth Edition
    • June 25, 2020
    ...[2008] 2 SCR 125..................................................... 478 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Dueck (1998), 146 FTR 89 (FC) .............................................................................288 Canada (Privacy Commissioner) v Blood Tribe Department ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT