Federal Court

Civil Procedure

None of undisclosed parts of officers’ notebooks relevant

Defendant brought motion to set aside prothonotary’s order. Plaintiff alleged that defendant unlawfully seized her Croatian passport, her Croatian identity card and two photographs during primary inspection at Calgary International Airport. Plaintiff claimed she gave items to officer when she was re-entering Canada. Part of officer’s notebook had been produced. On plaintiff’s motion, prothonotary ordered defendant to produce the officer’s entire original notebook, as well as notebooks of officer’s supervisors. Motion granted. It had to be determined whether prothonotary made error of law. In order to obtain inspection of complete notebooks of officers, they must be show to be relevant within meaning of Rule 222(2) of Federal Court Rules (Can.). Prothonotary made reviewable error by stating that full notebooks of officers had to be produced for inspection. Prothonotary had stated that she was not satisfied that remainder of officer’s notebook was likely relevant. Evidence disclosed that neither supervising officer had any notation with respect to incident in notebooks. They were merely officer’s supervisors on day in question. They did not have any contact with plaintiff. None of undisclosed parts of officers’ notebooks were relevant within meaning of Rule 222(2). There was no evidence to suggest that other entries in officer’s notebook had anything to do with present case. Only document relevant to case was entry made in notebook on day of incident. It was not necessary to list supervising officers’ notes for date of incident, as they were not relevant to matter at issue.

Stubicar v. Canada (May. 7, 2012, F.C., John A. O’Keefe J., File No. T-2102-10) 225 A.C.W.S. (3d) 663.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?