Date: 20040728

Docket: A-171-04

Citation: 2004 FCA 271

Present:          LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

BETWEEN:

                                                         ROSS GREG SUDNIK

                                                                                                                                            Applicant

                                                                           and

                                             ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

                                                                                                                                       Respondent

                                       Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.

                                    Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on July 28, 2004.

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:                                                                            LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

Date: 20040728

Docket: A-171-04

Citation: 2004 FCA 271

Present:          LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

BETWEEN:

                                                         ROSS GREG SUDNIK

                                                                                                                                            Applicant

                                                                           and

                                             ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

                                                                                                                                       Respondent

                                                        REASONS FOR ORDER

LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

[1]                The respondent seeks by motion an Order striking a number of questions put to Dr. R. Turgeon in a Written Examination dated June 3, 2004. The motion also requests an extension of time allowing the respondent to deliver its Record within 20 days after the applicant files its Amended Record. The respondent seeks costs on the motion in any event of the cause at an amount fixed by the Court.

[2]                As an alternative, the respondent requests an Order indicating which questions should be amended and granting the respondent 30 days from the date of the Order to respond to the amended questions.

[3]                Dr. Turgeon is a medical advisor at the Canada Pension Plan, Income Security Programs Branch of the Department of Human Resources Development (Department). He has held this position since September 12, 1994. His function consists in giving advice to officials of the Department concerning the medical circumstances of individuals who are contesting decisions denying them disability benefits pursuant to the Canada Pension Plan.

[4]                On January 19, 2004, Dr. Turgeon attended the applicant's appeal to the Pensions Appeal Board of a Review Tribunal's decision denying him a disability pension. The appeal was heard in Vancouver. At the hearing, Dr. Turgeon provided assistance to the Board explaining the medical terminology and conditions described in the medical reports produced before the Board. He also answered questions from the Panel and counsel about these medical reports.

[5]                By Notice of Application dated March 26, 2004, the appellant sought judicial review of the Board's decision. On May 18, 2004, the respondent filed an affidavit by Dr. Turgeon in support of its position in the judicial review proceedings. Pursuant to the filing of that affidavit, the respondent received, on June 3, 2004, a notice of Written Examination regarding the affidavit of Dr. Turgeon. The applicant indicated in his Application Record that he sent to the respondent on June 16, 2004 that he could not file a complete Memorandum of Facts and Law until he had the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Turgeon on his affidavit and until he received written answers to his Written Examination.

[6]                The notice of Written Examination contained 116 questions. Dr. Turgeon answered 69 of them in an affidavit but objected to questions 5 to 9, 12 to 15, 23 to 31, 37 to 39, 49, 45, 51 to 54, 59, 61, 65, 68 to 72, 74 to 78, 107 to 110, 112 and 115. He also objected to part of question 56.

[7]                I have reviewed every question objected to by the respondent and the reasons provided in support of the objections. I have also carefully analysed the applicant's response to the respondent's motion. The applicant's response takes the shape more of an emotional plea than a rational discussion of the issues at stake. It is, therefore, less helpful than it could and should have been.

[8]                The respondent's objections to the impugned questions are well founded. Some questions are either not relevant or would entail revealing information about other disability applicants who are entitled to have that information kept private. Thus, after referring to Dr. Turgeon's affidavit regarding the applicant, counsel for the applicant asks the following questions:

5.         Have you ever sworn such an affidavit before? When? Why? Please provide all such affidavits?

6.         Have you ever given oral evidence on behalf of a disabled applicant, either prior to 12 September 1994 or since? For whom? When? Please produce a copy of that evidence?

Others are both unnecessary to this application and too broad to be of any assistance to the debate:

8.         Have you ever been cross-examined, orally, on any affidavit you have ever provided, since 12 September 1994? When?

13.       How many Federal Court or Federal Court of Appeal cases, involving CPP disability, have you ever been involved with?

14.       What are the results of those Federal Court or Federal Court of Appeal cases?

15.       Have you ever given oral evidence in a courtroom? When? In relation to what? Is there a transcript of any of your court evidence? If so, please produce same.

[9]                There are also questions requiring from the witness personal irrelevant information or information of a personal nature. In addition, counsel for the applicant seems to believe that a doctor cannot provide medical explanations or information about an illness or an illness alleged by the applicant unless he has himself suffered from the same predicament:

23.       What is your current income and benefit package worth, per annum?

24.       What will your retirement pension pay you, monthly, before or after tax?

26.       Are you currently suing anyone? If so, who and why?

29.       Do you have any physical or medical condition, impairment or disability? Which? For how long?

31.       Do you have group or private disability insurance?

54.       Are you being reimbursed, in any way, by the "Buckingham Medical Clinic" as well as by HRDC/SDC? Or, by any other party, as an employee or contractor?

56.       Have you ever studied or experienced carpal tunnel syndrome, Scheuermann's Disease, gout, epicondylitis, degenerative disc disease, fibrositis syndrome, obesity or chronic pain? When? How thoroughly?

                                                                                                                                 (Emphasis added)

Dr. Turgeon rightly objected to that part of the question relating to personal experience.

61.       Have you ever taken Tylenol #3 or Emtec or Indomethicine?

107.    Did your wife or anyone else travel with and/or stay with you when you came to Vancouver for the 19 January 2004 PAB hearing?

108.    Did the Canadian government - or HRDC - pay for all your - or your spouse's expenses? What was the total cost?

[10]            In addition to being offensive or sarcastic, not being relevant and unwarranted by the affidavit of Dr. Turgeon, some questions call for an opinion that the witness is not in a position to give. For example, questions 37 to 39 state:

37.       Can any HRDC or SDC employee live comfortably or reasonably on $17,871 per annum in or about Gatineau, Quebec or Ottawa, Ontario?

38.       What is the average income of a Canadian male of Mr. Sudnik's age?

39.       What is the "poverty line" for an adult Canadian male of Mr. Sudnik's age?

I should add that these questions would provide information that was not in the record before the Board.

[11]            The respondent raised serious objections to the questions put by counsel for the applicant. One would have expected counsel for the applicant to take a serious look at his questions and to make a reasonable assessment of the merits of the respondent's objections. Instead, he took a quibbling approach. Many questions were patently unreasonable. Some were abusive. Valuable Court time has been lost. The respondent has incurred significant expenses which need to be compensated. Therefore, I will grant the respondent's motion with costs payable forthwith in the amount of $1,200. I will also grant an extension of time allowing the respondent to serve and file its Record within 20 days after the applicant files its Amended Record. The Order issued will also strike questions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 to 15, 23 to 31, 37 to 39, 43, 45, 51 to 54, the unanswered parts of question 56, questions 59, 61, 65, 68 to 72, 74 to 78, 95, 107 to 110, 112 and 115 from the Written Examination dated June 3, 2004.

                                                                                                                              "Gilles Létourneau"               

                                                                                                                                                      J.A.

                                                  FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

                           NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          A-171-04

STYLE OF CAUSE:                         ROSS GREG SUDNIK v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

                                                                             

MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:         LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

DATED:                                             July 28, 2004

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: