Federal Court Decisions

Date: 19971202

Docket: IMM-1528-97

BETWEEN:

     ROSHAN KHIMANI

     Applicant

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

ROULEAU, J.

[1]      This matter came before me at Toronto on Monday, November 10, 1997. Essentially, the applicant was seeking an order directing Michel Dupuis, an officer of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the affiant, to re-attend for further cross-examination to answer certain questions posed on cross-examination and for clarification of other answers. The questions referred to by counsel for the applicant in submissions before me and argued are filed with the Court under a separate document.

[2]      It was submitted that the Immigration Officer should have been better informed and should have provided better answers to the questions as posed by the applicant's counsel during the cross-examination in his affidavit. Fourteen questions were submitted for consideration by the Court. Before rendering my decision, I had occasion to read the entire transcript of the examination of Mr. Dupuis.

[3]      Answers given to questions 82, 105, 119 and 193 were "I do not know", I am content that this reply was proper and does not require further enquiry of Mr. Dupuis.

[4]      Questions 97 and 98, if they were not answered in a satisfactory manner or to the liking of counsel for the applicant, I am satisfied that if he had properly pursued the issue with follow-up questions relating to the answers provided to questions 97 and 98 he may have been able to obtain the necessary information of explanation. If anything, it was failure on the part of counsel to properly follow his line of questioning which left the answers vague; there is no need for further reply.

[5]      Question 102 needs no further response since they were not related to the issues which are the subject of this proceeding. Similarly, question 106 was unrelated and needs not be answered.

[6]      Question 144: I am of the view that counsel could have referred to the letter of offer of employment which is at the centre of this dispute and he could have pursued the questioning more diligently and could have obtained the necessary answers had he proceeded with his cross-examination more effectively; I am not requiring this witness to elaborate any further. Similarly with respect to question 250, counsel could have followed up and obtained more information had he been more diligent.

[7]      That leaves answers to questions 89, 107 and 128. Question 89, the answer is satisfactory and need not be pursued any further.

[8]      Question 128 as well as 193 could have been answered by the affiant with much more accuracy, he should have informed himself more diligently before attending the cross-examination and I hereby order that these questions may be answered in writing by counsel for the respondent upon obtaining the requisite information from the affiant.

[9]      It is true that an affiant must answer all relevant questions concerning matters specifically raised in his affidavit as well as collateral questions but I have not been convinced that the questions to which answers are now being sought, except to the two that I referred to, were not answers that an affiant properly informed would have otherwise provided. Further answers to those questions which I have denied were not evasive and I have not been satisfied that the affiant should be expected to have greater

knowledge on issues which do not relate to the proceedings.

JUDGE

OTTAWA, Ontario

December 2, 1997