Canada ( Port Advisory Committee, Toronto Port Authority ) v. Pankratz
T-1155-99
Sharlow J.
12/11/99
7 pp.
Application for order requiring Mr. Pereenboom, former Chair of Toronto Harbour Commission, to reattend to answer questions about alleged severance package for Mr. Reid, former general manager-In June 1999, Toronto Harbour Commission replaced with Toronto Port Authority, office of Chair of Toronto Harbour Commission abolished-Governor in Council nominating, appointing several individuals to Board of Directors of new Toronto Port Authority-This application for judicial review challenging such nominations, appointments-Facts relating to alleged severance package not relevant to validity, propriety of challenged nominations, appointments-Crown arguing questions bear on credibility of Reid, Pereenboom-Pereenboom submitting unfair to require him to answer questions to impugn credibility of Reid after Crown passed on opportunity to cross-examine Reid-Relying on Browne v. Dunn (1893), 6 R. 67 (H.L.)-Crown arguing deponent not excused from answering questions going to own credibility, even if question also intended to attack credibility of someone else who has not been cross-examined-Application dismissed-Browne v. Dunn indicating answers obtained on cross-examination of witness cannot be used to attack credibility of another witness without giving that other witness opportunity to defend credibility because not fair way to determine credibility of second witness-In course of trial, such crossexamination would be stopped, not heard at all-Should also be so in judicial review proceedings-Reid principal target of questions-That Pereenboom's credibility may also be tested incidental-Attempt to justify questions as relating to Pereenboom's credibility afterthought-To permit Reid's credibility to be attacked through cross-examination of Pereenboom manifestly unfair to Reid-Questions cannot be justified by marginal chance answers may have some bearing on credibility of Pereenboom.