Date: 19980515
Docket: T-938-95
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Applicant
- and -
JOHANN DUECK
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
NOËL J.:
[1] Counsel for the respondent opposes the production of a photograph of his client which was included in his list of documents. In counsel"s view, the anticipated use of the photograph by the applicant may corrupt the witness identification procedure to be conducted during the taking of evidence in the Ukraine.
[2] It is clear from the authorities adduced by the respondent that the integrity of the identification process is a matter which goes to the probative value of the testimony to be assessed by the Trial Judge on the merits.1 It is also clear that the impact of the identification process on the probative value of the testimony cannot be assessed hypothetically, but by reference to the facts and circumstances surrounding each case and indeed each witness.2
[3] No valid ground having been raised to resist the production of the photograph in question, an order will issue compelling its production forthwith.
Marc Noël
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
May 15, 1998
__________________1 R. v. Dunzer (1924), 18 C.A.R. at p. 147 (as quoted in the respondent"s Memorandum), R . v. Goldhar (1941), 76 C.C.C. 270 at p. 271 (as quoted in the respondent"s Memorandum), Regina v. Opalchuk (1958), 122 C.C.C. 85; R. v. Izzard (1990), 75 C.R. (3d) 342; Regina v. Faryna (1982), 3 C.C.C. (3d) 58; Regina v. Miaponoose (1996), 110 C.C.C. (3d) 445; R. v. Burke (1996), 105 C.C.C. (3d) 205; R. v. Sophonow (1986), 25 C.C.C. (3d) 415.