SUPREME COURT COUR SUPRÊME
OF CANADA DU CANADA
BULLETIN OF BULLETIN DES
PROCEEDINGS PROCÉDURES
This Bulletin is published at the direction of the Registrar and is for general information only. It is not to be used as evidence of its content, which, if required, should be proved by Certificate of the Registrar under the Seal of the Court. While every effort is made to ensure accuracy, no responsibility is assumed for errors or omissions. |
Ce Bulletin, publié sous l'autorité du registraire, ne vise qu'à fournir des renseignements d'ordre général. Il ne peut servir de preuve de son contenu. Celle-ci s'établit par un certificat du registraire donné sous le sceau de la Cour. Rien n'est négligé pour assurer l'exactitude du contenu, mais la Cour décline toute responsabilité pour les erreurs ou omissions. |
Subscriptions may be had at $200 per year, payable in advance, in accordance with the Court tariff. During Court sessions it is usually issued weekly. |
Le prix de l'abonnement, fixé dans le tarif de la Cour, est de 200 $ l'an, payable d'avance. Le Bulletin paraît en principe toutes les semaines pendant les sessions de la Cour. |
The Bulletin, being a factual report of recorded proceedings, is produced in the language of record. Where a judgment has been rendered, requests for copies should be made to the Registrar, with a remittance of $10 for each set of reasons. All remittances should be made payable to the Receiver General for Canada. |
Le Bulletin rassemble les procédures devant la Cour dans la langue du dossier. Quand un arrêt est rendu, on peut se procurer les motifs de jugement en adressant sa demande au registraire, accompagnée de 10 $ par exemplaire. Le paiement doit être fait à l'ordre du Receveur général du Canada. |
February 2, 1996 127 - 150 le 2 février 1996
CONTENTS TABLE DES MATIÈRES
Applications for leave to appeal filed
Applications for leave submitted to Court since last issue
Oral hearing ordered
Oral hearing on applications for leave
Judgments on applications for leave
Motions
Notices of appeal filed since last issue
Notices of intervention filed since last issue
Notices of discontinuance filed since last issue
Appeals heard since last issue and disposition
Pronouncements of appeals reserved
Headnotes of recent judgments
Weekly agenda
Summaries of the cases
Cumulative Index - Leave
Cumulative Index - Appeals
Appeals inscribed - Session beginning
Notices to the Profession and Press Release
Deadlines: Motions before the Court
Deadlines: Appeals
Judgments reported in S.C.R. |
127 - 129
130 - 135
-
-
136 - 139
140 - 141
-
-
-
142 - 146
-
-
147
-
-
-
-
-
148
149
150 |
Demandes d'autorisation d'appel déposées
Demandes soumises à la Cour depuis la dernière parution
Audience ordonnée
Audience sur les demandes d'autorisation
Jugements rendus sur les demandes d'autorisation
Requêtes
Avis d'appel déposés depuis la dernière parution
Avis d'intervention déposés depuis la dernière parution
Avis de désistement déposés depuis la dernière parution
Appels entendus depuis la dernière parution et résultat
Jugements rendus sur les appels en délibéré Sommaires des arrêts récents
Ordre du jour de la semaine
Résumés des affaires
Index cumulatif - Autorisations
Index cumulatif - Appels
Appels inscrits - Session commençant le
Avis aux avocats et communiqué de presse Délais: Requêtes devant la Cour
Délais: Appels
Jugements publiés au R.C.S. |
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FILED |
DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION D'APPEL DÉPOSÉES |
Homefounders Development Joint Venture (86395 Ont. Inc.) et al.
Charles Zubovits
v. (25121)
Michael Piggott et al. (Ont.)
Kenneth T. Rosenberg
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
FILING DATE 24.1.1996
Clarence Maxwell Shorting
Jeffrey F. Harris
Keyser, Harris
v. (25030)
Her Majesty The Queen (Man.)
R. Finlayson
Manitoba Justice
FILING DATE 22.1.1996
Tajdin Esmail
Raj Anand
Scott & Aylen
v. (25095)
Petro-Canada (Ont.)
Susan Adam Metzler
Holden, Day, Wilson
FILING DATE 23.1.1996
Margaret Kaban
Murdoch MacKay, Q.C.
Inkster, Christie, Hughes, MacKay
v. (25108)
Sikhor Nath Sett (Man.)
Helda D. Van Iderstine
Atkins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson
FILING DATE 23.1.1996
Charles F. Gill et al.
Brian Morgan
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt
v. (25109)
ScotiaMcLeod Inc. et al. (Ont.)
Robert S. Russell
Borden & Elliott
FILING DATE 22.1.1996
Mario Hudon et al.
Bernard Bélanger
Laurin, Laplante
c. (25110)
Stephen J. Frishling et al. (Qué.)
Gilles Poulin
Adessky, Poulin
FILING DATE 19.1.1996
Ernst & Young
Joseph W. Mik
Blake, Cassels & Graydon
v. (25111)
ScotiaMcLeod Inc. et al. (Ont.)
Robert S. Russell
Borden & Elliott
FILING DATE 22.1.1996
Rodelio Paraiso et al.
K.M. McCulloch
v. (25112)
Gordon Pauluik (Man.)
John M. Scurfield, Q.C.
Wolch, Pinx, Tapper, Scurfield
FILING DATE 23.1.1996
Canadian Airlines International Ltd.
V. Ross Ellison
Davis & Co.
v. (25113)
Albert Belloni et al. (F.C.A.)
Julius H. Grey
Grey Casgrain
FILING DATE 23.1.1996
Yang Tung Chiu
Malcolm N. Ruby
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
v. (25114)
Kwok Woon Kung (Ont.)
Larry Pick
Bennett Best Burn
FILING DATE 24.1.1996
Aménagement Westcliff Ltée et al.
Élise Poisson
Lavery, de Billy, S.E.N.C.
c. (25115)
Société immobilière du Québec (Qué.)
Roch Maltais
Gilbert Maltais Bergeron & Rondeau
FILING DATE 26.1.1996
La Garantie Compagnie d’Assurance de l’Amérique du Nord
Claude Larose
Lavery, de Billy, S.E.N.C.
c. (25116)
Inter-Cité Construction Ltée et al. (Qué.)
Paul Guimond
Gagnon, Gauthier & Assoc.
FILING DATE 26.1.1996
Matériaux de Construction Lesage Ltée
Nathalie Deshaies
Prévost, Auclair, Fortin & Daoust
c. (25117)
Claude Simon et al. (Qué.)
André Rousseau
Laflamme, Rousseau
FILING DATE 26.1.1996
C.L.S.C. - N.D.G. Montréal-Ouest
Gilles Théorêt
Monette, Barakett, Lévesque, Bourque & Pedneault
c. (25118)
Syndicat des employés du C.L.S.C. - N.D.G. Montréal-Ouest (Qué.)
Pierre Cloutier
Sylvestre, Charbonneau
FILING DATE 26.1.1996
Mike Bertone et al.
Vincent Chiara
Chiara & Assoc.
c. (25119)
Patrick Aboud et al. (Qué.)
Sarto Brisebois
FILING DATE 26.1.1996
Syndicat des employés de la société Asbestos Ltée
Hélène Dubreuil
Sauvé & Roy
c. (25120)
Maurice Rousseau (Qué.)
Gilles Ouellet
Warren Ouellet Ladouceur
FILING DATE 29.1.1996
Gabriel Gladue
Leonard (Tony) Mandamin
Mandamin & Assoc.
v. (25122)
Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.)
FILING DATE 29.1.1996
Her Majesty The Queen
F. Richard Connolly
Min. of the A.G.
v. (25124)
Gordon Stogdale (Ont.)
Brian H. Greenspan
FILING DATE 30.1.1996
Bumper Development Corp. Ltd.
David C. Rolf
Parlee McLaws
v. (25125)
The Union of India et al. (Alta.)
Kenneth J. Warren
Code Hunter Wittman
FILING DATE 31.1.1996
Charles Douglas Stuart Horrey et al.
Gordon R. McKenzie
Bishop & McKenzie
v. (25127)
Joycie Fay Litterst, formerly known as Joycie Fay Horrey (Alta.)
Louise Ares
Ares Kvill Rattan
FILING DATE 29.1.1996
Wilhelm Halwachs et al.
Guy Du Pont
Goodman Phillips & Vineberg
c. (25123)
The Deputy Minister of Revenue of Québec et al. (Qué.)
Jean Groleau
Veillette et assoc.
FILING DATE 29.1.1996
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE
|
DEMANDES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
January 30, 1996 / le 30 janvier 1996
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.
Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Gonthier et Iacobucci
Sa Majesté la Reine
c. (24979)
Sadek Sadek (Crim.)(Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit criminel - Jury - Réponse du juge du procès à une question du jury portant sur le meurtre au premier degré - La Cour d’appel a t-elle erré en droit en considérant la réponse du juge de première instance à une question du jury comme erronée, malgré le fait que la Cour, unanimement, a considéré l’ensemble des directives conformes, voire même "indiscutables"? - La Cour d’appel a t-elle erré en omettant de statuer sur l’application des dispositions curatives de l’article 686(1)b)(iii) du Code criminel et en ne les appliquant pas dans cette cause? - Article 231(5) du Code criminel.
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 17 janvier 1992
Cour supérieure, juridiction criminelle
(Riopel j.c.s.)
Verdict: Intimé reconnu coupable de meurtre au premier degré, séquestration et voies de fait graves
Le 6 octobre 1995
Cour d’appel du Québec
(Vallerand, Baudouin et Robert jj.c.a.)
Appel accueilli; verdict cassé et nouveau procès sur l’accusation de meurtre au premier degré ordonné
Le 3 novembre 1995
Cour suprême du Canada
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée
United State of America
The Honourable Allan Rock
Minister of Justice for Canada
v. (24997)
Arye Dynar (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Extradition - Criminal law - Whether Respondent's conduct would constitute attempt or conspiracy in Canada - Whether an accused can be convicted of attempt when the offence was impossible to commit - Whether an accused can be convicted of conspiracy where the conspiracy was impossible to commit - What does it mean to "know" a fact - What is the scope of the requesting state’s duty of disclosure.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 2, 1994 Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) (Keenan J.) |
Respondent committed for extradition
|
September 29, 1994 Minister of Justice |
Respondent surrendered
|
September 8, 1995 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Galligan, Austin and Laskin JJ.A.) |
Appeal allowed; application for judicial review allowed
|
November 7, 1995 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
December 13, 1995 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to cross-appeal filed |
Her Majesty the Queen
v. (24918)
Fibreco Pulp Inc.; Fibreco Export Inc. (F.C.A.)(B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Taxation - Statutes - Interpretation - The use of administrative practice and Parliamentary debates for interpretation - Income Tax Act s. 127(9).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 28, 1994 Federal Court of Canada Trial Division (Muldoon J.) |
Respondents’ appeal from assessment dated April 3, 1989 allowed; matter referred back to the Minister of National Revenue for redetermination and reassessment of the Respondent’s 1988 taxation year |
June 15, 1995 Federal Court of Appeal (Hugessen, Décary, McDonald JJA) |
Appeal dismissed |
October 16, 1995 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major JJ. /
Les juges La Forest, Cory et Major
Richard Donald Kostiuk
v. (25052)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
- Criminal law - Procedural law - R. v. Bartle, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; R. v. Pozniak, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 310; R. v. Harper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 343; R. v. Matheson, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 328; R. v. Prosper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236 - Effect of Supreme Court of Canada judgment staying recently released decision - Can decisions apply retroactively? - Whether evidence of breathalyzer should have been admitted.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 30, 1995
Provincial Court of Alberta
(Ayotte P.C.J.)
Conviction: driving "over 80"
Acquittal: impaired driving
June 4, 1995
Court of Queen's Bench (Beilby J.)
Summary conviction appeal dismissed
October 16, 1995
Court of Appeal of Alberta
(Lieberman, Belzil and Coté JJ.A.)
Motion for leave to challenge correctness of decision in Lorincz dismissed;
Application for leave to appeal adjourned
October 24, 1995
Court of Appeal of Alberta (Coté J.A.)
Leave to appeal denied
December 27, 1995
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
Arthur Eber Sherman
v. (25008)
Her Majesty The Queen (N.S.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Procedural law - Certiorari - Did the lower courts err in dismissing the application for an order in the nature of certiorari - Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that challenges to the constitutional validity of four sections of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, based on alleged violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which were raised in an application for an order in the nature of certiorari, were premature.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 19, 1995 Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Richard J.) |
Application for an order in the nature of certiorari dismissed |
September 29, 1995 Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (Hallett, Freeman and Flynn JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed |
November 29, 1995 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
William Lasecki
v. (24983)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Offences - Definition of assault and sexual assault - Whether sexual assault committed in circumstances - Applicability of de minimis non curat lex.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 28, 1994 Provincial Court of Alberta (Mackie Prov. J.) |
Acquittal: sexual assault
|
December 22, 1994 Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Veit J.) |
Summary conviction appeal allowed; new trial ordered
|
September 28, 1995 Court of Appeal of Alberta (Fraser C.J.A., Lieberman J.A. and Ritter J. (ad hoc)) |
Leave to appeal granted; Appeal dismissed
|
November 6, 1995 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ. /
Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et McLachlin
Hugh Fraser
v. (25027)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Evidence - Right to silence - Credibility - Applicant not volunteering a statement to police - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that the right to silence is engaged at the time that an individual who subsequently becomes an accused is questioned by the police, such that a trier of fact is not entitled to draw an adverse inference against an accused for exercising the right to silence and not volunteering a statement to police - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to hold that, whether or not the right to silence is engaged, an individual has the right not to volunteer a statement to the police, such that the trier of fact is not entitled to draw an adverse inference against an accused for not volunteering a statement to police - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to hold that the trial judge erred by measuring the credibility of witnesses the use of a three-step "might reasonably be true" test which resulted in a shifting of the burden of proof to the Applicant.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 6, 1994
Ontario Court (General Division) (Valin J.)
Conviction: assault causing bodily harm contrary to s. 267(1)(b) of the Criminal Code
September 5, 1995
Court of Appeal for Ontario
(Lacourciere, Labrosse and Austin JJ.A)
Appeal dismissed
December 6, 1995
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
Odelia Irene Quewezance and
Neressa Lynn Quewezance
v. (25021)
Her Majesty The Queen (Sask.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Evidence - Jury address - Whether it is proper for the trial judge to put the Vetrovec caution to the jury where the evidence of the impugned Crown witness also aids the accused - Whether it is proper to provide the jury with copies of Criminal Code provisions, and if so, whether a warning should be given as to the limited use to be made of them - Whether trial judge’s redirection on definition of murder and manslaughter using layman’s language was proper given that judge’s example of manslaughter was far less violent than offence that occurred.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 4, 1994 Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan (Gunn J.) |
Conviction: second degree murder |
October 4, 1995 Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (Bayda C.J.S. and Cameron and Jackson JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed |
November 24, 1995 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
Ralph Henry Sahrmann
v. (25017)
Jane Jean Otto (B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Family law - Division of property - Divorce - Maintenance -Whether economic disadvantage arising from marriage or its breakdown is properly a support consideration, a property consideration or, subject to avoiding double compensation, both? - What is the appropriate evidentiary foundation for an order aimed at redressing economic disadvantage, or should such an order be the presumptive rule?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 22, 1994
Supreme Court of British Columbia
(Koegnisberg J.)
Respondent awarded custody, spousal and child support and a disproportionate share of family assets
September 26, 1995
Court of Appeal for British Columbia
(Cumming, Wood and Ryan JJ.A.)
Appeal dismissed
November 27, 1995
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
JUDGMENTS ON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE |
JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION |
February 1, 1996 / le 1 février 1996
24950
MULTITECH WAREHOUSE (MANITOBA) DIRECT INC. v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Man.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
- Criminal law - Appeals - Crown's appeal of acquittals on charges under s. 57(2) of Competition Act - Substitution of convictions.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 12, 1991 Provincial Court of Manitoba (Criminal Division) (Lismer Prov. J.) |
Applicant acquitted |
September 28, 1993 Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Clearwater J.) |
Summary conviction appeal allowed |
July 6, 1995 Court of Appeal of Manitoba (Scott C.J.M., Lyon and Kroft JJ.A) |
Appeal dismissed |
October 30, 1995 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
24899 VILLE DE BROSSARD c. SERGE MALO, ET AL
(Qué.)
CORAM: Le Juge en chef et les juges L'Heureux-Dubé et Gonthier
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit du travail - Employeur et employé - Convention collective - Interprétation - L'application d'une disposition d'une convention collective peut-elle être une cause juste et suffisante de congédiement au sens de l'art. 124 de la Loi sur les normes du travail, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. N-1.1? - Le syndicat peut-il renoncer au nom des salariés membres de l'unité de négociation au bénéfice d'une disposition d'ordre public, tel l'art. 124 de la Loi, conformément aux conditions établies par l'arrêt Garcia Transport Ltée c. Compagnie Trust Royal, [1992] 2 R.C.S. 499.
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 7 juillet 1993 Commissaire du travail (Côté-Desbiolles) |
Plaintes pour congédiement sans cause juste et suffisante rejetées |
Le 11 novembre 1993 Cour supérieure du Québec (Lemieux j.c.s.) |
Requête en évocation rejetée |
Le 15 juin 1995 Cour d'appel du Québec (Beauregard, Proulx et Rousseau-Houle jj.c.a.) |
Pourvoi accueilli |
Le 10 octobre 1995 Cour suprême du Canada |
Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée |
25059 John A. Turnbull and Louis Ellement - and - The Canadian Institute of Actuaries and The Investigation Team of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries - and - The Committee on Discipline of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries and the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries
(Man.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.
The application for leave to appeal and application for stay are dismissed with costs.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel et la demande d'arrêt des procédures sont rejetées avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law - Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Injunction - Division of powers - Apprehension of bias - Motion for stay of proceedings - Whether an applicant challenging the jurisdiction of a disciplinary tribunal on the basis of apprehension of bias, conflict of interest, and failure to comply with its own process, has recourse to the courts prior to submitting to the jurisdiction of the tribunal at first instance - Whether, where an administrative tribunal acts without jurisdiction, prerogative relief is precluded by the existence of a right of appeal - Is An Act to incorporate Canadian Institute of Actuaries, S.C. 1964-65, c. 76 ultra vires the Canadian Parliament - Canadian Pacific Limited et al. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 30, 1995 Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba (Oliphant A.C.J.) |
Interlocutory injunction and Order of prohibition granted, prohibiting Respondents from proceeding with disciplinary hearing against Applicants until issues raised in Notice of Application resolved by Court; Order expunging parts of affidavits; Order dismissing Respondents’ motion to strike the Notice of Application |
October 25, 1995 Court of Appeal of Manitoba (Scott C.J.M., Huband, Lyon JJ.A.) |
Appeal allowed; interlocutory injunction and prohibition order dissolved; Notice of Application struck out as premature |
December 27, 1995 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
24803 VICTOR BRIAN OLSON v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF MANITOBA
(Man.)
CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.
The application for an extension of time for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
La demande de prorogation de délai pour une demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law - Judicial review - Procedural law - Law of professions - Barristers and solicitors - Statutes - Interpretation - Applicant found guilty of professional misconduct - When a professional society is given, by statute, the right to make punitive findings against a practising member and when the only redress from such a decision is an appeal to the Court of Appeal, is the Court of Appeal, in exercising its jurisdiction, bound by findings of fact where there is no identifiable evidence to support the findings of fact and when the society and the court have been challenged to identify the evidence of which the findings have allegedly been based and have failed to do so?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 21, 1993 Law Society of Manitoba |
Applicant found guilty of professional misconduct, reprimanded and ordered to pay $750 |
November 1, 1994 Court of Appeal of Manitoba (Scott, C.J.M., Lyon and Kroft, JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed |
April 20, 1995 Court of Appeal of Manitoba (Scott, C.J.M., Lyon and Kroft, JJ.A.) |
Application for reconsideration dismissed |
June 8, 1995 Court of Appeal of Manitoba (Scott, C.J.M., Lyon and Kroft, JJ.A.) |
Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada pursuant to s. 37 of the Supreme Court Act dismissed |
June 28, 1995 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
24765 DERKSEN BROTHERS HOLDINGS LTD., 45075 MANITOBA LTD. and FRANK DERKSEN v. CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE - AND - DERKSEN BROTHERS HOLDINGS LTD. and FRANK DERKSEN v. CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE - AND - CORAL-REEF HOLDINGS LTD. and NORTHMAIN PROPERTIES LTD. v. CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE
(Man.)
CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.
Les demandes d'autorisation d'appel sont rejetées avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural Law - Civil Procedure - Evidence - Summary Judgment - Whether a fiduciary or other special relationship existed between the litigants - Whether the Applicants have a fundamental right to have the merits of their claims heard by a trial judge - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting summary determinations of claims remaining to be litigated between the parties on the grounds of res judicata and issue estoppel - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in making credibility findings without affording the applicants the right to be tried by a trial judge.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 10, 1994 Court of Queen's Bench, Manitoba ( Morse J. ) |
The Coral-Reef action: motion for striking out or dismissing the claims dismissed. The Green Meadows and Northmain actions: motions for summary judgment dismissed. |
March 28, 1995 Manitoba Court of Appeal (Scott C.J.M., Huband and Lyon JJ.A.) |
Appeals allowed: Applicants'claims dismissed in the Coral-Reef action; summary judgments granted in the Green Meadows and Northmain actions and counterclaims struck out. |
Supreme Court of Canada
MOTIONS
REQUÊTES
25.1.1996
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent’s factum
John Robert Verdun
v. (24604)
The Toronto-Dominion Bank (Ont.)
Requête en prorogation du délai de dépôt du mémoire de l’intimée
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
Time extended to January 24, 1996.
25.1.1996
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Miscellaneous motion on appeal accepting appellant’s factum without marginal numbering
Manulife Bank of Canada
v. (24499)
John Joseph Conlin (Ont.)
Autre requête en appel visant à accepter le mémoire de l'appelante sans numérotation dans la marge
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
25.1.1996
Before / Devant: LE REGISTRAIRE
Requête en prorogation du délai de dépôt de la réponse de l’intimé
Century 21 Direct Courtier Inc.
c. (25028)
Michel Mailhot (Qué.)
Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent’s response
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
Délai prorogé au 24 janvier 1996.
25.1.1996
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the applicant’s reply
City of Prince George
v. (24966)
A.L. Sims & Sons Ltd. (B.C.)
Requête en prorogation du délai de dépôt de la réplique de la requérante
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
Time extended to January 18, 1996.
29.1.1996
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent’s response
Yvan Morin
v. (24894)
Her Majesty The Queen (Sask.)
Requête en prorogation du délai de dépôt de la réponse de l’intimée
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
Time extended to March 18, 1996.
APPEALS HEARD SINCE LAST ISSUE AND DISPOSITION |
APPELS ENTENDUS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION ET RÉSULTAT
|
26.1.1996
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
W.W.D.S.
v. (24631)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(N.B.)
J.C. Marc Richard and Christa A. Bourque, for the appellant.
John J. Walsh and Graham J. Sleeth, Q.C., for the respondent.
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Criminal law - Evidence - Charter - Seizures of hair, buccal swabs and tooth impressions - Seizures of tissue from a waste receptacle - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the seizure of the discarded tissue was not done in a manner which infringed or denied the Appellant's rights as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the evidence obtained in a manner which infringed or denied the Appellant's rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should not be excluded pursuant to section 24(2) of the said Charter.
Nature de la cause:
Droit criminel - Preuve - Charte - Saisies de poils, d'écouvillons et d'empreintes dentaires - Saisie de papier hygiénique dans un panier à rebuts - La Cour d'appel à la majorité a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en statuant que la saisie de papier hygiénique jeté aux rebuts n'a pas été faite d'une manière qui violait ou niait les droits de l'appelant garantis par la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés? - La Cour d'appel à la majorité a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en statuant que la preuve obtenue d'une manière qui violait ou niait les droits et libertés de l'appelant garantis par la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ne devrait pas être écartée en application de l'art. 24(2) de la Charte?
26.1.1996
CORAM: Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Major JJ.
Wendel Dewald
v. (24363)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)
Irwin Koziebrocki, for the appellant.
Rick Libman, for the respondent.
SOPINKA J.
(orally for the Court) -- We agree with Arbour J.A. that the delay in demanding an ALERT test in this case was not in compliance with s. 254(2) of the Criminal Code as interpreted in this Court's
LE JUGE SOPINKA
(oralement au nom de la Cour) -- Nous sommes d'accord avec le juge Arbour de la Cour d'appel pour dire que le délai intervenu dans la demande de test ALERT en l'espèce n'était pas
decision in R. v. Bernshaw, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254. As a result, there occurred a breach of the appellant's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
conforme au par. 254(2) du Code criminel, L.R.C. (1985), ch. C-46, selon l'interprétation que la Cour en a donnée dans R. c. Bernshaw, [1995] 1 R.C.S. 254. En conséquence, il y a eu violation des droits garantis à l'appelant par la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés.
In the circumstances, the case of Rilling v. The Queen, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 183 has no application. With respect to s. 24(2), we are of the opinion that in all the circumstances, the admission of the evidence did not render the trial unfair. The breach of the Charter was technical and the police officer acted in good faith. The admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Dans les circonstances, l'arrêt Rilling c. La Reine, [1976] 2 R.C.S. 183, ne s'applique pas. Pour ce qui est du par. 24(2) de la Charte, nous sommes d'avis que, compte tenu de toutes les circonstances, l'utilisation de la preuve n'a pas rendu le procès inéquitable. La violation de la Charte était de pure forme et le policier a agi de bonne foi. L'utilisation n'est pas susceptible de déconsidérer l'administration de la justice.
The appeal is dismissed.
Le pourvoi est rejeté.
29.1.1996
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
Stephen Edward Fitt
v. (24628)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.)
and between
Spyro Kouyas
v. (24513)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.)
Ralph W. Ripley, for the appellants.
Kenneth W.E. Fiske, Q.C. and Peter G. MacKay, for the respondent.
Monique Rousseau et Gilles Laporte, pour l’intervenant le procureur général du Québec.
These appeals come to us as of right. The appeals are dismissed, substantially for the reasons given by Mr. Justice Hallett.
Les présents pourvois, qui nous ont été présentés de plein droit, sont rejetés, essentiellement pour les motifs formulés par le juge Hallett.
30.1.1996
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
Donald Leo R.
v. (24766)
Her Majesty The Queen
and between
Donald George W.
v.
Her Majesty The Queen
and between
Helen Susan R.
v.
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.)
Roger J. Kergoat, for the appellant Donald Leo R.
John D. Hillson, for the appellant Helen Susan R.
Donald L. MacKinnon, for the appellant Donald George W.
Kenneth W. MacKay, Q.C., for the respondent.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
(orally) -- In the case of D.W., the appeal is allowed, and an acquittal is entered. Dissenting, Justices Cory and Iacobucci would have ordered a new trial; Justice L’Heureux-Dubé would dismiss.
LE JUGE EN CHEF
(oralement) -- Dans l’affaire D.W., le pourvoi est accueilli et un verdict d’acquittement est inscrit. Dissidents, les juges Cory et Iacobucci auraient ordonné un nouveau procès, et le juge L’Heureux-Dubé aurait rejeté le pourvoi.
In the case of D.R. and H.R., the appeal is allowed and a new trial is ordered. Dissenting, Justice L’Heureux-Dubé would dismiss.
Dans l’affaire D.R. et H.R., le pourvoi est accueilli et un nouveau procès est ordonné. Dissidente, le juge L’Heureux-Dubé rejetterait le pourvoi.
Reasons to follow.
Motifs à suivre.
31.1.1996
CORAM: La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
Sinnadurai Paramadevan et al.
v. (24325)
Bernard Semelhago (Ont.)
John Swan and Barbra H. Miller, for the appellants.
Martin Scliszizi and Orlando Da Silva, for the respondent.
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Commercial law - Contracts - Damages - Whether a plaintiff can recover more for breach of contract than he would have made had the contract been performed
.
Nature de la cause:
Droit commercial - Contrats - Dommages-intérêts - Relativement à un manquement à un contrat, un plaignant peut-il recouvrer plus que le montant auquel il aurait eu droit s'il y avait eu exécution du contrat?
31.1.1996
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
Her Majesty The Queen
v. (24486)
Norman Rolland Austin (Crim.)(B.C.)
Wendy Rubin, for the appellant.
Christine Birnie, for the respondent.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
(orally) -- We are all of the view, for the reasons of Chief Justice McEachern, to allow this appeal, set aside the Order of the Court of Appeal and restore the trial judge’s order.
LE JUGE EN CHEF
(oralement) -- Pour les raisons exposées par le juge en chef McEachern, nous sommes tous d’avis d’accueillir le présent pourvoi, d’annuler l’ordonnance de la Cour d’appel et de rétablir l’ordonnance du juge du procès.
1.2.1996
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
Prince Rupert Grain Ltd.
v. (24428)
International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, Ship and Dock Foremen, Local 514 et al. (F.C.A.)(B.C.)
R. Alan Francis, for the appellant.
Peter A. Gall, Maryse Tremblay and Andrea Zwack, for the respondent Canadian Labour Relations Board.
Bruce Laughton, for the respondent International Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union.
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Labour law - Administrative law - Judicial review - Certification - Jurisdiction - Interpretation -Application of s. 33 of the Canada Labour Code - International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Ship and
Nature de la cause:
Droit du travail - Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Accréditation - Compétence - Interprétation - Application de l'art. 33 du Code canadien du travail - Rejet par le Conseil canadien des relations du travail de la demande d'accréditation pour un groupe de
Dock Foremen, Local 514, application for certification for a unit of foremen employed by the Appellant dismissed by the Canada Labour Relations Board - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal's finding that the Board could not certify a larger unit without the union's consent deprived the Board from holding that the smaller unit applied for was inappropriate - Whether the Board has the authority to decide that a bargaining unit relating to a single employer is inappropriate and that a multi-employer unit is the appropriate unit?
contremaîtres employés par l'appelante, présentée par le Syndicat international des débardeurs et magasiniers, Ship and Dock Foremen, section locale 514 - La conclusion de la Cour d'appel fédérale que le Conseil ne pouvait accréditer une unité plus grande sans le consentement du syndicat empêchait-elle le Conseil de décider que l'unité plus restreinte proposée n'était pas appropriée? - Le Conseil a-t-il compétence pour décider qu'une unité de négociation relative à un employeur unique n'est pas appropriée et qu'une unité multipatronale l'est?
WEEKLY AGENDA |
ORDRE DU JOUR DE LA SEMAINE
|
AGENDA for the week beginning February 5, 1996.
ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 5 février 1996.
Date of Hearing
/ Case Number and Name/Date d'audition
Numéro et nom de la cause
05/02/96 Motions - Requêtes
NOTE:
This agenda is subject to change. Hearing dates should be confirmed with Process Registry staff at (613) 996-8666.
Cet ordre du jour est sujet à modification. Les dates d'audience devraient être confirmées auprès du personnel du greffe au (613) 996-8666.
DEADLINES: MOTIONS
|
DÉLAIS: REQUÊTES
|
BEFORE THE COURT:
Pursuant to Rule 23.1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, the following deadlines must be met before a motion before the Court can be heard: |
DEVANT LA COUR:
Conformément à l'article 23.1 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada, les délais suivants doivent être respectés pour qu'une requête soit entendue par la Cour: |
|
|
Motion day : February 5, 1996
Service : January 15, 1996 Filing : January 22, 1996 Respondent : January 29, 1996 |
Audience du : 6 février 1996
Signification : 15 janvier 1996 Dépôt : 22 janvier 1996 Intimé : 29 janvier 1996 |
Motion day : March 4, 1996
Service : February 12, 1996 Filing : February 19, 1996 Respondent : February 26, 1996 |
Audience du : 4 mars 1996
Signification : 12 février 1996 Dépôt : 19 février 1996 Intimé : 26 février 1996 |
Motion day : April 1, 1996
Service : March 11, 1996 Filing : March 18, 1996 Respondent : March 25, 1996 |
Audience du : 1er avril 1996
Signification : 11 mars 1996 Dépôt : 18 mars 1996 Intimé : 25 mars 1996
|
DEADLINES: APPEALS
|
DÉLAIS: APPELS |
The session of the Supreme Court of Canada will commence January 22, 1996.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court Act and Rules, the following requirements for filing must be complied with before an appeal will be inscribed and set down for hearing:
Case on appeal must be filed within three months of the filing of the notice of appeal.
Appellant's factum must be filed within four months of the filing of the notice of appeal. For appeals in which the notice of appeal was filed before July 26, 1995, the factum must be filed within five months.
Respondent's factum must be filed within eight weeks of the date of service of the appellant's factum.
Intervener's factum must be filed within four weeks of the date of service of the respondent's factum. For appeals in which the notice of appeal was filed before July 26, 1995, the factum must be filed within two weeks.
The Registrar shall inscribe the appeal for hearing upon the filing of the respondent's factum or after the expiry of the time for filing the respondent's factum
|
La session d'hiver de la Cour suprême du Canada commencera le 22 janvier 1996.
Conformément à la Loi sur la Cour suprême et aux Règles, il faut se conformer aux exigences suivantes avant qu'un appel puisse être inscrit pour audition:
Le dossier d'appel doit être déposé dans les trois mois du dépôt de l'avis d'appel.
Le mémoire de l'appelant doit être déposé dans les quatre mois du dépôt de l'avis d'appel. Pour les appels dont l’avis d’appel a été déposé avant le 26 juillet 1995, le mémoire doit être déposé dans les cinq mois.
Le mémoire de l'intimé doit être déposé dans les huit semaines suivant la signification de celui de l'appelant.
Le mémoire de l'intervenant doit être déposé dans les quatre semaines suivant la signification de celui de l'intimé. Pour les appels dont l’avis d’appel a été déposé avant le 26 juillet 1995, le mémoire doit être déposé dans les deux semaines.
Le registraire inscrit l'appel pour audition après le dépôt du mémoire de l'intimé ou à l'expiration du délai de signification du mémoire de l'intimé.
|
SUPREME COURT REPORTS |
RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS DE LA COUR SUPRÊME
|
THE STYLES OF CAUSE IN THE PRESENT TABLE ARE THE STANDARDIZED STYLES OF CAUSE (AS EXPRESSED UNDER THE "INDEXED AS" ENTRY IN EACH CASE).
|
LES INTITULÉS UTILISÉS DANS CETTE TABLE SONT LES INTITULÉS NORMALISÉS DE LA RUBRIQUE "RÉPERTORIÉ" DANS CHAQUE ARRÊT.
|
Judgments reported in [1995] 3 S.C.R. Part 2
G. (L.) v. B. (G.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 367
G. (L.) v. B. (G.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 370
RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199
|
Jugements publiés dans [1995] 3 R.C.S. partie 2
G. (L.) c. B. (G.), [1995] 3 R.C.S. 367
G. (L.) c. B. (G.), [1995] 3 R.C.S. 370
RJR-MacDonald Inc. c. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 R.C.S. 199 |
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE
CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA
- 1996 -
JANUARY - JANVIER |
||||||
S- D |
M-L |
T-M |
W-M |
T-J |
F-V |
S-S |
H 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
FEBRUARY - FÉVRIER |
||||||
S- D |
M-L |
T-M |
W-M |
T-J |
F-V |
S-S |
1 |
2 |
3 |
||||
4 |
M 5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
MARCH - MARS |
||||||
S- D |
M-L |
T-M |
W-M |
T-J |
F-V |
S-S |
1 |
2 |
|||||
3 |
M 4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
APRIL - AVRIL |
||||||
S- D |
M-L |
T-M |
W-M |
T-J |
F-V |
S-S |
M 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
H 5 |
H 6 |
|
H 7 |
H 8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
MAY - MAI |
||||||
S- D |
M-L |
T-M |
W-M |
T-J |
F-V |
S-S |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|||
5 |
M 6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
H 20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
JUNE - JUIN |
||||||
S- D |
M-L |
T-M |
W-M |
T-J |
F-V |
S-S |
1 |
||||||
2 |
M 3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
Hearing of appeal days:
Journée d’audition de pourvois:
Motion days:
Journées de requêtes:
Holidays:
Congés statutaires: