PRACTICE
Evidence
Motion for order allowing plaintiff to introduce evidence of Iranian witnesses at trial through use of teleconferencing under Federal Courts Rules, r. 286—Plaintiff arriving in Canada on October 26, 1988 on Minister’s permit—Obtaining landed immigrant status on November 5, 1991—Sponsorship application for wife approved, forwarded to Damascus office in 1992—Damascus office informing wife in 1993 plaintiff had not submitted undertaking of assistance—Wife apparently divorcing plaintiff in Iran in late December 1993—Plaintiff commencing action for damages for negligence in processing immigration files—Word “hearing” used in r. 32 (permitting Court to order hearing by way of teleconference call) should be interpreted in liberal manner—One of central issues at trial revolving around causation of alleged divorce—Credibility of evidence of Iranian witnesses critical—“Just” determination of contentious issues in trial (cause(s) of alleged divorce), necessarily implying defendant be given opportunity to cross‑ examine Iranian witnesses—However, obvious from facts of case that, through teleconferencing, Court will not be able to observe Iranian witnesses’ demeanour—Having balanced all relevant factors, evidence, issuance of order permitting evidence of Iranian witnesses be taken by telephone not in interest of justice, would not secure, at this late date, in absence of detailed plan, just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of contested issues in action— Motion dismissed—Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98‑106, rr. 1 (as am. by SOR/2004‑283, s. 2), 32, 286.
Farzam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (T‑626‑96, 2005 FC 1453, Martineau J., order dated 26/10/05, 29 pp.)