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. |
|
|
|
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. |
2009
2010 - 2017
-
-
2018 - 2027
2028 - 2030
2031
-
-
2032 - 2037
-
-
2038
-
-
-
-
2039
2040
2041
- |
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 |
Steven Olah
Irwin Koziebrocki
v. (26280)
Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)
Catherine Cooper
A.G. for Ontario
FILING DATE 3.11.1997
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE
|
|
DEMANDES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
NOVEMBER 7, 1997 / LE 7 NOVEMBRE 1997
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and Cory and McLachin JJ. /
Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Cory et McLachlin
v. (26129)
Glen Sebastian Burns and Atif Ahmad Rafay (Crim.)(B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - Extradition - Mobility Rights - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that in the absence of assurances that the requesting state would not seek the death penalty the surrender of the Respondent would violate their rights under s. 6(1) of the Charter - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister failed to properly exercise his discretion in deciding not to seek assurances that the requesting state would not seek the death penalty.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 2, 1996 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Callaghan J.) |
|
Warrant of committal issued |
|
|
|
July 12, 1996 Minister of Justice |
|
Respondents ordered surrendered to authorities of Washington State |
|
|
|
June 30, 1997 British Columbia Court of Appeal (McEachern C.J.B.C., Hollinrake J.A. [dissenting] and Donald J.A.) |
|
Application for judicial review granted |
|
|
|
June 30, 1997 British Columbia Court of Appeal (McEachern C.J.B.C., Hollinrake, Donald JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal from committal dismissed |
|
|
|
September 22, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Glen Sebastian Burns and Atif Ahmad Rafay
v. (26211)
The United States of America (Crim.)(B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - Extradition - Police - Confessions - Whether the extradition judge erred in finding the confessions of the Applicant to be voluntary in law.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 2, 1996 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Callaghan J.) |
|
Warrant of committal issued |
|
|
|
July 12, 1996 Minister of Justice |
|
Respondents ordered surrendered to authorities of Washington State |
|
|
|
June 30, 1997 British Columbia Court of Appeal (McEachern C.J.B.C., Hollinrake J.A. [dissenting] and Donald J.A.) |
|
Application for judicial review granted |
|
|
|
June 30, 1997 British Columbia Court of Appeal (McEachern C.J.B.C., Hollinrake, Donald JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal from committal dismissed |
|
|
|
September 26, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada (Sopinka J.) |
|
Motion for the extension of time granted |
|
|
|
October 20, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Nicholas Yvon Bonamy
v. (26247)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Alta.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Theft - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that it was not suggested that the requisite animus furandi was not made beyond a reasonable doubt - Whether the Court of Appeal erred when qualifying its decision by applying s. 683(1)(g) in the alternative.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 15, 1996 Provincial Court of Alberta (Crowe P.C.J.) |
|
Conviction: Theft over $5,000 |
|
|
|
March 6, 1997 Alberta Court of Appeal (Cote, Russell, Berger JJ.A.) |
|
Conviction appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
May 26, 1997 Alberta Court of Appeal (Cote, Russell, Berger JJ.A.) |
|
Sentence appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
October 2, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada (Lamer C.J., Gonthier, Major JJ.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Application for leave to appeal sentence dismissedOctober 9, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal conviction filed |
|
|
|
Wellington Insurance Company / La Compagnie d’Assurance Wellington
v. (26220)
John Grayson, Joan Costello-Grayson, S.E.E. Electronic Engineering Inc.
and Quantum Marketing International Ltd. (B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Insurance - Contracts - Interpretation - “Advertising injury” - Does coverage for advertising injury in a commercial liability insurance policy afford indemnity when the advertising activity was not the direct and proximate cause of the underlying complaint, but merely contributed to the injury resulting from a copyright and patent infringement - Did the British Columbia Court of Appeal err in asking whether there was a “possibility” that the claim, as pleaded, was within the coverage of the policy rather than determining, on the balance of probabilities, in an objective and retrospective manner, whether the case, as concluded, is within the coverage of the policy?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 1, 1995 British Columbia Supreme Court (Hutchinson J.) |
|
Action dismissed; Respondents’ claims not covered under policy issued by Applicant; Applicant has no obligation to defend |
|
|
|
July 23, 1997 British Columbia Court of Appeal (Esson, Newbury and Braidwood JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed; case remitted to Supreme Court for determination of remaining issues |
|
|
|
September 25, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Bastarache JJ. /
Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache
Suzie Lebel et Jean Morneau, tous deux faisant affaires
sous les nom et raison sociale de Les immeubles L.M. Enr.
c. (25958)
Banque nationale du Canada
et
Noëlla Boisvert, Bernard Morneau et
Jean Boucher, ès qualité d’officier du registre foncier du bureau de
la publicité des droits de la circonscription foncière de Sherbrooke (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit commercial - Banques - Hypothèques - Code civil - Dommages-intérêts - Abus de droit contractuel - Action de l’intimée en dation en paiement accueillie - Demande reconventionnelle des demandeurs en dommages moraux pour abus de droit accueillie en partie - Appel des demandeurs rejeté - Appel incident de l’intimée quant à la demande reconventionnelle accueillie, demande reconventionnelle rejetée - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en refusant d’appliquer les principes de l’arrêt Houle c. Banque Nationale du Canada, [1990] 3 R.C.S. 122, au transport de loyer en matière de convention de prêt hypothécaire?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 1er novembre 1994 Cour supérieure du Québec (Péloquin J.C.S.) |
|
Action de l’intimée en dation en paiement accueillie; demande reconventionnelle des demandeurs accueillie en partie |
|
|
|
Le 12 février 1997 Cour d’appel du Québec (Beauregard et Baudoin JJ.C.A. et Zerbisias J.C.A. [ad hoc]) |
|
Appel des demandeurs rejeté, appel incident de l’intimée accueilli et demande reconventionnelle rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 7 mai 1997 Cour suprême du Canada (Sopinka J.) |
|
Requête en prorogation de délai jusqu’au 13 juin 1997 pour déposer la demande d’autorisation accordée |
|
|
|
Le 13 juin 1997 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
Donald C. Loiselle
c. (26070)
Société Canada Trust (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit du travail - Employeur et employé - Association - Contrats - Dommages-intérêts - Refus du demandeur, agent d’immeuble, de signer le contrat d’emploi préparé par l’intimée au motif que certaines clauses lui paraissent abusives - Intimée mettant fin à leur association - Action du demandeur intentée contre l’intimée lui réclamant une indemnité à titre de délai congé, des commissions non payées et des dommages-intérêts - Action rejetée par la Cour supérieure et la Cour d’appel.
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 29 avril 1992 Cour supérieure du Québec (Vaillancourt j.c.s.) |
|
Action du demandeur rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 17 avril 1997 Cour d’appel du Québec (Tourigny, Rousseau-Houle et Deschamps jj.c.a.) |
|
Appel rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 16 juin 1997 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
Donald C. Loiselle
c. (26105)
Sa Majesté la Reine (C.A.F.)(Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Procédure - Appel - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle erré en rejetant la requête du demandeur visant à obtenir la nomination d’un procureur?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 18 décembre 1996
Cour fédérale du Canada, section
de première instance (Denault j.)
Requête de l’intimée visant à faire radier la déclaration du demandeur au motif qu’elle ne révèle aucune cause raisonnable d’action accueillie; action du demandeur rejetée
Le 5 mai 1997
Cour d’appel fédérale (Décary j.c.a.)
Requête du demandeur visant la nomination d’office d’un procureur compétent et intègre pour le représenter rejetée
Le 2 juillet 1997
Cour suprême du Canada
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée
Yvette de L’Isle
v. (26190)
La succession de feu Jochem Carton and Notrac Investments Limited (Qué.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Civil Code - Commercial law - Contracts - Creditor & debtor - Partnership - Unjust enrichment - Property law - Estates - Family law - Should a woman involved in a quasi-matrimonial relationship be without any recourse at the end of such relationship? - Does public policy support that a quasi-matrimonial relationship give rise to an enforceable obligation? - Once an undertaking or promise of compensation is legally proven in a court of law, does the nature of the personal relationship make the undertaking unenforceable? - Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the Applicant had no legal remedy to enforce her claim? - Do the theories of unconscionability, unjust enrichment or equity apply to quasi-matrimonial relationships?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
September 30, 1993 Québec Superior Court (Tingley J.) |
|
Applicant’s claim allowed in part; Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $162,450 |
|
|
|
June 16, 1997 Québec Court of Appeal (Beauregard, Rousseau-Houle, Zerbisias JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed; Applicant’s action dismissed |
|
|
|
September 12, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
|
|
|
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
|
|
CORAM: Sopinka, Iacobucci and Major JJ. /
Les juges Sopinka, Iacobucci et Major
Her Majesty the Queen
v. (26064)
Nova Corporation of Alberta (F.C.A.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Taxation - Assessment - Use of rollover provisions of the Income Tax Act to move unrealized capital losses between arm’s length corporations through changes of corporate control - Whether transactions unduly or artificially reduced income.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 8, 1995
Tax Court of Canada (Bell J.)
Appeal of 1985 taxation year assessment allowed
May 1, 1997
Federal Court of Appeal
(Marceau, McDonald and Desjardins JJ.A.)
Appeal dismissed
July 24, 1997
Supreme Court of Canada (Cory J.)
Extension of time for leave to appeal granted
September 22, 1997
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
Carousel Travel 1982 Inc.
v. (26162)
Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.)
AND BETWEEN:
Central Supply Company (1972) Limited
v. (26164)
Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Taxation - Assessment - Short term purchases of partnership units to flow cumulative Canadian exploration expenses through to purchasers as deductions from income - Whether transactions unduly or artificially reduced income of purchasers.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 1, 1995 Tax Court of Canada (Bell J.) |
|
Appeals of 1987 taxation year assessments allowed |
|
|
|
June 2, 1997 Federal Court of Appeal (Strayer, Linden and McDonald JJ.A.) |
|
Appeals allowed |
|
|
|
August 29, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Applications for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
ROBERT LOVELACE, on his own behalf and on behalf of the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation and Allies, the ARDOCH ALGONQUIN FIRST NATION AND ALLIES, and CHIEF KRIS NAHRGANG, on behalf of Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation, the KAWARTHA NISHNAWBE FIRST NATION, CHIEF ROY MEANISS on his own behalf and on behalf of the Beaverhouse First Nation, and the BEAVERHOUSE FIRST NATION, CHIEF THERON MCCRADY on his own behalf and on behalf of the POPLAR POINT OJIBWAY FIRST NATION, and the BONNECHERE MÉTIS ASSOCIATION
- and -
BE-WAB-BON MÉTIS AND NON-STATUS INDIAN ASSOCIATION and ONTARIO MÉTIS ABORIGINAL ASSOCIATION
v. (26165)
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO and THE CHIEFS OF ONTARIO (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Constitutional law - Canadian Charter - Civil - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Section 15 - Indians - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the agreement between Ontario and Ontario’s Indian Bands registered pursuant to the Indian Act to develop the Casino Rama project does not discriminate against the Applicants who were excluded from negotiations and participation in the project - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that Ontario’s decision not to include the Applicants in the Casino Rama project does not violate s.91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 23, 1996 Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) (Cosgrove J.) |
|
Applicants’ application allowed |
|
|
|
June 5, 1997 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Finlayson, Labrosse and Laskin JJ.A.) |
|
Respondents’ appeal allowed |
|
|
|
September 2, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -- REHEARING /
DEMANDE DE RÉEXAMEN -- NOUVELLE AUDITION
CORAM: Gonthier, Major and Bastarache JJ. /
Les juges Gonthier, Major et Bastarache
Bara Academy of Business Sciences Ltd. et al. v. Her Majesty The Queen in right of Alberta et al. (Alta.)(26036)
Bara Academy of Business Sciences Ltd. et al. v. Her Majesty The Queen in right of Alberta et al. (Alta.)(26037)
JUDGMENTS ON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE |
|
JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION |
NOVEMBER 13, 1997 / LE 13 NOVEMBRE 1997
26076 W. LEE HUCK - v. - KOMOL PLASTICS CO. LTD. (B.C.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Cory and McLachlin JJ.
The application for extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural law - Arbitration - Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in determining that the Applicant did not have the right to a new arbitration hearing, on grounds of breach of rules of natural justice, bias, and fundamental denial to be heard.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 28, 1995 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Fisher J.) |
|
Applicant’s petition for removal of arbitrator and to have set aside arbitrator’s award dismissed |
|
|
|
June 28, 1996 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Hall J.) |
|
Applicant’s further petition dismissed |
|
|
|
March 19, 1997 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Hollinrake, Huddart and Braidwood JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal quashed as being manifestly without merit |
|
|
|
June 9, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
26229 M.S. - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(B.C.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Cory and McLachlin 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 - Applicant applying for habeas corpus following conviction while appeal was pending - Whether Supreme Court of British Columbia is a court of competent jurisdiction, to hear and decide the application for relief under s. 10(c) of the Charter by an individual who is in custody in violation of ss. 7, 9, 11(d) and (f) of the Charter - Whether the Court of Appeal should have sat as five to reconsider its decision in the conviction appeal on the question of ineligible juror - Whether the principle of res judicata applies given delay - Whether habeas corpus should be denied simply because the applicant has meanwhile been released from prison but is still subject to statutory restraints on his liberty until warrant expiry on March 16, 1999 -Whether the applicant’s constitutional and statutory rights to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal, a jury, was violated rendering the trial court coram non judice.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 15, 1994 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Meredith J.) |
|
Conviction: incest |
|
|
|
November 22, 1996 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Southin, Legg and Donald JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
March 6, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada (Lamer C.J.C., and Cory and McLachlin JJ.) |
|
Application for leave dismissed |
|
|
|
April 28, 1997 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Grist J.) |
|
Application for writ of habeas corpus dismissed |
|
|
|
August 15, 1997 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Ryan, Braidwood and Hall JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
September 26, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
26196 GILBERT TERRY GENAILLE - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Man.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Cory and McLachlin 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 - Right to remain silent - Whether s. 7 or s. 11(c) of the Charter require the authorities to advise an arrestee of his or her constitutional right to remain silent and if so what words must be used or ideas conveyed in informing the arrestee of this right.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 21, 1996
Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench (Clearwater J.)
Conviction: Armed robbery and wearing a disguise
June 19, 1997
Manitoba Court of Appeal
(Philp, Helper, Monnin JJ.A.)
Appeal dismissed
September 18, 1997
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
26159 STEWART LESTER EGGLESTON - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(B.C.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Cory and McLachlin JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Defences - Self-defence - Whether the trial judge correctly charged the jury with respect to the defence of self-defence - Whether the trial judge erred in charging the jury on s. 41 of the Criminal Code (defence of house or real property) - Whether the trial judge erred in charging the jury on the Liquor Control and Licensing Act - Assignment of counsel - Whether the Applicant should have legal assistance with respect to his application for leave to appeal and any subsequent appeal.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
March 20, 1996 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Drossos J.) |
|
Conviction: aggravated assault |
|
|
|
May 8, 1997 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Huddart, Braidwood and Hall JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
August 28, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
26077 TOD MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT LTD. - v. - BRUCE DEILDAL (B.C.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Cory and McLachlin JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Labour law - Commercial law - Contracts - Damages - Wrongful dismissal - Can an employee recover damages for an increased notice entitlement or aggravated damages in a wrongful dismissal case where the loss complained of flows from statements made by the employer well after the employee is terminated? - Can an employee recover damages for loss of reputation in a wrongful dismissal case, under the rubric of an increased notice entitlement or aggravated damages? - Vorvis v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1085.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 4, 1995 Supreme Court of British Columbia Hood J. |
|
|
|
|
|
Respondent awarded damages in lieu of 15 months’ notice for wrongful dismissal, damages for slander and aggravated damages; or, alternatively, damages in lieu of an extended notice period of 33 months April 10, 1997 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Gibbs, Finch, Braidwood JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
June 9, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
26160 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF LANGLEY - v. - T & T MUSHROOM FARM LTD. AND THE COALITION OF CONCERNED CITIZENS OF LANGLEY (B.C.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Cory and McLachlin JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Municipal law - Zoning by-law - Property law - Whether the Court of Appeal must specifically find palpable and overriding error before allowing an appeal based on findings of fact - Where a court is to determine a question of a permitted use under a municipality’s zoning by-law, may that court review practices outside the municipality - If regulations made pursuant to provincial legislation conflict with validly enacted zoning by-laws, which is to take precedence?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 12, 1996 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Harvey J.) |
|
Respondent T & T Mushroom Farm Ltd.’s petition for judicial review and other orders dismissed |
|
|
|
June 9, 1997 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Hollinrake, Braidwood and Cumming JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed |
|
|
|
September 2, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
26099 BUDDY LEE v. THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION and THE BRITISH COLUMBIA MARITIME EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION (F.C.A.)(B.C.)
CORAM: L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and Iacobucci JJ.
The application for an oral hearing and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.
La demande pour une audition et la demande d'autorisation d'appel sont rejetées avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Evidence - Whether impressionistic evidence was relied upon to prove a bona fide occupational requirement - Whether Guidelines issued under section 27(2) of the Canadian Human Rights Act were revoked retroactively or could have been relied upon in the absence of a reference to the Guidelines in a Notice of Appeal - Whether the use of the word “misfit” was discriminatory.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 13, 1996 Federal Court, Trial Division (Muldoon J.) |
|
Application for judicial review dismissed |
|
|
|
April 24, 1997 Federal Court of Appeal (Strayer, MacGuigan and McDonald JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
June 24, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
26153 THOMAS WILLIAM ZEGIL v. DIANE CAROL OPIE (Ont.)
CORAM: L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Bastarache JJ.
The application for leave to appeal and the application for leave to cross-appeal are dismissed with costs.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel et la demande d’autorisation d’appel incident sont rejetées avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Property law - Real property - Remedies - Gift of one-half interest in real property held as joint tenants - Change in donor’s intention - Subsequent enhancement of real property by donor - What is the effect of the change of intention on completion of a gift - What is the effect of the change of intention on the availability of equitable relief in relation to real property transferred by way of gift - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider the donor’s lack of intent to enhance the gift or the incomplete nature of the gift - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in characterizing the Respondent’s interest in the real property - Whether the Court of Appeal failed to apply or improperly applied principles of equitable relief or unjust enrichment in refusing the Applicant a remedy against the claim to a one-half interest in the real property.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 29, 1994 and December 18, 1995 Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) (Kurisko J.) |
|
Declaration that the Respondent has a half interest in certain lands subject to a lien in favour of the Applicant for enhancements; support order under Family Law Act denied |
|
|
|
May 23, 1997 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Robins, Charron and Moldaver JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed in part |
|
|
|
August 22, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
26142 P.H.D.L. HOLDINGS LIMITED, PAUL LARKIN, CAVENDISH MARINA & BEACH RESORT INC., DALE C. LARKIN, LORNA LARKIN, CHEZ YVONNE LTD., and LINDA LARKIN v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (F.C.A.)(P.E.I.)
CORAM: L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Bastarache JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Standard of Review - Application of Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v. Southam Inc., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748 - Whether appellate court erred by not applying appropriate standard of review.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 7, 1994 Tax Court of Canada (Garon J.) |
|
Appeals dismissed |
|
|
|
May 5, 1997
Federal Court of Appeal
(Isaac C.J., Stone and MacDonald JJ.A.)
Application for judicial review dismissed
August 6, 1997
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
25904 LÉGER DUCHESNE c. JEAN GIASSON (Qué.)
CORAM: Les juges L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.
The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit municipal - Municipalités - Contrats - Preuve - Adjudication d’un contrat par voie de soumissions publiques - Travaux supplémentaires exécutés sur l’ordre du demandeur, maire de la municipalité - Le demandeur a-t-il contrevenu à l’art. 935 du Code municipal du Québec, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. C-27.1? - Le juge Beauregard de la Cour d’appel a-t-il erré en substituant son opinion à celle du juge de première instance relativement à la crédibilité des témoins? - Le juge Nuss de la Cour d’appel a-t-il erré en interprétant les conditions donnant ouverture à une déclaration d’inhabilité à exercer une charge municipale en vertu de l’art. 935? - Dans l’affirmative, ces erreurs ont-elles eu pour effet de porter atteinte irrégulièrement au droit du demandeur de continuer à exercer la charge de maire?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 13 décembre 1994 Cour supérieure du Québec (Trudel j.c.s.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Requête en quo warranto accueillie; demandeur déclaré inhabile à exercer une charge municipale pendant deux ansLe 4 février 1997 Cour d’appel du Québec (Beauregard, Proulx [dissident] et Nuss jj.c.a) |
|
Appel rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 27 mars 1997 Cour d’appel du Québec (Nuss j.c.a.) |
|
Requête en sursis d’exécution accordée jusqu’à ce que la Cour suprême se soit prononcée sur la demande d’autorisation |
|
|
|
Le 11 avril 1997 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel et requête en prorogation de délai déposées |
|
|
|
26145 MARILYN WILLIAMS c. SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE (Crim.)(Qué.)
CORAM: Les juges L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit criminel - Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - Police - Preuve - La Cour d’appel a erré en droit en concluant que l’initiation et la commission d’actes indécents par la police ne déconsidèrent pas l’administration de la justice de manière à ordonner un arrêt des procédures à l’encontre des personnes qui furent arrêtées en tout ou en partie conséquemment à l’initiation et à la commission des actes indécents par la police - La Cour du Québec a erré en droit en concluant que l’intérêt public est servi en tolérant l’initiation et la commission d’actes indécents par des policiers au cours d’enquêtes servant à identifier des maisons de débauche - La Cour du Québec a erré en droit en statuant que la commission de ces actes illégaux et indécents par les policiers ne constitue pas une violation des droits de l’accusé protégés par les articles 7 et 11 d) de la Charte, même si le comportement des policiers ne constitue pas de la provocation policière traditionnelle telle qu’énoncé par cette Cour dans R. c. Mack et R. c. Barnes.
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 16 septembre 1993 Cour municipale de Laval (Pierre Lalande j.c.) |
|
Arrêt des procédures ordonné à cause de l’abus policier |
|
|
|
Le 12 septembre 1994 Cour supérieure du Québec (Downs j.) |
|
Appel accueilli; accusée trouvée coupable; dossier retourné en première instance pour imposer une sentence |
|
|
|
Le 14 mai 1997 Cour d’appel du Québec (Beauregard, Otis et Zerbisias [ad hoc] jj.c.a.) |
|
Appel rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 13 août 1997 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
26149 MICHAEL JOHN MERCURY v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF MANITOBA (Man.)
CORAM: Sopinka, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Municipal law - Expropriation - Assessment - Statutes - Interpretation - Whether the Court of Appeal misapplied the “palpable and overriding error” test with respect to findings of fact made by the trial judge - Whether section 27(2)(b) of the Expropriation Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. E190 prevent a trier of fact from taking into account the advantages or disadvantages to the expropriated property resulting from prior expropriations of other properties in the area?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 24, 1995 Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba (Mykle J.) |
|
Compensation for lands expropriated pursuant to the Expropriation Act allowed in the amount of $600,000 |
|
|
|
May 27, 1997 Court of Appeal of Manitoba (Scott C.J.M., Philp and Lyon JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal on quantum allowed; land valued at $375,000 |
|
|
|
August 20, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
26127 EDDIE MCDOWALL v. TAMARA TERRY-ANNE SHOWDRA AND SYLVIA KIESSLING (Ont.)
CORAM: Sopinka, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
The application for extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed without costs.
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée sans dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Torts - Motor vehicles - Damages - Loss of income - Respondent admitting liability for motor vehicle accident - Applicant representing self at jury trial and consenting to abandon action against Respondent, Kiessling, and to limit claim for damages to Applicant’s alleged financial loss flowing from two year delay in marketing of compact disk as a result of injuries sustained in accident - Jury concluding that Respondent suffered no financial loss as a result of the marketing delay -Procedural law - Trial - Applicant appealing dismissal of action on grounds that trial judge failed to adequately protect his interests by not advising jury of offer to settle, Respondent’s liability and loss of income - Whether trial judge erred in advising jury of monetary amount of the Applicant’s claim - Whether Applicant abandoned his right to argue other heads of damage - Whether Court of Appeal properly considered discussion concerning acceptance or rejection of offer to settle.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 28, 1995
Ontario Court (General Division) (Webber J.) |
|
Action dismissed |
|
|
|
March 24, 1997 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Robins, Doherty and Austin JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
April 10, 1997 Court of Appeal for Ontario |
|
Motion for stay of proceedings dismissed
|
|
|
|
June 2, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
26096 DR. FELIX RAVIKOVICH v. THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO (Ont.)
CORAM: Sopinka, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law - Judicial review - Physicians and surgeons - Professional misconduct - Whether the Divisional Court applied the proper standard for judicial review - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in refusing to grant leave to appeal when it upheld the decision of the Discipline Committee that an error of judgment was equivalent to professional misconduct.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 22, 1996
Ontario Court of Justice (Divisional Court)
(O’Brien, Then, Winkler JJ.)
Applicant’s appeal from the Discipline Committee’s decision and penalty dismissed
November 4, 1996
Ontario Court of Appeal (Moldaver J.A.)
Applicant’s motion dismissed
January 28, 1997
Ontario Court of Appeal (Goudge J.A.)
Applicant’s motion dismissed
March 4, 1997
Ontario Court of Appeal
(Robins, Labrosse, Doherty JJ.A.)
Applicant’s motions dismissed
April 22, 1997
Ontario Court of Appeal
(Rosenberg, Southey JJ.A., McMurtry C.J.)
Applicant’s motion for leave to appeal dismissed
June 20, 1997
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
MOTIONS |
|
REQUÊTES
|
7.11.1997
Before / Devant: L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ J.
Motion to extend the time in which to apply for leave
Steven Olah
v. (26280)
Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)
Requête en prorogation du délai pour obtenir l'autorisation d'appel
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to November 3, 1997.
10.11.1997
Before / Devant: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER
Motion to extend the time for leave to intervene
BY/PAR: Attorney General of Manitoba
IN/DANS: Joseph Ronald Winko
v. (25856)
The Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute et al. (B.C.)
and
Gordon Wayne Bese
v. (25855)
The Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute et al. (B.C.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour obtenir l’autorisation d’intervenir
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to October 28, 1997.
10.11.1997
Before / Devant: L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ J.
Motion to extend the time in which to apply for leave to appeal
J. Juniour
v. (26282)
Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour obtenir l'autorisation d'appel
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to January 12, 1997.
12.11.1997
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondents’ response
Corporation of the Town of Wasaga Beach
v. (26102)
Murray M. Sinclair et al. (Ont.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer la réponse des intimés
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to October 31, 1997.
12.11.1997
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the factum of an intervener
BC Gas Utility Ltd.
v. (25259)
West Coast Energy Inc. (B.C.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire d’un intervenant
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to November 3, 1997.
12.11.1997
Before / Devant: L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ J.
Motion to extend the time in which to apply for leave to appeal
Canadian Mobile Sign Association et al.
v. (26277)
Corporation of the City of Burlington et al. (Ont.)
Requête en prorogation du délai pour obtenir l’autorisation d’appel
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to December 5, 1997.
12.11.1997
Before / Devant: LE JUGE L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ
Motion for leave to intervene
BY/PAR: Olymel, Société en commandite
IN/DANS: 2903113 Canada Inc.
c. (26256)
La Régie des marchés agricoles et alimentaires du Québec (Qué.)
Requête en autorisation d’intervention
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
|
AVIS D’APPEL DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
7.11.1997
M.J.B. Enterprises Ltd.
v. (25975)
Defence Construction (1951) Ltd. et al. (Alta.)
12.11.1997
Florent Des Champs
c. (25898)
Conseil des écoles séparées catholiques de langue française de Prescott-Russell et al. (Ont.)
12.11.1997
Alfred Abouchar
c. (25899)
Conseil scolaire de langue française d’Ottawa-Carleton - Section publique et al. (Ont.)
12.11.1997
Donald John Marshall, Jr.
v. (26014)
Her Majesty The Queen (N.S.)
12.11.1997
Royal Bank of Canada
v. (26081)
W. Got & Associates Electric Ltd. et al. (Alta.)
12.11.1997
Gail Taylor-Jacobi et al.
v. (26041)
Boys’ and Girls’ Club of Vernon et al. (Ont.)
12.11.1997
Sail Labrador Ltd.
v. (26083)
The Owners, Navimar Corp. Ltee and all others interested in the Ship “Challenge One” (F.C.A.)
12.11.1997
Attorney General of Canada
v. (25944)
Canadianoxy Chemicals Ltd. et al. (B.C.)
12.11.1997
Vincent Godoy
v. (26078)
Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)
AS OF RIGHT
12.11.1997
Gaétan Delisle
v. (25926)
The Attorney General of Canada (Qué.)
AS OF RIGHT / DE PLEIN DROIT
APPEALS HEARD SINCE LAST ISSUE AND DISPOSITION |
|
APPELS ENTENDUS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION ET RÉSULTAT
|
6.11.1997
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache JJ.
Nelson M. Skalbania
v. (25539)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.)
Leonard T. Doust, Q.C. and Peter Leask, Q.C., for the appellant.
Teresa R. Mitchell-Banks, for the respondent.
Robert Frater and Chantal Proulx, for the intervenr the A.G. of Canada.
M. David Lepofsky, for the intervener the A.G. of Ontario.
Jacques Gauvin, pour l’intervenant le procureur général du Québec.
No one appearing for the intervener the A.G. of Alberta.
McLACHLIN J. (orally for the Court) -- We would all dismiss the appeal.
The appellant raises four issues.
LE JUGE McLACHLIN (oralement au nom de la Cour) -- Nous sommes tous d’avis de rejeter l’appel.
L’appelant a soulevé quatre questions.
The first issue is whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. The appellant argues that the trial judge’s conclusion that he lacked the intention (or mens rea) required for the offence is a finding of fact. Since appeals lie only on questions of law, it follows, he argues, that there can be no appeal from his acquittal by the trial judge.
La première question est de savoir si la Cour d’appel avait compétence pour entendre l’appel en l’espèce. L’appelant fait valoir que la conclusion du juge du procès selon laquelle il n’avait pas l’intention (ou mens rea) requise pour commettre l’infraction est une conclusion de fait. Vu que les appels ne peuvent porter que sur une question de droit, il s’ensuit, selon lui, que son acquittement par le juge du procès ne peut pas faire l’objet d’un appel.
This argument fails on the ground that the issue raised in the Court of Appeal (and this Court) was not a question of fact, but an issue of law: namely what mental state or mens rea suffices to establish guilt under s. 332(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46. The issue is whether the trial judge erred in law in holding that to convict there must be “an intent to steal”, and consequently in acquitting the appellant.
Cet argument échoue pour le motif que la question soulevée en Cour d’appel (et devant notre Cour) était non pas une question de fait, mais une question de droit: il s’agissait de savoir quel élément moral ou mens rea suffit pour établir la culpabilité en vertu du par. 332(1) du Code criminel, L.R.C. (1985), ch. C-46. La question est de savoir si le juge du procès a commis une erreur de droit en statuant que, pour prononcer une déclaration de culpabilité, il doit y avoir [traduction] «une intention de voler», et par conséquent, en acquittant l’appelant.
It follows that the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Il s’ensuit que la Cour d’appel avait compétence pour entendre l’appel.
The second issue concerns the mens rea required for conviction under s. 332(1). We agree with Rowles J.A. in the British Columbia Court of Appeal that an intentional misappropriation, without mistake, suffices to establish mens rea under s. 332(1): see Lafrance v. The Queen, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 201; R. v. Williams, [1953] 1 Q.B. 660 (C.A.). The word “fraudulently”, as used in this section, connotes no more than this. The dishonesty inherent in the offence lies in the intentional and unmistaken application of funds to an improper purpose.
We also agree with Rowles J.A. that the findings of fact of the trial judge establish both the actus reus and mens rea of the offence. The actus reus is not in issue. On mens rea, the trial judge concluded:
La deuxième question concerne la mens rea requise pour prononcer une déclaration de culpabilité en vertu du par. 332(1). Nous sommes d’accord avec le juge Rowles de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie-Britannique pour dire qu’un détournement intentionnel, et non par erreur, est suffisant pour établir la mens rea requise en vertu du par. 332(1): voir Lafrance c. La Reine, [1975] 2 R.C.S. 201; R. c. Williams, [1953] 1 Q.B. 660 (C.A.). Le mot «frauduleusement» utilisé dans ce paragraphe ne connote rien de plus La malhonnêteté inhérente à l’infraction réside dans l’affectation intentionnelle, et non par erreur, de fonds à une fin irrégulière.
Nous sommes également d’accord avec le juge Rowles pour dire que les conclusions de fait du juge du procès établissent l’existence à la fois de l’actus reus et de la mens rea de l’infraction. L’actus reus n’est pas en cause. Quant à la mens rea, le juge du procès a conclu ceci:
I find that Mr. Skalbania was at all material times the controlling mind of Prime Realty Limited, to whom Mr. Gooch’s cheque was paid. I find that Mr. Skalbania through Prime Realty applied Gooch’s money for a purpose other than that directed by Mr. Gooch.
In short, the trial judge found: that the appellant knew that the money belonged to Mr. Gooch; that the appellant knew the purpose to which the money was supposed to be applied; and that the appellant knowingly, without mistake, applied the money to different purposes.
[traduction] Je conclus que M. Skalbania était, à toute époque pertinente, l’âme dirigeante de Prime Realty Limited, à qui le chèque de M. Gooch a été versé. Je conclus que M. Skalbania a, par l’intermédiaire de Prime Realty, affecté l’argent de Gooch à une autre fin que celle prescrite par ce dernier.
Bref, le juge du procès a conclu que l’appelant savait que l’argent appartenait à M. Gooch, que l’appelant savait à quelle fin l’argent était censé être affecté, et que l’appelant a sciemment, et non par erreur, affecté cet argent à d’autres fins.
It follows that the Court of Appeal did not err in concluding that the elements required for conviction were established.
Il s’ensuit que la Cour d’appel n’a commis aucune erreur en statuant que l’existence des éléments nécessaires pour prononcer une déclaration de culpabilité avait été établie.
The third issue is whether s. 686(4)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Code, which permits a Court of Appeal to substitute a guilty verdict for an acquittal on a trial by a judge sitting alone, but not on a trial by a judge and jury, is unconstitutional.
La troisième question soulevée a trait à la constitutionnalité du sous-al. 686(4)b)(ii) du Code criminel, qui permet à une cour d’appel de substituer un verdict de culpabilité à l’acquittement prononcé à la suite d’un procès devant un juge seul, mais non à la suite d’un procès devant un juge et un jury.
The appellant argues that s. 686(4)(b)(ii) violates the s. 7 Charter right not to be deprived of one’s liberty except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for two related reasons: (1) that permitting the substitution of a conviction in cases where the trial was by judge alone but not where it was by judge and jury, is arbitrary; and (2) that this is contrary to the alleged principle of fundamental justice that criminal proceedings must be consistent.
L’appelant soutient que le sous-al. 686(4)b)(ii) viole le droit, garanti par l’art. 7 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, de n’être privé de liberté qu’en conformité avec les principes de justice fondamentale, et ce, pour deux raisons connexes: (1) parce qu’il est arbitraire de permettre la substitution d’un verdict de culpabilité dans les cas où le procès s’est déroulé devant un juge seul, mais non dans ceux où il s’est déroulé devant un juge et un jury, et (2), parce que cela est contraire au principe de justice fondamentale qui prescrirait la cohérence des procédures criminelles.
In our view, the impugned distinction is neither arbitrary nor inconsistent and does not trammel the s. 7 guarantee of fair process.
There is a distinction between trial by judge alone and trial by judge and jury that justifies the different procedures. Judges sitting alone give reasons that can be examined for findings of fact and errors of law. Juries, by contrast, do not give reasons. It cannot, therefore, be known if the jury has made the findings of fact necessary to support a conviction. For this reason, the Court of Appeal cannot substitute a conviction for the acquittal and a new trial must be held.
We conclude that s. 686(4)(b)(ii) does not violate s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The final issue raised by the appellant is whether he was entitled to be sentenced by the judge who presided at trial. Since that judge had retired at the time of the Court of Appeal’s decision, sentence was passed by a new judge.
À notre avis, la distinction contestée n’est ni arbitraire ni incohérente et n’entrave pas la garantie d’équité procédurale prévue à l’art. 7.
Il y a, entre le procès devant un juge seul et le procès devant un juge et un jury, une différence qui justifie les différentes procédures. Les juges siégeant seuls exposent des motifs que l’on peut examiner pour trouver des conclusions de fait ou des erreurs de droit. Par contre, les jurys n’exposent aucun motif. Il est donc impossible de savoir si le jury a tiré les conclusions de fait nécessaires pour justifier une déclaration de culpabilité. Pour cette raison, la Cour d’appel ne saurait substituer une déclaration de culpabilité à l’acquittement et un nouveau procès doit être tenu.
Nous concluons que le sous-al. 686(4)b)(ii) ne viole pas l’art. 7 de la Charte.
La dernière question soulevée par l’appelant est de savoir s’il avait droit à la détermination de sa peine par le juge qui a présidé le procès. Vu que ce juge avait pris sa retraite à l’époque de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel, la peine a été imposée par un nouveau juge.
In our view, there is no merit in this submission. Section 686(4)(b)(ii) provides that the case be remitted to the “trial court”, not the “trial judge”. Section 669.2 confirms this. The constitutionality of these provisions in relation to whether a particular judge can pass sentence was not challenged. Any other system would be unworkable. We note, without prejudice to any outstanding proceedings in relation to sentence, that transcripts of the trial were available and the hearing occupied three days.
Selon nous, cet argument n’est pas fondé. Le sous-al. 686(4)b)(ii) prévoit que l’affaire doit être renvoyée au «tribunal de première instance» et non pas au «juge de première instance». L’article 669.2 le confirme. La constitutionnalité de ces dispositions n’a pas été contestée relativement à la question de savoir si un juge en particulier peut imposer une peine. Tout autre système serait impossible à appliquer. Nous soulignons, sans préjudice de toutes procédures en cours en matière de peine, que la transcription du procès était disponible et que l’audience a duré trois jours.
In conclusion, we are unable to accept any of the grounds of appeal advanced by the appellant. We would dismiss the appeal, affirm the conviction, and answer the constitutional question in the negative.
En conclusion, il nous est impossible d’accepter l’un ou l’autre moyen d’appel avancé par l’appelant. Nous sommes d’avis de rejeter l’appel, de confirmer la déclaration de culpabilité et de répondre par la négative à la question constitutionnelle.
7.11.1997
CORAM: Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci et Bastarache
L.S.L.
c. (25894)
C.S. (Qué.)
André Carbonneau, pour l’appelante.
Gerald D. Chipeur et Barbara B. Johnston, for the intervener the Seventh-Day Adventist Church.
Pierre-Yves Morin, pour l’intimé.
L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ J. (orally) -- In cases involving the best interest of a child, we feel that it is appropriate to render judgment as soon as possible. We are ready to render judgment now.
LE JUGE L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ (oralement) -- Dans les affaires soulevant la question du meilleur intérêt de l’enfant, nous estimons qu’il convient de rendre jugement le plus tôt possible. Nous sommes maintenant prêts à le faire.
Under the jurisprudence of this Court in these matters, the test is the best interest of the child. In the circumstances of this case, given the evidence before us, we are not satisfied that the best interest of the child has been compromised by the practices of the custodial parent.
En vertu de la jurisprudence de la Cour, le test est le meilleur intérêt de l’enfant dans ces matières. Dans les circonstances de l’espèce, vue la preuve devant nous, nous sommes satisfaits que le meilleur intérêt de l’enfant n’a pas été compromis par les pratiques du parent gardien.
Consequently, we are all of the view to allow this appeal in part, to quash the judgment of the Court of Appeal to modify the custody order rendered by the trial judge on June 9, 1995, to the extent of removing the restrictions imposed upon the appellant as regards the activities which she is entitled to do with or in the presence of her child. As for the balance of the order, the access rights of the Respondent are maintained as ordered by the trial judge.
En conséquence, nous sommes tous d’avis d’accueillir en partie le pourvoi de l’appelante, d’infirmer en partie l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel, et de modifier l’ordonnance de garde prononcée par le juge de première instance le 9 juin 1995 afin de supprimer les restrictions imposées à l’appelante quant aux activités qu’elle peut faire avec ou en présence de son enfant. Quant au reste, les droits d’accès et de sortie de l’intimé sont maintenus tels que déterminés par le juge de première instance.
Each party to pay its costs throughout.
Chaque partie payant ses frais devant toutes les cours.
7.11.1997
CORAM: Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci et Bastarache
Claude Labrecque
c. (25651)
Sa Majesté La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)
Gervais Labrecque et Louise Plamondon, pour l’appelant.
Robert Parrot, pour l’intimée.
LE JUGE L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ (oralement au nom de la Cour) -- Ceci est un appel de plein droit. Nous sommes tous d’avis de rejeter l’appel essentiellement pour les motifs de Madame le juge Rousseau-Houle auxquels la Cour d’appel du Québec a souscrit à l’unanimité. Le pourvoi est donc rejeté.
L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ J. (orally for the Court) -- This is an appeal as of right. We are all of the view that the appeal should be dismissed essentially for the reasons given by Madam Justice Rousseau-Houle, in which the Quebec Court of Appeal unanimously concurred. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
10.11.1997
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Major and Bastarache JJ.
Terence Lawrence Caslake
v. (25023)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Man.)
John A. MacIver and Donald Neil MacIver, for the appellant.
David G. Frayer, Q.C. and Clyde R. Bond, for the respondent.
Michael Bernstein, for the intervener the A.G. for Ontario.
Maurice Galarneau et Gilles Laporte, pour l’intervenant le procureur général du Québec.
William D. Delaney, for the intervener the A.G. of Nova Scotia.
Graham J. Sleeth, Q.C., for the intervener the A.G. of New Brunswick.
Gregory J. Fitch, for the intervener the A.G. of British Columbia.
No one appearing for the intervener the A.G. of Alberta.
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Criminal law - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Evidence - Narcotics - Police - Search incidental to arrest - Whether a warrantless search violated s. 8 of the Charter - Whether the evidence was admissible despite a s. 8 Charter violation.
Nature de la cause:
Droit criminel — Charte canadienne des droits et libertés — Preuve — Stupéfiants — Police — Fouille ou perquisition accessoire à l’arrestation — La fouille ou perquisition effectuée sans mandat a-t-elle violé l’art. 8 de la Charte? — La preuve était-elle admissible en dépit de la violation de l’art. 8 de la Charte?
12.11.1997
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache JJ.
BC Gas Utility Ltd.
v. (25259)
Westcoast Energy Inc. et al. (B.C.)
W.S. Martin and C.B. Johnson, for the appellant.
George H. Copley, Q.C., for the respondent the A.G. of B.C.
No one appearing, for the intervener the A.G. of N.S.
Robert J. Normey and Jill Page, for the intervener the A.G. of Alberta.
No one appearing, for the intervener the A.G. of Saskatchewan.
W. Ian C. Binnie, Q.C., Robin M. Sirett and Bruce E. Pydee, for the respondent Westcoast Energy Inc.
Judith Bowers, Q.C. and Simon Fothergill, for the respondent the A.G. of Canada.
Peter W. Noonan and Lori Ann B. Boychuk, for the respondent the National Energy Board.
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Constitutional law - Statutes - Administrative law - Jurisdiction - Division of powers - Interpretation - Reference - Whether given the division of legislative authority between the Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of the provinces in the Constitutions Acts, 1867-1982, are sections 29, 30, 31, 33, 47, 52, 58 and 59 of the National Energy Board Act, R.S.C., 1985 c. N-7, applicable to the facilities proposed to be constructed by Westcoast Energy Inc.
Nature de la cause:
Droit constitutionnel ─ Lois ─ Droit administratif ─ Compétence ─ Répartition des compétences ─ Interprétation ─ Renvoi ─ Vu le partage du pouvoir législatif entre le Parlement du Canada et les législatures des provinces prévu dans les Lois constitutionnelles de 1867 à 1982, les articles 29, 30, 31, 33, 47, 52 58 et 59 de la Loi sur l'Office national de l'énergie, L.R.C. (1985), ch. N-7, s'appliquent-ils aux installations que Westcoast Energy Inc. propose de construire?
WEEKLY AGENDA |
|
ORDRE DU JOUR DE LA SEMAINE
|
AGENDA for the week beginning November 17, 1997.
ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 17 novembre 1997.
Date of Hearing/ Case Number and Name/
Date d'audition Numéro et nom de la cause
The Court is not sitting this week
La Cour ne siège pas cette semaine
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.
NOTICES TO THE PROFESSION AND PRESS RELEASE |
|
AVIS AUX AVOCATS ET COMMUNIQUÉ DE PRESSE |
|
|
|
Counsel are reminded of the following principles respecting costs in matters before the Supreme Court of Canada.
Discontinuances
The rule applied is that costs should be awarded unless there is a consent to a discontinuance without costs or a judge or the Court orders that the discontinuance be made without costs. In this regard, counsel are referred to Rules 25 and 43.
Applications for leave
The Court will consider costs only in those cases where costs are requested. This applies to applications for leave only.
For further information, please contact Louise Meagher, Deputy Registrar, at (613) 996‐7520.
Les avocats sont priés de tenir compte des principes suivants en ce qui concerne les dépens dans les affaires devant la Cour suprême du Canada.
Désistements
Le principe est que les dépens sont accordés sauf s’il y a consentement au désistement sans dépens ou si un juge ou la Cour ordonne qu’il y ait désistement sans dépens. Les avocats sont priés de consulter les articles 25 et 43 des Règles.
Demandes d’autorisation
Dans le cadre des demandes d’autorisation, la Cour n’examine la question des dépens que si ceux-ci sont demandés.
Pour de plus amples renseignements, communiquez avec Louise Meagher, registraire adjoint, au (613) 996‐7520.
Anne Roland
Registrar - Registraire
November 1997 Novembre 1997
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 : December 1, 1997
Service : November 10, 1997 Filing : November 17, 1997 Respondent : November 24, 1997 |
|
Audience du : 1er décembre 1997
Signification : 10 novembre 1997 Dépôt : 17 novembre 1997 Intimé : 24 novembre 1997
|
Motion day : February 2, 1998
Service : January 12, 1998 Filing : January 19, 1998 Respondent : January 26, 1998 |
|
Audience du : 2 février 1998
Signification : 12 janvier 1998 Dépôt : 19 janvier 1998 Intimé : 26 janvier 1998 |
DEADLINES: APPEALS
|
|
DÉLAIS: APPELS |
Pursuant to the Supreme Court Act and Rules, the following requirements for filing must be complied with before an appeal can be inscribed for hearing:
1. Where notice of appeal filed before October 29, 1997:
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.
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, unless otherwise ordered.
2. Where notice of appeal filed on or after October 29, 1997:
Appellant’s record; appellant’s factum; and appellant’s book(s) of authorities must be filed within four months of the filing of the notice of appeal.
Respondent’s record (if any); respondent’s factum; and respondent’s book(s) of authorities must be filed within eight weeks of the date of service of the appellant's factum.
Intervener's factum and intervener’s book(s) of authorities, if any, must be filed within four weeks of the date of service of the respondent's factum, unless otherwise ordered.
Parties’ condensed book, if required, must be filed on or before the day of hearing of the appeal.
Please consult the Notice to the Profession of October 1997 for further information.
In all cases, 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.
|
|
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:
1. Si l’avis d’appel est déposé avant le 29 octobre 1997:
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.
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.
2. Si l’avis d’appel est déposé le 29 octobre 1997 ou après cette date:
Le dossier de l’appelant, son mémoire et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine doivent être déposés dans les quatre mois de l’avis d’appel.
Le dossier de l’intimé (le cas échéant), son mémoire et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine doivent être déposés dans les huit semaines suivant la signification de ceux de l’appelant.
Le mémoire de l'intervenant et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine, le cas échéant, doivent être déposés dans les quatre semaines suivant la signification de ceux de l'intimé.
Le recueil condensé des parties, le cas échéant, doivent être déposés au plus tard le jour de l’audition de l’appel.
Veuillez consulter l’avis aux avocats du mois d’octobre 1997 pour plus de renseignements.
Dans tous les cas, 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 OF CANADA SCHEDULE
CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME
- 1997 -
OCTOBER - OCTOBRE |
|
NOVEMBER - NOVEMBRE |
|
DECEMBER - DECEMBRE |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
M 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
5 |
M 6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
|
2 |
M 3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
|
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
12 |
H 13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
|
9 |
10 |
H 11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
|
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
|
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
|
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
H 25 |
H 26 |
27 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29
|
|
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
30 |
- 1998 -
JANUARY - JANVIER |
|
FEBRUARY - FÉVRIER |
|
MARCH - MARS |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
|
|
|
H 1 |
2 |
3 |
|
1 |
M 2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
|
1 |
M 2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
|
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
|
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
|
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
|
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
|
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APRIL - AVRIL |
|
MAY - MAI |
|
JUNE - JUIN |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
|
M 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
H 10 |
11 |
|
3 |
M 4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
12 |
H 13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
|
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
|
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
|
17 |
H 18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
|
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
24 |
25
|
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sittings of the court: Séances de la cour: |
|
18 sitting weeks / semaines séances de la cour 83 sitting days / journées séances de la cour 7 motion and conference days / journées requêtes, conférences 3 holidays during sitting days / jours fériés durant les sessions |
|
Motions: Requêtes: |
M |
||
Holidays: Jours fériés: |
H |