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. |
April 18, 1997 667 - 739 le 18 avril 1997
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. |
667 - 673
674 - 694
-
-
695 - 705
706 - 720
721
-
-
-
-
-
722
723 - 730
-
-
731 - 736
-
737
738
739 |
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 |
Yves Bisson
Pierre Poupart
c. (25821)
Sa Majesté La Reine (Qué.)
Stéphane Lamarche
Subs. procureur général
DATE DE PRODUCTION 12.3.1997
Daniel John Shynuk
Gregory P. Delbigio
v. (25758)
Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)
A. G. of Canada
FILING DATE 17.3.1997
John Van Rooyen
Bruce Duncan
v. (25800)
Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)
A.G. of Ontario
FILING DATE 20.3.1997
Zurich Compagnie d’Assurances
Paul A. Melançon
Marchand, Magnan, Melançon, Forget
c. (25878)
Robert Schachter et al. (Qué.)
Robert J. Kandestin
Kugler, Kandestin
DATE DE PRODUCTION 10.3.1997
Wesley Bobby Peters
Robert Tapper, Q.C.
Wolch, Pinx, Tapper, Scurfield
v. (25879)
Her Majesty The Queen (Man.)
A.G. of Manitoba
FILING DATE 11.3.1997
John Campbell et al.
Alan D. Gold
Gold & Fuerst
v. (25780)
Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)
Fergus O’Donnell
Dept. of Justice
FILING DATE 17.3.1997
Dr. Philip I. Polimeni
Dr. Philip I. Polimeni
v. (25881)
Dr. Rudolph G. Danzinger et al. (Man.)
Michael D. Werier
D’Arcy & Deacon
FILING DATE 13.3.1997
James Hill et al.
Holly J. Nikel
Enfield, Adair, Wood & McEwen
v. (25883)
Darla Smallwood et al. (Ont.)
Vincent G. Burns
McCaque, Wires, Peacock, Borlack
FILING DATE 10.3.1997
Dr. Cherry J. Pike et al.
Richard Niedermayer
Cox Downie
v. (25889)
Quintin Dennis et al. (N.S.)
Michael J. Wood
Burchell, MacAdam & Hayman
FILING DATE 12.3.1997
Roger Callow
Paul J. Conlin
Conlin & McAlpin
v. (25891)
The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 45 et al. (B.C.)
Harris & Co.
FILING DATE 14.3.1997
Domic Condello
David Layton
v. (25893)
Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)
J.W. Leising
Dept. of Justice
FILING DATE 26.3.1997
Lucie St-Laurent
André Carbonneau
c. (25894)
Charles Soucy (Qué.)
Pierre-Yves Morin
Pariseau Cliché
DATE DE PRODUCTION 27.3.1997
Canada Southern Petroleum Ltd. et al.
V.A. MacDonald
MacDonald, McMahon
v. (25895)
Amoco Canada Petroleum Co. Ltd. et al. (Alta.)
R.A. McLennan, Q.C.
McLennan, Ross
FILING DATE 18.3.1997
James Cecil Johnstone
James Cecil Johnstone
v. (25896)
British Columbia Maritime Employers Assoc. (F.C.A.)(B.C.)
R. Patrick Saul
Alexander Holburn Beaudin & Lang
FILING DATE 17.3.1997
Ontario New Home Warranty Program
Michael W. Bader, Q.C.
Cummings, Cooper, Schusheim & Berliner
v. (25897)
Sunforest Investment Corp. et al. (Ont.)
Kevin D. Sherkin
Levine Sherkin Boussidan
FILING DATE 1.4.1997
Florent Des Champs
Denis J. Power, Q.C.
Nelligan Power
v. (25898)
Conseil des écoles séparées catholiques de langue française de Prescott-Russell et al. (Ont.)
Paul S. Rouleau
Genest Murray Desbrisay Lamek
FILING DATE 13.3.1997
Alfred Abouchar
Denis J. Power, Q.C.
Nelligan Power
v. (25899)
Conseil scolaire de langue française d’Ottawa-Carleton -- Section publique et al. (Ont.)
Paul S. Rouleau
Genest Murray Desbrisay Lamek
FILING DATE 18.3.1997
Bernard Lécuyer
Olivier Prat, c.r.
de Grandpré, Godin
c. (25900)
Le sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec (Qué.)
Pierre Séguin
Veillette & Associés
DATE DE PRODUCTION 17.3.1997
Wigmore Consultants Ltd. et al.
Daniel Tapp
v. (25901)
Her Majesty The Queen (Sask.)
Horst Dahlem, Q.C.
Dept. of Justice
FILING DATE 17.3.1997
S. Bryant Smith
S. Bryant Smith
v. (25902)
New Brunswick Human Rights Commission (N.B.)
R. Bruce Eddy, Q.C.
Eddy, Young, Hoyt & Downs
FILING DATE 24.3.1997
Lillian Dorfman
Stanley C. Ehrlich
v. (25903)
The National Trust Co. (Ont.)
A. Irvin Schein
Minden, Gross, Grafstein & Greenstein
FILING DATE 20.3.1997
Michael Conan Lewandowski
David Torske
Legal Aid Youth Office
v. (25905)
Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.)
Elizabeth Hughes
Alberta Justice
FILING DATE 21.3.1997
Clarence Harnden et al.
John C.F. Hunt
Black, Sutherland, Crabbe
v. (25907)
Paul Kosir (Ont.)
Melvin I. Antflyck
Antflyck & Mazin
FILING DATE 21.3.1997
Paul Bérard
Pierre Sylvestre
Sylvestre, Charbonneau, Fafard
c. (25908)
Compagnie Montréal Trust et al. (Qué.)
Sylvain A. Vauclair
McCarthy Tétrault
DATE DE PRODUCTION 24.3.1997
Marie-Cécile Windisch-Laroche
Michel Morissette
Morissette, Downs
c. (25911)
Jacques Biron et al. (Qué.)
Palais de Justice
DATE DE PRODUCTION 24.3.1997
Les Investissements Imqua Inc.
Odette Lacroix
Aubut Chabot
c. (25765)
Ville de Québec (Qué.)
Roch Simard
Boutin, Roy & Assoc.
DATE DE PRODUCTION 26.3.1997
Peter Bruce Gunn
Alexander D. Pringle, Q.C.
Pringle, Renouf, MacDonald & Assoc.
v. (25912)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.)
Jack Watson, Q.C.
Dept. of Justice
FILING DATE 27.3.1997
County of Athabasca No. 12
Richard D. McNally
v. (25913)
Lloyd Lachance (Alta.)
Burke-Robertson
FILING DATE 27.3.1997
3044190 Canada Inc.
Yves Poirier
de Grandpré, Godin
c. (25914)
Procureur général du Québec (Qué.)
Benoît Belleau
Bernard, Roy & Assoc.
DATE DE PRODUCTION 27.3.1997
Paul Fitzpatrick
Bruce Duncan
v. (25819)
Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)
A.G. of Ontario
Crown Law Office - Criminal
FILING DATE 1.4.1997
Marc Brunel Belhomme
Marc Brunel Belhomme
c. (25915)
Joceline Hermine Valcin et al. (Qué.)
Guy & Gilbert
DATE DE PRODUCTION 18.3.1997
Veronika Hublall, carrying on business under the firm name and style of Ronnie’s Hair Salon
Jerome H. Stanleigh
v. (25916)
Wilma Mills (Ont.)
V. Charles Anipare
FILING DATE 27.3.1997
Elias Malka
Avram Fishman
Goldstein, Flanz & Fishman
c. (25918)
Max B. Druker et al. (Qué.)
Jean-Philippe Gervais
Gervais & Assoc.
DATE DE PRODUCTION 27.3.1997
Elias Malka et al.
Avram Fishman
Goldstein, Flanz & Fishman
c. (25919)
Druker et Assoc. Inc. et al. (Qué.)
Jean-Philipppe Gervais
Gervais & Assoc.
DATE DE PRODUCTION 27.3.1997
Beverly Cook
Simon Lahaie
Alarie, Legault & Assoc.
c. (25920)
Michael Edward Keeper (Qué.)
François Leduc
DATE DE PRODUCTION 9.4.1997
Her Majesty The Queen
Douglas R. Drysdale
Carr, Stevenson & MacKay
v. (25922)
Cory Anthony Gallant (P.E.I.)
W. Kent Brown, Q.C.
Legal Aid Office
FILING DATE 1.4.1997
René Paquet et al.
Jacques Larochelle
c. (25923)
Procureur général du Québec et al. (Qué.)
Jacques Gauvin
Subs. procureur général
DATE DE PRODUCTION 1.4.1997
The Government of the Northwest Territories
B.A. Crane, Q.C.
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
v. (25924)
Public Service Alliance of Canada et al. (F.C.A.)
Raven, Jewitt & Allen
FILING DATE 4.4.1997
Owen Wayne Lloyd
R.S. Prithipaul
Gunn & Prithipaul
v. (25925)
Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.)
Arnold Schlayer
A.G. of Canada
FILING DATE 1.4.1997
Gaétan Delisle
James R.K. Duggan
c. (25926)
The Attorney General of Canada (Qué.)
Raymond Piché
Ministère fédéral de la Justice
DATE DE PRODUCTION 1.4.1997
David Michael Savory
James Lockyer
Pinkofsky, Lockyer
v. (25927)
Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)
John North
Dept. of Justice
FILING DATE 1.4.1997
Narinder Lal
J.L. McDougall, Q.C.
Fraser & Beatty
v. (25928)
Dr. Sultan Alvi et al. (Ont.)
Stephen M. Grant
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
FILING DATE 4.4.1997
Castlepoint Development Corp. et al.
Martin J. Henderson
Aird & Berlis
v. (25930)
James Barber McLeod et al. (Ont.)
Robert L. Colson
Teplitsky, Colson
FILING DATE 1.4.1997
Her Majesty The Queen
Douglas R. Drysdale
Carr, Stevenson & MacKay
v. (25931)
Patrick Arnold MacDougall (P.E.I.)
W. Kent Brown, Q.C.
Legal Aid Office
FILING DATE 1.4.1997
Boreal Property and Casualty Ins. Co., formerly Laurentian Casualty Co. of Canada
John S. McNeil, Q.C.
Fellowes, McNeil
v. (25932)
Warneke Inc., carrying on business under the firm name and style of KWI Construction (Ont.)
William G. Scott
McCarthy, Tétrault
FILING DATE 1.4.1997
Robert Walton
Robert Walton
v. (25933)
Annie Walton (Ont.)
Richard W. Shields
FILING DATE 2.4.1997
Health Services Association of the South Shore
Eric B. Durnford, Q.C.
McInnes, Cooper & Robertson
v. (25934)
Health Services Association of the South Shore Local of the Nova Scotia Nurses’ Union (N.S.)
Raymond Larkin, Q.C.
Pink, Breen, Larkin
FILING DATE 1.4.1997
Thierry Guggisberg
Martin Vauclair
Hébert, Bourque & Downs
c. (25935)
Sa Majesté La Reine (Qué.)
Gérard Milot
Subs. du procureur général
DATE DE PRODUCTION 8.4.1997
Ghislain Norman Levesque
Edward Tawkin
Tawkin Law Office
v. (25936)
The Health Sciences Centre (Man.)
Michael T. Green
Thompson Dorfman Sweatman
FILING DATE 7.4.1997
The Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
Georges Marceau
Melançon, Marceau, Grenier et Sciortino
c. (25937)
Compagnie des chemins de fer nationaux du Canada et al. (Qué.)
John A. Coleman
Ogilvy, Renault
DATE DE PRODUCTION 3.4.1997
Marine Workers’ and Boilermakers’ Industrial Union, Local No. 1
Bruce Laughton
Laughton & Company
v. (25938)
British Columbia Maritime Employers Association (F.C.A.)(B.C.)
Tom Roper
Alexander Holburn & Co.
FILING DATE 3.4.1997
Gerald Bernard Klassen
Manuel A. Azevedo
Azevedo and Associates
v. (25939)
Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)
Richard C.C. Peck, Q.C.
Peck & Tammer
FILING DATE 7.4.1997
Her Majesty The Queen
Richard A. Saull
Manitoba Justice
v. (25940)
Jozef Arsiuta (Man.)
Ken McCaffrey
Criminal Trial Centre
FILING DATE 9.4.1997
Gary Rainthorpe
Barry L. Evans
v. (25941)
David Rice (Ont.)
Bess V. Fotopoulos
Sloan
FILING DATE 4.4.1997
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE
|
DEMANDES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
MARCH 27, 1997 / LE 27 MARS 1997
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and Cory and McLachlin JJ. /
Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Cory et McLachlin
Michael Vukelich
v. (25544)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - Exclusion of evidence - Whether a trial judge can refuse to hold a voir dire to consider Charter applications - Evidence - Co-conspirators exception to the hearsay rule - Whether the trial judge erred in not instructing the jury on the co-conspirators exception to the hearsay rule.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 12, 1994
Supreme Court of British Columbia (Hall J.)
Conviction: conspiracy to import and traffic in cocaine
July 10, 1996
Court of Appeal for British Columbia
McEachern C.J.B.C., Southin and Cumming JJ.A.)
Appeal dismissed
November 27, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada (L’Heureux-Dubé J.)
Motion for the extension of time granted
December 30, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
Pierre Joseph Mathieu
v. (25614)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Sexual assault - Complainant’s sexual history - Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 276.1 - Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit the Applicant’s statement to the police for the purpose of the s. 276.1 application after he had refused to admit the statement in the trial proper - Whether an accused who testifies on a s. 276.1 application can be cross-examined regarding the events forming the subject matter of the charge against him - Whether psychological harm is sufficient to constitute bodily harm in a charge of sexual assault causing bodily harm, and if so, whether the evidence in this case was sufficient to establish psychological harm amounting to bodily harm.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 15, 1995
Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Chrumka J.)
Conviction: sexual assault causing bodily harm
October 31, 1996
Court of Appeal for Alberta
(McClung, Hunt JJ.A. and Fraser J.)
Appeal dismissed
January 7, 1997
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal and motion for the extension of time filed
Her Majesty The Queen
v. (25732)
Wesbrook Management Ltd. (F.C.A.)(B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Taxation - Assessment - Statutes - Interpretation - Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), Rule 58(1)(a), determination of a question of law - Whether the Respondent was properly assessed pursuant to ss. 159(3) of the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 4, 1995 Tax Court of Canada (Rowe J.) |
Respondent’s motion pursuant to Rule 58(1)(a) of Tax Court of Canada Rules to determine a question of law: appeal from assessment allowed |
November 5, 1996 Federal Court of Appeal (Hugessen, Desjardins, Décary JJ.A) |
Appeal dismissed |
January 6, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and L’Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier JJ. /
Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé et Gonthier
Mark Oppenheim, Attorney in Fact for Certain Non-Marine Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, Certain Marine Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London,
V.W. Broad and Other Syndicate 370
et
Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd., Star Assurance Society Ltd.
et
Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft (“Munich Re”)
et
St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. (UK) Ltd., Sphere Drake Insurance PLC, Scor (UK) Reinsurance Co. Ltd., Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd., Guardian Royal Exchange Ass. PLC, Unionamerica Insurance Co. Ltd., Sovereign Marine & General Insurance Company Limited, Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Company (UK) Limited, Taisho Marine & Fire Insurance Company (Europe) Limited, Uni Storebrand Insurance Company (UK) Limited, Wausau Insurance Company (UK) Limited, Alibingia Versicherungen, Anglo American Insurance Company Limited, Trinity Insurance Company Limited, Assicurazioni Generali SPA
c. (25547)
ABN Amro Bank Canada (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Procédure - Procédure civile - Appel - Certificat d’appel déserté - Rétractation de jugement - Article 503.1 du Code de procédure civile, L.R.Q., c. C-25 - Intimée relevée de son défaut de produire un mémoire d’appel dans le délai imparti - La Cour d’appel avait-elle juridiction ou le pouvoir en vertu de l’article 523 C.p.c. de relever l’intimée du défaut de produire son mémoire dans le délai impératif de quinze jours prescrit par l’article 511 C.p.c., compte tenu des conséquences juridiques expresses et automatiques prévues par l’article 503.1 C.p.c.? - Si la Cour d’appel avait un tel pouvoir ou juridiction, ce qui est nié par les demandeurs, l’a-t-elle exercé judiciairement?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 2 juillet 1996 Cour supérieure du Québec (Julien j.c.s.) |
Objections à la preuve dans le cas de certains témoins accueillies; objections formulées lors des interrogatoires d’un témoin portant sur le secret professionnel rejetées; requête en cassation de subpoena rejetée |
Le 2 août 1996 Cour d’appel du Québec (Baudouin j.c.a.) |
Requête pour permission d’appel du jugement interlocutoire accueillie en partie |
Le 23 septembre 1996 Cour d’appel du Québec (Chouinard (dissident), Baudouin et Otis jj.c.a.) |
Requête en annulation du certificat d’appel déserté et pour ordonnances réparatrices accueillie |
Le 16 octobre 1996 Cour d’appel du Québec (Rothman j.c.a.) |
Requête pour la suspension d’exécution de jugement accueillie |
Le 22 novembre 1996 Cour suprême du Canada |
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier and Major JJ. /
Les juges La Forest, Gonthier et Major
Murray Ryan
v. (25704)
The Corporation of the City of Victoria, The Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company and Canadian Pacific Limited/Canadien Pacifique Limitée (B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Torts -Negligence - Nuisance - Defence of Statutory Authority - Whether railways should benefit from special rules regarding the defence of statutory authority and regarding the common law of nuisance.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 25, 1994 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Owen-Flood J.) |
Respondents jointly and severally liable in negligence; Railways liable in nuisance |
October 3, 1996 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Goldie, Rowles and Finch JJ.A.) |
Appeal allowed in part |
December 19, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Applications for extension of time and for leave to appeal filed |
Altoba Development Ltd.
v. (25759)
SaskPower (Sask.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Contracts - Building contracts - Tender calls - Action for breach of contract - Did the trial judge err in finding that the Applicant’s tender failed to comply with the terms of the call for tenders.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 27, 1995 Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan (MacLean J.) |
Applicant’s action for damages for breach of contract dismissed |
November 12, 1996 Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (Vancise, Sherstobitoff and Jackson JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed |
January 13, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and Iacobucci JJ. /
Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et Iacobucci
Larry Grail
v. (25702)
Deborah Ordon, the Executrix of the estate of Bernard Myron Ordon and the said Deborah Ordon,
personally, Jeffrey Michael Ordon, a Minor, by his litigation guardian, Deborah Ordon, Stephanie Ordon,
a Minor by her Litigation guardian, Deborah Ordon, Bessie Ordon and Ordon’s Building Centre Ltd.
AND BETWEEN:
Christopher Hogarth, Murray Hogarth, Diana Ruth Hogarth, Pioneer Petroleums Inc., Ontario Holidays Corporation, The Edenvale Inn, Josephine Perry and John Haller
v.
John Emmett Hall, Frances Norma Hall, Susan Frances Hall, E. Bruce Hall, John Peter Hall, by his committee Maureen Hall, Maureen Hall as Executrix of the estate of Yvonne Louise Carroll, Maureen Hall in her personal capacity, Martha Isabel Hall, Thomas James Hall, David Robert Hall, Richard Lawrence Carroll, Marie Helena Carroll, John Gregory Carroll, Margaret Jane Carroll, Marie Suzanne Carroll, Joan Shelagh Carroll and Laing Douglas Carroll
AND BETWEEN:
Christopher Hogarth, Murray Hogarth, Diana Ruth Hogarth, Pioneer Petroleums Inc., Edenvale Inn or Edenvale and Ontario Holidays Corporation, carrying on business as
the Edenvale Inn or Edenvale
- and -
Josephine Perry
AND BETWEEN:
Murray Hogarth, Christopher Hogarth, Diana Ruth Hogarth, Pioneer Petroleums Inc. and Ontario Holidays Corporation carrying on business as the Edenvale Inn,
Josephine Perry and John Haller
- and -
Joanne Maude Perry, William George Perry, William Harold Perry, Janet Ellen MacPhee, Ian Forbes Perry, Susan Joanne Perry, Leslie Carol Perry, Tara Colleen Boyle, Lindsay Patrick Perry, Roberta Joanne Perry, an infant, by her Litigation Guardian, Joanne Maude Perry, and Josephine Perry, in her capacity as Administratrix of the Estate of Grant Kevin Perry (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Maritime law - Shipping - Jurisdiction - Limitation of actions - prescription - Does the Ontario Court (General Division) have concurrent original jurisdiction with the Federal Court in claims for wrongful death brought pursuant to s. 646 in Part XIV of the Canada Shipping Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-9 - Did the Court of Appeal err when it decided that certain parts of provincial legislation applied to supplement the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act - Whether the limitation period in s. 649 of the Canada Shipping Act can be extended at the discretion of a court.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 22, 1992 Ontario Court (General Division) (McMahon J.) |
Portions of Respondent’s statement of claim struck out; Respondents’ granted leave to file amended statement of claim (Grail v. Ordon et al.) |
May 18, 1993 Ontario Court (General Division) (Zuber J.) |
Applicant’s motion for leave to appeal to Divisional Court granted (Grail v. Ordon et al.) |
November 22, 1993 Ontario Court (General Division) (Kennedy J.) |
Appeal transferred to the Court of Appeal for Ontario (Grail v. Ordon et al.) |
November 10, 1994 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Dubin C.J.) |
Leave granted to have special case determined in the first instance by the Court of Appeal (Hall et al. v. Hogarth et al.; Perry et al. v. Hogarth et al.; Perry Estate et al. v. Hogarth et al.) |
October 22, 1996 Court of Appeal for Ontario (McKinlay, Catzman and Osborne JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed (Grail v. Ordon et al.); declarations that the action is properly brought in the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division); declaration that the appropriate plaintiffs may rely on Part XIV of the Canada Shipping Act, the Trustee Act, and the Negligence Act, may claim for loss of guidance, care and companionship, may rely on the limitation period in s.572(1) of the Canada Shipping Act; order that the limitation period in s.649 of the Canada Shipping Act be extended to permit the appropriate plaintiffs to rely on Part XIV of the Canada Shipping Act. (Grail v. Ordon et al.; Hall et al. v. Hogarth et al.; Perry et al. v. Hogarth et al.; Perry Estate et al. v. Hogarth et al.) |
December 19, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed (Perry et al., Hogarth et al.) |
December 20, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed (Grail) |
January 16, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to cross-appeal filed (Ordon et al.) |
February 7, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to cross-appeal filed (Hall et al.) |
Lajos Balogh
v. (25752)
Emma Balogh (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Family law - Divorce - Maintenance - Childless marriage where both parties worked throughout the course of the marriage - Applicant, an engineer, capable of earning more than the Respondent, a nurses’ aid - Entitlement to spousal support - Where the payor spouse is unemployed for legitimate reasons at the time of the trial is lump sum support appropriate?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 16, 1993 Unified Family Court (Philp J.) |
Applicant ordered to pay spousal support monthly
|
November 20, 1996
Court of Appeal for Ontario
(McMurtry C.J.O., Catzman and Osborne JJ.A.)
Appeal allowed in part: inter alia order of trial judge varied to require Applicant to pay lump sum spousal support
January 17, 1997
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
The Attorney General of Ontario
v. (25838)
M. and H. (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom - Family law - Maintenance - Definition of “spouse” pursuant to s. of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 - Same-sex respondents living together in relationship resembling that of marriage for twelve years - Relationship engendering economic dependancy of one party on the other - Respondents separating with majority of the personal and business assets retained by non-dependant party - Whether dependant party entitled to make a claim for interim and permanent support pursuant to the Family Law Act - Whether statutory definition of spouse should be broadened to include same-sex couples - Charter of Rights - Whether dependant party’s s. 15(1) rights violated by spousal definition that does not include same-sex relationships - Whether violation under s.15(1) can be justified under s.1 - Procedural law - Costs - Whether Appellant, Attorney General, should bear the costs of appeal against successful litigant where neither party to the action has requested leave to appeal - Whether leave to appeal should be conditional on Attorney General paying Respondent, M’s costs of appeal - Whether the suspended declaration, the denial of a personal exemption and the refusal to order costs of the appeal below are legal questions of national importance.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 9, 1996 Ontario Court (General Division) (Epstein J.) |
Judgment for Respondent, “M”, declaring s. 29 of the Family Law Act to be unconstitutional and permitting her to move for interim support pursuant to the Family Law Act |
February 20, 1996 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Moldaver J.A.) |
Order staying portion of judgment requiring Respondent, “H” to file financial statement and permitting “M” to proceed with interim motion |
June 28, 1996 Ontario Court (General Division) (Epstein J.) |
Supplementary Costs decision, awarding costs to the Respondent, “M” on a party - and - party scale as against the Appellant |
December 18, 1996 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Finlayson, Doherty and Charron, JJ. A.) |
Order suspending implementation of trial judgment for one year; Respondent, “H”’s and Appellant’s appeal re costs dismissed |
December 10, 1996 Ontario Court (General Division) (Epstein J.) |
Order expediting trial of all issues except support |
January 27, 1997 Ontario Court (General Division) (Walsh J.)
February 14, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
Order for Trial Management Conference to take place April 21, 1997
Application for leave to appeal filed |
APRIL 4, 1997 / LE 4 AVRIL 1997
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and Cory and McLachlin JJ. /
Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Cory et McLachlin
Roman Paryniuk
v. (25779)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - Right to counsel - Right to be informed of reason for detention - Whether Applicant’s right pursuant to s. 10(a) of the Charter was infringed - Whether Applicant’s right pursuant to s. 10(b) was infringed - Whether the Applicant’s right pursuant to s. 7 of the Charter was infringed - Whether the Applicant’s statements should be excluded pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 7, 1994 Ontario Court (Provincial Division) (Seneshen P.C.J.) |
Conviction resisting a peace officer |
October 23, 1995 Ontario Court (General Division) (Leitch J.) |
Summary conviction appeal dismissed |
November 28, 1996 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Doherty, Austin and Charron JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed |
January 22, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
C. Robert Ivey, Maziv Industries, Ltd. and INECO, Ltd.
v. (25664)
United States of America (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
International law - Conflict of laws - Procedural law - Civil Procedure - Judgments and Orders - Motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure - Enforcement of foreign judgment - United States judgment ordering Applicants to pay the cost of cleaning up waste disposal site pursuant to their liability under United States environmental legislation.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 24, 1995 Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) (Sharpe J.) |
Respondent’s motion for summary judgment to enforce two foreign judgments granted; Applicants’ cross-motion dismissed |
September 23, 1996 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Houlden, Osborne JJ.A. and Campbell J. (ad hoc) |
Appeal dismissed |
November 22, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and L’Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier JJ. /
Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé et Gonthier
La Mutuelle-Vie des Fonctionnaires
c. (25701)
Madame Micheline Lapointe-Boucher (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit commercial - Assurance - Déclaration de risque - Fausse déclaration - Bonne foi - En matière de fausses déclarations et de réticences dans une proposition d’assurance-vie, l’assureur qui n’invoque pas spécifiquement, dans l’avis initial de refus de couverture à la suite du décès, tous les moyens à l’appui de ce refus, se rend-il forclos de les plaider et d’en faire la preuve? - L’assureur doit-il faire la preuve que le proposant connaissait le diagnostic précis et la maladie qu’on lui reproche de ne pas avoir déclarée dans la proposition d’assurance? - L’obligation d’extrême bonne foi du proposant est-elle liée à ses connaissances scientifiques?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 3 mars 1993
Cour supérieure du Québec (Corriveau J.C.S.)
Action en réclamation d’une indemnité d’assurance rejetée
Le 24 octobre 1996
Cour d’appel du Québec (Beauregard [dissident], Baudouin et Robert JJ.C.A.)
Appel accueilli; appel incident rejeté
Le 20 décembre 1996
Cour suprême du Canada
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier and Major JJ. /
Les juges La Forest, Gonthier et Major
Saskatoon City Hospital
v. (25757)
Saskatchewan Union of Nurses (Sask.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Judicial Review - Standard of Review - Contracts - Interpretation of a collective agreement - Anti-discrimination clauses - Applicability of jurisprudence under the Charter and human rights legislation to an interpretation of an anti-discrimination clause in a collective agreement - Whether declining to extend a normal retirement age for fiscal reasons constitutes discrimination on the basis of age.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 15, 1995 Labour Arbitration Board |
Grievance allowed |
February 15, 1996 Court of Queen’s Bench of Saskatchewan (Sirois J.) |
Grievance quashed |
October 17, 1996 Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (Vancise and Gerwing JJ.A.; Wakeling J.A. dissenting) |
Appeal allowed |
January 16, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
Applications for extension of time and for leave to appeal filed |
Mavis Baker
v. (25823)
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Immigration - Administrative law - Judicial review - Appeal - Jurisdiction - Whether federal immigration authorities treat the best interests of the Canadian child as a primary consideration in assessing an applicant under s. 114(2) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.I-2 - Whether s.83 of the Immigration Act precludes consideration of questions not certified by the Trial Division judge - Whether an international convention must be expressly implemented by statute in order to have legal effect in Canada - Whether compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child would fetter the Minister’s discretion under s.114(2) of the Immigration Act - Interpretation and application of Articles 3, 9 and 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 26, 1995 Federal Court of Canada (Simpson J.) |
Application for judicial review dismissed |
September 9, 1996 Federal Court of Canada (Simpson J.) |
Application for reconsideration or variation of the decision of June 26, 1995 dismissed |
November 29, 1996 Federal Court of Appeal (Strayer, Robertson and McDonald JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed. |
February 10, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and Iacobucci JJ. /
Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et Iacobucci
Her Majesty The Queen
v. (25738)
Henry Gerard Cuerrier (Crim.)(B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Aggravated assault - Consent - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that where an accused has unprotected sexual intercourse with another person, knowing that he is HIV positive and deliberately deceiving his partner about his HIV status, the consent obtained is vitiated by fraud, is not informed consent, is vitiated by reason of public policy, or the scope of the consent is exceeded.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 5, 1995 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Drost J.) |
Acquittal: aggravated assault (2 counts) |
November 15, 1996 British Columbia Court of Appeal (McEachern C.J.B.C., Goldie, Rowles, Prowse and Williams JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed |
January 13, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
James Cecil Johnstone
v. (25896)
British Columbia Maritime Employers Association (B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural Law - Pre-trial procedure - Choice of Counsel - Dismissal of action for undue delay.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 6, 1996 Federal Court of Appeal (Marceau J.A.) |
Motion to appoint counsel dismissed
|
July 22, 1996 Federal Court of Appeal (Hugesson J.A.) |
Order to show cause why application for judicial review should not be dismissed for undue delay |
August 19, 1996 Federal Court of Appeal (McDonald J.A.) |
Show cause stayed |
December 5, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada (L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, McLachlin JJ.A) |
Applications for extension of time and for leave to appeal from decision regarding motion to appoint counsel dismissed |
January 14, 1997 Federal Court of Appeal |
Application for judicial review dismissed |
March 17, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -- REHEARING /
DEMANDE DE RÉEXAMEN -- NOUVELLE AUDITION
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ. /
Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Gonthier et Iacobucci
Canderel Limited v. Her Majesty The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.)(24663)
APRIL 8, 1997 / LE 8 AVRIL 1997
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and L’Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier JJ. /
Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé et Gonthier
Bernard St-Aubin
c. (25764)
Le Curateur public du Québec
et
Rosaire Théorêt
et
Le Club juridique (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Procédures - Procédure civile - Appel - Requête de l’intimé pour être autorisé à vendre l’immeuble du demandeur accueillie - Requête du demandeur pour permission d’appel rejetée - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle commis une erreur en rejetant la requête pour permission d’appel du demandeur?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 16 septembre 1996
Cour supérieure du Québec (Flynn J.C.S.)
Requête de l’intimé pour être autorisé à vendre l’immeuble du demandeur accueillie
Le 18 novembre 1996
Cour d’appel du Québec (Deschamps J.C.A.)
Requête du demandeur pour permission d’appel rejetée
Le 15 janvier 1997
Cour suprême du Canada
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée
APRIL 11, 1997 / LE 11 AVRIL 1997
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and Cory and McLachlin JJ. /
Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Cory et McLachlin
T.E.M.
v. (25734)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Counsel’s address to the jury - Whether the Crown’s address prejudiced the Applicant or deprived him of a fair trial - Whether the trial judge erred in not correcting or clarifying the Crown’s address - Whether there was a miscarriage of justice.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 20, 1995 Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Wilson J.) |
Conviction: incest |
September 24, 1996 Court of Appeal of Alberta (Kerans, McFadyen and Perras JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed |
February 3, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal and motion for the extension of time filed |
Ernest A.J. Hawrish
v. (25748)
Lyle Cundall, Harvey Walker, and Wilson Olive (Sask.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law - Jurisdiction - Statutes - Interpretation - Does a self-governing professional body have the jurisdiction to regulate the termination of the membership of a non-practising member? - Can a self-governing professional body interpret its own rules to be void and of no effect, where it has acted upon and had the benefit of those rules, and where such interpretation is to its benefit? - The Legal Profession Act, 1990, S.S. 1990-91 c. L- 10.1.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 9, 1995
Hearing Committee of the Law Society of Saskatchewan
Rule 1101(1) of The Rules of The Law Society of Saskatchewan is ultra vires
November 18, 1996
Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan
(Bayda C.J., Vancise and Wakeling JJ.A.)
Appeal dismissed
January 16, 1997
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
Physique Health Club Ltd. carrying on business under
the name and style of Physique Fitness Store
v. (25767)
Glenn Carlsen, Jeanne Carlsen and Fitness Equipment of Calgary Ltd. (Alta.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Fiduciary obligation - Nephew hired to run store for uncle’s business and quitting without notice following dispute about compensation - Applicant awarded damages for breach of fiduciary duty by trial judge, but order set aside by Court of Appeal - Proper analytical model regarding the law of fiduciary duty with respect to a key management employee - What type of economic information constitutes confidential information of law - Fiduciary’s predatory competition during the notice period.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 16, 1995 Court of Queen's Bench (Lee J.) |
Judgment for the Applicant |
November 20, 1996 Court of Appeal of Alberta (Belzil, O'Leary and Berger JJ.A.) |
Appeal allowed: trial judgment vacated in part |
January 16, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
Avis Immobilien G.M.B.H.
v. (25749)
Her Majesty The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Taxation - Assessment - Deduction of foreign exchange loss - Whether foreign exchange loss amount Applicant paid to Bank was an outlay or expense “made or incurred...for the purpose of making the disposition” within the meaning of s. 40(1)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5th supp.) c. 1 and therefore deductible in computing capital gain from the disposition of properties.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 5, 1994
Tax Court of Canada (Rip J.)
Applicant’s appeal from Minister’s assessment under the Income Tax Act dismissed
November 14, 1996
Federal Court of Appeal
(Hugessen, Décary and Chevalier JJ.A.)
Appeal dismissed
January 13, 1997
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and L’Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier JJ. /
Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé et Gonthier
Coopérative de Commerce “Des Mille-Îles”, André Malo, Paul Bélanger, Pierre Laporte
c. (25703)
Société des alcools du Québec (S.A.Q.) et le Procureur général du Québec (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Couronne - Droit commercial - Droit administratif - Responsabilité civile - Contrats - Obligation - Injonction - Dommages-intérêts - Appel d’offres au public - Vente de succursales de la Société des alcools du Québec - Injonction permanente - Responsabilité de l’état - Dommages moraux - Exécution forcée de l’obligation de livrer une succursale - Tentative avortée de privatiser un certain nombre de succursales de la Société des alcools du Québec - Un contrat a-t-il été valablement formé entre la Société des alcools du Québec et les demandeurs, soumissionnaires, compte tenu que les décisions du Conseil des ministres remplacent celles du Conseil du trésor? - Le gouvernement et la Société des alcools du Québec sont-ils responsables en dommages à l’égard des demandeurs? - Application de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q. c. C-12, et de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - Entente de procéder au moyen d’une cause-type - Effet d’un jugement dans une cause-type.
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 28 février 1994
Cour supérieure du Québec (Trudeau j.c.s.)
Action des demandeurs accueillie en partie
Le 23 août 1996
Cour d’appel du Québec
(Lebel, Tourigny et Proulx jj.c.a.)
Appel principal des demandeurs rejeté; appel incident de la Société des alcools du Québec accueilli
Le 19 décembre 1996
Cour suprême du Canada
Demande d’autorisation d’appel et demande de prorogation de délai déposées
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier and Major JJ. /
Les juges La Forest, Gonthier et Major
Paul Franklin Watson
v. (25768)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Defence - Applicant convicted of unlawfully acting as a master of a vessel, without being the holder of a valid master’s certificate contrary to section 8(1)(a) of the Ships Deck Watch Regulations - Can the Court of Appeal reverse a finding of fact - Is a reasonable mistake of a regulation an excuse or defence.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 11, 1994 Provincial Court of Newfoundland (Woodrow J.) |
Conviction: unlawfully acting as a master of a vessel
|
July 11, 1995 Supreme Court of Newfoundland (Bartlett J.) |
Appeal allowed: conviction quashed |
November 6, 1996 Court of Appeal for Newfoundland (O’Neill, Cameron JJ.A. and Gushue C.J.N.) |
Appeal allowed: acquittal overturned; conviction and sentence restored |
January 16, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
Her Majesty The Queen
v. (25777)
Gregory Jacob Parsons (Crim.)(Nfld.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Evidence - Hearsay Evidence - Whether all of the hearsay evidence should have been admitted at trial where much of it was repetitive - Whether the necessity requirement for hearsay evidence involves a consideration of the amount of evidence.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 15, 1994 Supreme Court of Newfoundland (Trial Division) (Lang J.) |
Conviction: second degree murder |
December 3, 1996 Supreme Court of Newfoundland (Court of Appeal) (Gushue C.J.N., O’Neill and Steele JJ.A.) |
Appeal allowed, new trial ordered |
January 23, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
Eileen Grace Bahlsen
v. (25783)
Her Majesty The Queen as represented by the Minister of Transport (F.C.A.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Civil rights - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal misapplied the minimal impairment branch of the proportionality test under s.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal effectively reversed the burden of proving that a limitation under s.15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society - Whether cases in employment law under human rights legislation should have been applied - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law by effectively reversing the onus under s.1 of the Charter.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 30, 1995 Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (Gibson J.) |
Declaration that section 3.18 of the Transport Canada Air Personnel Licensing Handbook is unconstitutional |
November 25, 1996 Federal Court of Canada, Court of Appeal (Isaac C.J., Pratte and McDonald JJ.A.) |
Appeal allowed |
January 25, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
Barbican Properties Inc.
v. (25760)
Her Majesty The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Taxation - Assessment - Statutes - Interpretation - Whether the Tax Court erred in its interpretation and application of paragraphs 20(1)(c) and 18(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 16, 1996 Tax Court of Canada (Margeson J.) |
Appeal from reassessments dismissed |
November 20, 1996 Federal Court of Appeal (McDonald, Henry JJ.A. and Isaac C.J.) |
Appeal dismissed
|
January 15, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and Iacobucci JJ. /
Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et Iacobucci
Helen Marie Bottrell
v. (25789)
Herbert Bruce Bottrell (B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Family law - Division of Property - Maintenance - Evidence - Applicant wife’s counter-petition for division of family assets pursuant to Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 121, and maintenance dismissed - Little or unsatisfactory evidence to support her claims - Protracted proceedings - Failure on part of Applicant’s counsel to take advantage of numerous opportunities to present evidence - Evidence deficient in any event - Whether Court of Appeal erred in deciding that trial judge did not err in law and in misapprehending the evidence before him - Whether Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the rulings of the trial judge were solely in his discretion and that the discretion was properly exercised.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 22, 1994 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Bouck J.) |
Applicant’s counter-petition dismissed |
November 27, 1997 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Cumming, Finch, and Ryan JJ.A.) |
Applicant’s appeal dismissed with costs |
January 24, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
Ninal Kadenko, Boris Fedosov, Alexander Fedosov et Mila Fedosov
c. (25689)
Le Ministre de la citoyenneté et de l’immigration (C.A.F.)(Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Immigration - Revendication du statut de réfugié - Citoyens d’Israël d’origine ukrainienne et de religion chrétienne - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle erré en concluant que le refus de certains policiers d’intervenir ne saurait en lui-même rendre l’État incapable de le faire? - A-t-elle erré en tenant pour acquis que l’État d’Israël possède des institutions politiques et judiciaires capables de protéger ses citoyens? - A-t-elle erré en statuant que le fardeau de preuve qui incombe au revendicateur sur la question de la capacité de l’État de protéger ses ressortissants est directement proportionnel au degré de démocratie atteint chez l’État en cause? - Canada (Procureur général) c. Ward, [1993] 2 R.C.S. 689.
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 31 janvier 1994 Commission de l’immigration et du statut de réfugié (Section du statut de réfugié) |
Revendication par les demandeurs du statut de réfugié refusée |
Le 9 juin 1995 Cour fédérale (Section de première instance) (Tremblay-Lamer j.) |
Demande de contrôle judiciaire accordée, décision de la Commission cassée et affaire renvoyée devant un nouveau panel; certification d’une question en vertu de l’art. 83(1) de la Loi sur l’immigration |
Le 15 octobre 1996 Cour d’appel fédérale (Hugessen, Décary et Chevalier jj.c.a.) |
Appel accueilli, réponse négative à la question certifiée, jugement de la Section de première instance cassé et demande de contrôle judiciaire rejetée |
Le 16 décembre 1996 Cour suprême du Canada |
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
Walter Koszil
v. (25730)
National Bank of Canada (B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Banks/banking operations - Loan - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing find a fiduciary duty owed by a bank to a borrower - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold the applicant had a right to call a chartered accountant as an expert witness - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in basing their decision on findings of credibility adverse to the applicant - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in restricting their consideration of the evidence to events up to about the end of November, 1979.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 16, 1994
Supreme Court of British Columbia (Bouck J.)
Respondent’s claim allowed; Applicant’s counterclaim dismissed
November 5, 1996
Court of Appeal for British Columbia
(Southin, Donald, Newbury JJ.A.)
Appeal dismissed
December 20, 1996
Court of Appeal for British Columbia
(Southin, Donald and Newbury JJ.A.)
Application for rehearing dismissed
January 6, 1997
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
Canada Southern Petroleum Ltd., Magellan Petroleum Corporation and
Pantepec International, Inc.
v. (25895)
Amoco Canada Petroleum Company Ltd., Amoco Production Company, Amoco Canada Resources Ltd., (formely Dome Petroleum Limited), Anderson Oil and Gas Inc. (formely Columbia Gas Development of Canada Ltd.), Mobil Oil Canada, Ltd., Imperial Oil Resources Limited (formerly Esso Resources Canada Limited ), Mobil Resources Ltd. and Mobil Oil Canada Properties
- and -
Anderson Oil and Canada Inc. (formely Columbia Gas Development of Canada Ltd., Mobil Resources Ltd. (formely Canadian Superior Oil Ltd.), Imperial Oil Resources Limited (formely Esso Resources Canada Limited), Mobil Oil Canada Ltd., Allied-Signal Inc., Home Oil Company Limited, Kern County Land Company and Mobil Oil Canada Properties
- and -
Imperial Oil Limited and Esso Resources Canada Limited (now Imperial Oil Resources Limited)
- and -
Canada Southern Petroleum Ltd.
- and -
Columbia Gas Development of Canada Ltd., Dome Petroleum Limited, Amoco Canada Petroleum Company Ltd., Mobil Oil Canada Ltd., and Esso Resources of Canada Ltd. (Alta.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Labour Law - Law of Professions - Choice of Counsel - Conflict of Interest - Solicitor transfers to another firm that is representing opponents to a former client of the solicitor in civil litigation - Whether solicitor’s new firm should be allowed to continue to represent the former client’s opponents.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 17, 1996
Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Moore C.J.)
Application to allow continuance of choice of counsel granted
February 25, 1997
Court of Appeal of Alberta
(O’Leary, Picard and Hunt JJ.A.)
Appeal dismissed
March 18, 1997
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -- REHEARING /
DEMANDE DE RÉEXAMEN -- NOUVELLE AUDITION
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ. /
Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et McLachlin
1. Salvatore Gramaglia v. Sunlife Trust Co. et al. (Alta.)(25446)
JUDGMENTS ON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE |
JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION |
APRIL 3, 1997 / LE 3 AVRIL 1997
25811HELMUT OBERLANDER v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION and between JOHANN DUECK v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION and between ERICHS TOBIASS v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION (Ont.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Cory and McLachlin JJ.
The applications for leave to appeal are granted, on the condition that the appeal be ready to be heard in the Spring session of 1997.
Les demandes d’autorisation de pourvoi sont accueillies, à la condition que le pourvoi soit prêt à être entendu au cours de la session du printemps de 1997.
NATURE OF THE CASES
Procedural Law - Courts - Judges - Independence of judiciary - Reasonable apprehension of bias - Remedies - Stays of proceedings - Procedure on References to the Courts in order to revoke citizenship pursuant to Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‐29 - Role of a Chief Justice - Whether ex parte meeting and correspondence between an Assistant Deputy Attorney General of the Department of Justice of the Government of Canada and the Chief Justice of Federal Court regarding Applicants’ cases, and an intervention by the Chief Justice of the Federal Court in the cases, raised a reasonable apprehension of bias and warranted stays of proceedings.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 4, 1996 Federal Court of Canada (Cullen J.) |
Stays of proceedings granted |
December 12, 1996 Federal Court of Appeal (Pratte, Marceau and Stone JJ.A.) |
Motions to quash appeal dismissed |
January 14, 1997 Federal Court of Appeal (Pratte, Marceau and Stone JJ.A.) |
Appeal granted |
February 17, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada (L’Heureux-Dubé J.) |
Extensions of time to file applications for leave granted |
February 19, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed by Helmut Oberlander |
March 10, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed by Johann Dueck |
March 13, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed by Erichs Tobiass |
25859CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, CLAUDE VICKERY, HANNAH GARTNER, HARVEY CASHORE AND DAN O’CONNELL v. THE HONOURABLE JUDGE JEAN-LOUIS BATIOT AND GERALD AUGUSTINE REGAN (N.S.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Cory and McLachlin JJ.
The application for leave to appeal and all related applications are dismissed.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel et toutes autres demandes connexes sont rejetées.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Procedural law - Canadian Charter - Criminal - Pre-trial procedure - Subpoenas duces tecum - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Third parties ordered to bring records in their possession to the preliminary inquiry.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 8, 1996 Nova Scotia Provincial Court (Batiot J.) |
Subpoenas issued without any reference to video tapes, audio recordings, notes or records of the complainant’s communications |
September 20, 1996
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
(Glube C.J.S.C.)
Application for certiorari dismissed; application (inter partes) for an order in the nature of mandamus granted, subpoena(s) duces tecum shall issue in accordance with section 700(1) and Form 16 of the Criminal Code, including the requirement to produce
February 13, 1997
Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
(Freeman, Roscoe and Bateman JJ.A.)
Appeal allowed on the issuance of the subpoenas duces tecum and matter remitted to Batiot J.; appeal in respect of the issuance of the subpoenas dismissed
25711RICHARD JAMES SOCOBASIN v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(N.S.)
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and Iacobucci 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
Criminal law - Juries - Whether the trial judge erred in allowing the trial to proceed with only 11 jurors.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 22, 1995 Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Goodfellow J.) |
Conviction: first degree murder
|
October 3, 1996 Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (Hallett, Freeman, and Pugsley JJ.A) |
Appeal dismissed
|
December 20, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal and extension of time filed |
25648MICHELINE SAVARIE c. LE PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL DU CANADA (C.A.F.)(Qué.)
CORAM: Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et Iacobucci
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 administratif - Assurance-chômage - Contrôle judiciaire - Législation - Interprétation de l’expression “en raison de” du paragraphe 58(9) du Règlement sur l’assurance-chômage, C.R.C., ch. 1576 - Répartition de la somme reçue par la demanderesse au titre des congés de maladie non utilisés en raison de la cessation de son emploi - La Cour d’appel féderale a-t-elle erré en décidant que les sommes reçues par la demanderesse, à titre de congés monnayables, l’avait été en raison de la cessation de son emploi et non en raison de la convention collective?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 26 juin 1992 Décision du Conseil arbitral (Leclerc, président, Giroux et Paquin, membres) |
Appel de la demanderesse accueilli; la rémunération est reçue en vertu de la convention collective |
Le 15 mai 1995 Décision du juge-arbitre (Lacoursière J.) |
Appel de la CEIC rejeté |
Le 27 septembre 1996 Cour d’appel fédérale du Canada (Marceau, Décary et Chevalier (suppléant), JJ.C.A.) |
Demande de révision judiciaire de la CEIC accordée |
Le 27 novembre 1996 Cour suprême du Canada |
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
APRIL 10, 1997 / LE 10 AVRIL 1997
25676PETRO CANADA INC. AND GULF CANADA LIMITED v. CITY OF VANCOUVER (B.C.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Cory and McLachlin 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
Property Law - Real Property - Injurious Affection - Proper test to determine whether damage would have been actionable at law but for the authority’s statutory powers when determining if a claim for injurious affection arises - Whether changes to a roadway represented public inconvenience or interference with private access to the roadway.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
October 12, 1994 Expropriation Compensation Board of British Columbia |
Claim dismissed |
October 6, 1996 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Hollinrake, Ryan and Donald JJ.A) |
Appeal dismissed |
December 5, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
25677FRANCO FALSO v. FURIO DE STEFANIS AND HEAN, WYLIE, PEACH, DE STEFANIS (B.C.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Cory and McLachlin 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
Procedural law - Appeal - In the circumstances, did the Court of Appeal err in refusing to extend the time for appealing the dismissal of an action in order for the Applicant time to instruct and retain counsel?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
September 6, 1994 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Stewart J.) |
Action dismissed for failure to file transcripts as ordered November 26, 1993 by Stewart J. |
March 6, 1995 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Ryan J.A.) |
Order that unless appeal books and transcripts were filed by April 3, 1995, appeal stands dismissed upon further application to the court |
April 7, 1995 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Carrothers J.A.) |
Appeal dismissed |
November 27, 1995 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (McEachern, Prowse and Williams JJ.A.) |
Application to vary order of Carrothers J.A. granted on conditions |
October 7, 1996 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Esson, Southin and Newbury JJ.A.) |
Motion for adjournment dismissed; appeal dismissed |
December 5, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
25656DANIEL CHARLAND v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Alta.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Cory and McLachlin JJ.
The application for extension of time is granted. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée. La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Jury Charge - Exhortation - Whether trial judge erred in telling the jury that they should take their time in reaching a verdict - Whether trial judge erred in not reviewing evidence for jury - Whether trial judge erred in not using “W.(D.)” formulation when instructing jury on credibility.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
March 31, 1995 Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (Lewis J.) |
Conviction:sexual assault, assault causing bodily harm and uttering threats |
September 24, 1996 Court of Appeal for Alberta (Kerans J.A. [dissenting], McFadyen and Perras JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed |
December 5, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Notice of appeal as of right filed |
January 24, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal and motion for the extension of time filed |
25766MOHAMED RAFEEK ALI v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)
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 - Judicial Interim Release - Bail - What is the correct standard of review to be applied by the Court of Appeal when reviewing an order for release or detention - What factors should be considered by the Court of Appeal when reviewing an order of release or detention - Was the Court of Appeal correct in drawing inferences from hearsay and chastising the Applicant’s right to silence by findings made in the absence of testimony by the Applicant - Was the trial judge correct in exercising his discretion pursuant to s. 518(1)(a) of the Criminal Code in order to allow him to examine the Applicant - Was the learned trial judge correct in exercising his discretion under Rule 2.02 of the Criminal Rules of Procedure to exclude the Applicant’s affidavit originally submitted with his application for bail - Is Rule 20, which requires the Applicant to file an affidavit, in direct contravention of ss. 7, 11, and 13 of the Charter - Can the Crown elicit evidence de novo at the hearing of the bail appeal - What is the correct test for judicial interim release.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 20, 1996
Ontario Court (Provincial Division) (Stong J.)
Applicant released on bail with conditions
November 4, 1996
Court of Appeal for Ontario
(Labrosse, Doherty and Abella JJ.A.)
Release order set aside and an order directing the detention of the Applicant substituted
January 3, 1997
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
25658ERICO CARDOSO v. JAMES DOUGLAS BUDD (Man.)
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and Iacobucci 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
Procedural law - Limitation of actions - Evidence - Actions - Whether the discoverability principle should and can be interpreted to allow litigants to await the opinion of an expert before the litigant is found to have knowledge of the material facts on which to base a cause of action - Does the limitation period only begin after the receipt of an expert opinion asserting the existence of a claim despite the litigant already having knowledge of material facts or access to the material facts, including the advice of other experts.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 8, 1995 Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba (DeGraves J.) |
Respondent’s notice of application for leave to begin action in negligence against Applicant pursuant to s. 14(1) of The Limitation of Actions Act, C.C.S.M. L150 premature |
September 25, 1996 Court of Appeal of Manitoba (Huband, Lyon and Helper JJ.A.) |
Appeal allowed on issue dealing with the trial judge’s finding that the original application for leave was premature |
November 22, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
25686BRIAN THOMPSON v. DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE CHIROPRACTORS’ ASSOCIATION OF SASKATCHEWAN and BOARD OF CHIROPRACTORS’ ASSOCIATION OF SASKATCHEWAN (Sask.)
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and Iacobucci 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
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Statutes - Interpretation - Freedom of expression - Right to vote - S. 322.1 of Canada Elections Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-2 banning broadcast, publication or dissemination of results of public opinion polls for several days immediately prior to holding of federal election - Did the Ontario Court of Appeal err in holding that an absolute ban on a form of political speech for the final three days before a Federal election is consistent with the right to an informed vote under section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? - Did the Ontario Court of Appeal err in holding that section 322.1 of the Canada Elections Act constitutes a reasonable limit of both section 2(b) and section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 15, 1995 Ontario Court (General Division) (Somers J.) |
Applicant’s Application for a declaration that 322.1 of the Canada Elections Act violates ss. 2(b) and 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is not justified under s. 1 dismissed |
August 19, 1996 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Catzman, Carthy and Charron JJ.A) |
Appeal dismissed
|
October 30, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
APRIL 17, 1997 / LE 17 AVRIL 1997
25762MAURO TRINCHINI v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)
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 - Change of venue - Jurisdiction - Whether the trial judge had jurisdiction to change the venue of the Applicant’s trial without an application by the parties - Whether the trial judge did in fact order a change of venue since the trial was to be held in the same judicial region in which the Applicant was indicted - Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an interlocutory order in a criminal proceeding where the Applicant is the accused
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 22, 1996
Ontario Court ( General Division) (Haines J.)
Order changing the venue of the trial
January 21, 1997
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
25692GERALD E. LITOWITZ, HEADWAY PROPERTY INVESTMENT 78-I and HEADWAY PROPERTY INVESTMENT 78-I INC. v. ROYAL TRUST CORPORATION OF CANADA, TRUSTEE FOR THE STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY and THE STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY (Ont.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Cory and McLachlin 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
Property law - Mortgages - Prepayment - Statutory right to prepay where mortgage for more than five years pursuant to the Interest Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-15, s.10(1) and Mortgages Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.M.40, s.18(1) - Statutory right to prepay not available to corporations, Interest Act, s. 10(2) and Mortgages Act, s. 18(2) - Did the Court of Appeal err in interpreting the statutory prepayment provisions - If the corporate mortgagor is a nominee or trustee for a non-corporate beneficial owner, is the identity of the beneficial owner, rather than the identity of the corporate mortgagor, determinative of the applicability of the exemption clause in subsection (2) - Is the exemption clause applicable if the party seeking to prepay a corporate mortgage pursuant to s-s. (1) is an individual “liable to pay or entitled to redeem” the mortgage.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 7, 1995 Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) (Potts J.) |
Applicants’ application for a declaration to prepay the mortgages allowed |
October 31, 1996
Court of Appeal for Ontario
(Robins, Finlayson, Weiler JJ.A.)
Appeal allowed
December, 17, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Mr. Justice Iacobucci
Motion to extend time granted
January 30, 1997
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
25714JOEL VALE AND H.L.V. TRADING LIMITED v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA and JOEL VALE AND J.V. TRADING LIMITED v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA and JOEL VALE AND H.L.V. TRADING LIMITED v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA (Ont.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Cory and McLachlin 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
Property law - Mortgages - Prepayment - Statutory right to prepay where mortgage for more than five years pursuant to the Interest Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-15, s.10(1) and Mortgages Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.M.40, s.18(1) - Statutory right to prepay not available to corporations, Interest Act, s. 10(2) and Mortgages Act, s. 18(2) - Did the Court of Appeal err in interpreting the statutory prepayment provisions - If the corporate mortgagor is a nominee or trustee for a non-corporate beneficial owner, is the identity of the beneficial owner, rather than the identity of the corporate mortgagor, determinative of the applicability of the exemption clause in subsection (2) - Is the exemption clause applicable if the party seeking to prepay a corporate mortgage pursuant to s-s. (1) is an individual “liable to pay or entitled to redeem” the mortgage.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 5, 1995 Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) (Blair J.) |
Applicants’ applications for declaratory relief to prepay the mortgages dismissed; Respondent’s counterclaims for amounts owing on the mortgages allowed |
October 31, 1996 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Robins, Finlayson and Weiler JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed |
December 24, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
25715MOHAMED HADJI c. LA VILLE DE MONTRÉAL et LA COMMISSION DE LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE, SERVICE DES AFFAIRES CORPORATIVES DE LA VILLE DE MONTRÉAL, LA COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET ME PIERRE-OLIVIER BOUCHER (Qué.)
CORAM: Le Juge en chef et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé et Gonthier
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Libertés publiques - Législation - Interprétation - Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., chap. C-12 - Discrimination fondée sur l’origine ethnique - Le demandeur a-t-il été victime de discrimination fondée sur l’origine ethnique dans le processus d’embauche de la Ville de Montréal? - Demande de réintégration rejetée par le Tribunal des droits de la personne - Requête pour permission d’appel rejetée par la Cour d’appel - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle commis une erreur en rejetant la requête pour permission d’appel du demandeur?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 16 septembre 1996 Le Tribunal des droits de la personne (Rivet J.) |
Demande de réintégration et de compensation formulée par le demandeur rejetée |
Le 7 novembre 1996 Cour d’appel du Québec (Chamberland J.C.A.) |
Requête pour permission d’appel rejetée |
Le 24 décembre 1996 Cour suprême du Canada |
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
25643LE JOURNAL DE MONTRÉAL, DIVISION DE GROUPE QUÉBÉCOR INC. c. ME FRANÇOIS HAMELIN et SYNDICAT DES COMMUNICATIONS GRAPHIQUES, LOCAL 41M (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 - Relations de travail - Convention collective - Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Validité de l’entente annexée à la convention collective eu égard à la clause sur la sécurité d’emploi que l’employeur soutient être contraire à l’article 65 du Code du travail, L.R.Q., chap. C-27, parce que sa durée est supérieure à trois ans - Échec des négociations en vue du renouvellement de la convention collective - Exercice par l’employeur de son droit au lock-out - Griefs visant à obliger l’employeur à déférer le différend à l’arbitrage - Griefs accueillis en partie - Requête de la demanderesse en révision judiciaire rejetée en Cour supérieure - Appel rejeté - L’arbitre intimé a-t-il excédé sa compétence en concluant à la validité des dispositions de l’entente et en ordonnant à la demanderesse de se conformer à celles-ci?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 11 février 1994
Tribunal d’arbitrage (Hamelin, arbitre)
Griefs accueillis en partie; Validité de l’entente sur la sécurité d’emploi reconnue
Le 24 mars 1994
Cour supérieure du Québec (Reeves, J.C.S.)
Requête en révision judiciaire rejetée
Le 16 septembre 1996
Cour d’appel du Québec (Vallerand, Rothman et Nuss JJ.C.A.)
Appel rejeté
Le 15 novembre 1996
Cour suprême du Canada
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée
25764BERNARD ST-AUBIN c. LE CURATEUR PUBLIC DU QUÉBEC et ROSAIRE THÉORET et LE CLUB JURIDIQUE (Qué.)
CORAM: Le Juge en chef et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé et Sopinka
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Procédures - Procédure civile - Appel - Requête de l’intimé pour être autorisé à vendre l’immeuble du demandeur accueillie - Requête du demandeur pour permission d’appel rejetée - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle commis une erreur en rejetant la requête pour permission d’appel du demandeur?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 16 septembre 1996
Cour supérieure du Québec (Flynn J.C.S.)
Requête de l’intimé pour être autorisé à vendre l’immeuble du demandeur accueillie
Le 18 novembre 1996
Cour d’appel du Québec (Deschamps J.C.A.)
Requête du demandeur pour permission d’appel rejetée
Le 15 janvier 1997
Cour suprême du Canada
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée
25597RODRIGUE GIRARD c. MARIUS MOISAN et OFFICIER DE LA PUBLICITÉ DES DROITS DE LA CIRCONSCRIPTION FONCIÈRE DE PORTNEUF (Qué.)
CORAM: Le Juge en chef et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé et Gonthier
La demande de réexamen est rejetée.
The application for reconsideration is dismissed.
MOTIONS |
REQUÊTES
|
26.3.1997
Before / Devant: LE JUGE McLACHLIN
Requête pour déposer d'autres éléments de preuve
Ville de Longueuil
c. (24990)
Michèle Godbout (Qué.)
Motion to adduce further evidence
REJETÉE / DISMISSED
27.3.1997
Before / Devant: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER
Motion to state a constitutional question
Thomson Newspapers Co. Ltd. et al.
v. (25593)
The Attorney General of Canada (Ont.)
Requête pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
(a)Does s. 322.1 of the Canada Elections Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. E-2, as amended, infringe s. 2(b) and/or s. 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
a)L’article 322.1 de la Loi électorale du Canada, L.R.C. (1985), ch. E-2 et ses modifications, contrevient-il à l’al. 2b) ou à l’art. 3 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, ou aux deux à la fois?
(b)If s. 322.1 of the Canada Elections Act infringes s. 2(b) and/or s. 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is s. 322.1 a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society for the purposes of s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
b)Si l’article 322.1 de la Loi électorale du Canada contrevient à l’al. 2b) ou à l’art. 3 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, ou aux deux à la fois, constitue-t-il une limite raisonnable prescrite par une règle de droit, dont la justification peut se démontrer dans le cadre d’une société libre et démocratique, aux fins de l’article premier de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés?
27.3.1997
Before / Devant: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER
Motion for additional time to present oral argument
Husky Oil Operations Ltd.
v. (24855)
Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. et al. (Nfld.)
Requête en prorogation du temps accordé pour la plaidoirie
With the consent of the parties.
DISMISSED / REJETÉE
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1) The time for oral argument at the hearing of the appeal shall be allocated as follows:
Husky Oil Operations Ltd. 1 hour
Bow Valley Industries Ltd. 1 hour
Bow Valley Husky (Bernuda) Ltd. 1 hour
Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. 1 hour, 30 min.
Raychem Corp. & Raychem Canada Ltd. 1 hour, 30 min.
2) The appeal shall be heard on Thursday, June 19, 1997, commencing at 9:15 a.m.
27.3.1997
Before / Devant: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER
Hearing of miscellaneous motions on appeal
Thomson Newspapers Co. Ltd. et al.
v. (25593)
The Attorney General of Canada (Ont.)
Audience sur autres requêtes en appel
DISMISSED / REJETÉE
The notice of motion to abridge time and expedite the hearing raises what I see as an insurmountable problem. While I am quite ready, insofar as the parties themselves are concerned, to agree to set this appeal down for hearing on May 28, 1997, and while I am also ready to advise the Attorneys General who might wish to intervene under Rule 32 that the time granted for service of their factums is reduced, I fail to see how I can abridge the time granted under Rule 18(2) to potential interveners to come to a decision to intervene or not. These potential interveners, who are unknown to me, now have until May 25, 1997 to do so which, in turn, is only three days before the date requested for the hearing of the appeal.
I am not ready to deny potential litigants the right to have their day in Court in this important matter, absent hearing from them. Of course, while this Court has always been extremely flexible in order to accommodate litigants in urgent circumstances, and then again in matters of extreme importance such as life or death, I, as Chief Justice, am unwilling to shut the doors of our Court to anyone who has the right to apply for and obtain intervener status.
While all of this is based on speculation as to when elections will be held, this Court has always reserved its precious right to deliberate and hand down judgment when ready, within a reasonable time of course. This Court cannot undertake to hand down judgment at a time prior to the elections which would be dispositive in one way or another of the issue.
The motion is denied.
1.4.1997
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent’s factum
Belmoaris Gilberto Coreas
v. (25503)
Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l’intimée
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to March 27, 1997.
1.4.1997
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the case on appeal and the appellant’s factum
Nancy Law
v. (25374)
The Minister of Human Resources Development (B.C.)
Requête en prorogation de délai imparti pour déposer le dossier d’appel et le mémoire de l’appelante
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to May 15, 1997 to file the case on appeal; Time extended to June 15, 1997 to file the appellant’s factum.
1.4.1997
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Hearing of miscellaneous motions on appeal
Nancy Law
v. (25374)
The Minister of Human Resources Development (B.C.)
Audience sur autres requêtes en appel
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
The motion excusing the appellant from complying with certain aspects of the Rules relating to the content of the case on appeal is granted and the number of copies of the case on appeal is reduced from 24 copies to 12 copies.
2.4.1997
Before / Devant: IACOBUCCI J.
Motion to extend the time in which to file a notice of appeal
Chieu Ly
v. (25746)
Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer l’avis d’appel
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to January 17, 1997.
2.4.1997
Before / Devant: IACOBUCCI J.
Motion to extend the time in which to apply for leave to appeal
James Ralph MacInnis
v. (25877)
Attorney General of Canada et al. (Ont.)
Requête en prorogation du délai pour obtenir l'autorisation d'appel
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to April 30, 1997.
2.4.1997
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Motion for an order allowing the pages of a factum to be printed on the right side
Robin Eldridge et al.
v. (24896)
Attorney General of British Columbia et al. (B.C.)
Requête en autorisation d'imprimer du côté droit les pages d'un mémoire
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
2.4.1997
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the appellant’s factum
Ian Bernard Galliment Doliente
v. (25417)
Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l’appelant
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to March 24, 1997.
3.4.1997
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file factums
Husky Oil Operations Ltd.
v. (24855)
Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. et al. (Nfld.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer des mémoires
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to March 4, 1997.
3.4.1997
Befor e / Devant: IACOBUCCI J.
Motion to appoint counsel
David Noel Albert
v. (25736)
Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)
Requête en nomination d’un procureur
DISMISSED / REJETÉE
3.4.1997
Before / Devant: IACOBUCCI J.
Motion to extend the time in which to apply for leave to appeal
Donald Noel Albert
v. (25736)
Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour obtenir l'autorisation d'appel
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to May 12, 1997.
4.4.1997
Before / Devant: IACOBUCCI J.
Motion for leave to intervene
BY/PAR:Attorney General for Ontario
Attorney General of B.C.
Attorney General of Nova Scotia
IN/DANS:Terrance Lawrence Caslake
v. (25023)
Her Majesty The Queen (Man.)
Requête en autorisation d’intervention
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
4.4.1997
Before / Devant: CORY J.
Hearing of miscellaneous motions
Canderel Limited
v. (24663)
Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)
Audience sur autres requêtes
DISMISSED / REJETÉE
The application for reconsideration by another panel of the decision to dismiss with costs the application for leave to appeal is, with the concurrence of Justice La Forest and Justice Major, hereby dismissed with costs.
4.4.1997
Before / Devant: LE JUGE IACOBUCCI
Requête en vue de surseoir à l'exécution
Jean-Bernard Clermont
c. (25890)
Office municipal d’habitation de Saint-Jérôme, P.Q. (Qué.)
Motion for a stay of execution
REJETÉE / DISMISSED
4.4.1997
Before / Devant: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER
Motion for an order expediting the hearing of this appeal
John David Lucas et al.
v. (25177)
Her Majesty The Queen (Sask.)
Requête visant à accélérer l'audition de l'appel
DISMISSED / REJETÉE
7.4.1997
Before / Devant: IACOBUCCI J.
Motion to extend the time in which to apply for leave to appeal
Domenic Condello
v. (25893)
Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)
Requête en prorogation du délai pour obtenir l’autorisation d’appel
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to March 26, 1997.
7.4.1997
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file a reply on a cross-appeal
FBI Foods Ltd. et al.
v. (25778)
Cadbury Schweppes Inc. et al. (B.C.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer une réplique dans un appel incident
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to April 3, 1997.
7.4.1997
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the appellant’s factum
Brian William Frederick Allender
v. (25179)
Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l’appelant
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to March 17, 1997.
7.4.1997
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the appellant’s factum
Bow Valley Industries Ltd.
v. (24855)
Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. et al. (Nfld.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l’appelante
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to December 3, 1996.
8.4.1997
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the appellant’s factum
Canadian Human Rights Commission
v. (25228)
Canadian Liberty Net et al. (B.C.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l’appelante
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to April 4, 1997.
8.4.1997
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondents’ factum
Government of Saskatchewan et al.
v. (24913)
Elaine Pasiechnyk et al. (Sask.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire des intimés
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to April 1, 1997.
4.4.1997
Before / Devant: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER
Motion to state a constitutional question
BC Gas Utility Ltd.
v. (25259)
Westcoast Energy Inc. (B.C.)
Requête pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
Given the division of legislative authority between the Parliament of Canada and the ligislatures 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, RSC 1985 c.N-7, applicable to the facilities proposed to be constructed by Westcoast Energy Inc. in respect of
(a)its Fort St. John Expansion Project, the subject of the application in proceeding GH-5-94 before the National Energy Board, and
(b)its Grizzly Valley Expansion project, as described in Order No. MO-21-95 of the National Energy Board?
Compte tenu du partage des pouvoirs législatifs établi par les Lois constitutionnelles de 1867 à 1982 entre le Parlement du Canada et les législatures des provinces, 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 dont Wescoast Energy Inc. propose la construction dans le cadre:
a)de son projet d’expansion de Fort St. John, qui fait l’objet de la demande présentée dans l’instance no GH-5-94 devant l’Office national de l’énergie;
b)de son projet d’expansion de Grizzly Valley, qui est décrit dans l’ordonnance no MO‐21‐95 de l’Office national de l’énergie?
9.4.1997
Before / Devant: IACOBUCCI J.
Motion to extend the time in which to file a notice of intervention
BY/PARAttorney General of Newfoundand
IN/DANS:Delwin Vriend et al.
v. (25285)
Her Majesty The Queen in right of Alberta et al. (Alta.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer un avis d’intervention
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
9.4.1997
Before / Devant: IACOBUCCI J.
Motion to extend the time for leave to intervene and for leave to intervene
BY/PAR:Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies; and
EGALE
IN/DANS:Delwin Vriend
v. (25285)
Her Majesty The Queen in right of Alberta et al. (Alta.)
Requête en prorogation du délai pour la demande d'autorisation et demande d'autorisation d'intervention
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
9.4.1997
Before / Devant: MAJOR J.
Hearing of miscellaneous motions on appeal to vary an order
Delgamuuk et al.
v. (23799)
Her Majesty The Queen in right of B.C. et al. (B.C.)
Audience sur diverses requêtes en appel visant à modifier une ordonnance
Marvin Storrow, Q.C., for Wet’Suwet’en.
Stuart Rush, Q.C., for Gitksan.
J. Arvay, for A.G. of B.C. (Tel.).
G. Garton, Q.C., for the A.G. of Canada.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
10.4.1997
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Miscellaneous motion on appeal accepting an intervener's factum without marginal numbering
Reference Re: Secession of Québec (Ont.)(25506)
Autre requête en appel visant à accepter le mémoire d’un intervenant sans numérotation dans la marge
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
11.4.1997
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the appellant and respondent’s factums
Nelson M. Skalbania
v. (25539)
Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer les mémoires de l’appelant et de l’intimée
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
14.4.1997
Before / Devant: LE JUGE EN CHEF LAMER
Requête pour ajourner la requête en annulation
Peter Hamilton
c. (25837)
Sa Majesté La Reine (Qué.)
Motion to adjourn the motion to quash
Avec le consentement des parties.
ACCORDÉE / GRANTED La requête est ajournée au 2 juin 1997.
14.4.1997
Before / Devant: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER
Motion for additional time to present oral argument
Workers’ Compensation Board et al.
v. (24913)
Elaine Pasiechnyk et al. (Sask.)
Requête en prorogation du temps accordé pour la plaidoirie
DISMISSED / REJETÉE
15.4.1997
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent’s factum
Ernest Richard Greyeyes
v. (25501)
Her Majesty The Queen (Sask.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l’intimée
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to April 9, 1997.
16.4.1997
Before / Devant: MAJOR J.
Motion to extend the time for leave to intervene and for leave to intervene
BY/PAR:Procureur général du Québec
IN/DANS:Terrance Lawrence Caslake
v. (25023)
Her Majesty The Queen (Man.)
Requête en prorogation du délai pour la demande d'autorisation et demande d'autorisation d'intervention
With the consent of the parties. / Avec le consentement des parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
16.4.1997
Before / Devant: LE REGISTRAIRE
Requête en acceptation d'un mémoire d'appel de plus de 40 pages
Robert Libman et al.
c. (24960)
Le procureur général du Québec (Qué.)
Motion for acceptance of factum on appeal over 40 pages
Avec le consentement des parties.
ACCORDÉE / GRANTED
16.4.1997
Before / Devant: LE REGISTRAIRE
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l’intimé
Robert Libman et al.
c. (24960)
Le procureur général du Québec (Qué.)
Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent’s factum
Avec le consentement des parties.
ACCORDÉE / GRANTED Délai prorogé au 15 avril 1997.
16.4.1997
Before / Devant: LE REGISTRAIRE
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire d’un intervenant
BY/PAR:Procureur général de l’Ontario
IN/DANS:Daniel Germain et al.
c. (24964)
Procureur général du Québec (Qué.)
Motion to extend the time in which to file an intervener’s factum
Avec le consentement des parties. / With the consent of the parties.
ACCORDÉE / GRANTED Délai prorogé au 8 avril 1997. / Time extended to April 8, 1997.
16.4.1997
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent’s response
George Alexander Hardy
v. (25602)
Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer la réponse de l’intimée
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to April 8, 1997.
16.4.1997
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent’s factum
Husky Oil Operations Ltd.
v. (24855)
Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. et al. (Nfld.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l’intimée
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to April 14, 1997.
NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
AVIS D’APPEL DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
1.4.1997
The Canadian Red Cross Society et al.
v. (25810)
The Honourable Horace Krever et al. (F.C.A.)(Ont.)
2.4.1997
Duha Printers (Western) Ltd.
v. (25513)
Her Maejsty The Queen (F.C.A.)(Man.)
3.4.1997
Her Majesty The Queen
v. (25521)
Continental Bank of Canada (F.C.A.)(Ont.)
11.4.1997
The Canadian Red Cross Society et al.
v. (25810)
The Honourable Horace Kreveer et al. (F.C.A.)
9.4.1997
Helmut Oberlander, Johann Dueck, Erichs Tobiass
v. (25811)
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.)(Ont.)
11.4.1997
Kenneth MacAlpine et al.
v. (25604)
The Corporation of the City of Sarnia et al. (Ont.)
and between
Consortium Developments (Clearwater) Ltd.
v. (25604)
The Corporation of the City of Sarnia et al. (Ont.)
WEEKLY AGENDA |
ORDRE DU JOUR DE LA SEMAINE
|
AGENDA for the week beginning April 21, 1997.
ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 21 avril 1997.
Date of Hearing/ Case Number and Name/
Date d'audition Numéro et nom de la cause
21/04/97 Motions - Requêtes
22/04/97Robert Libman, et al v. Attorney General of Quebec (Que.)(24960)
23/04/97Daniel Germain, et al c. Procureur général du Québec et entre Daniel Germain, et al c. Ville de Montréal (Qué.)(24964)
24/04/97Robin Susan Eldridge, et al v. Attorney General of British Columbia, et al (B.C.)(24896)
25/04/97Belmoaris Gilberto Coreas v. Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)(25503)
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.
SUMMARIES OF THE CASES |
RÉSUMÉS DES AFFAIRES |
24960 Robert Libman, The Equality Party v. Attorney General of Quebec
Constitutional law - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Freedom of expression - Election - Referendum - Regulated expenses - National committees - Mandatory affiliation.
The Appellants brought a motion for a declaratory judgment seeking to have certain sections of the Referendum Act, R.S.Q., c. C-64.1, and of Appendix 2 (special version of the Election Act for the holding of a referendum) declared invalid and of no force or effect. The Appellants also asked the Court to recognize their right to conduct an unrestricted referendum campaign and to receive an equitable share of the public funds available for such a campaign. The Appellants argued that the sections in question infringed ss. 2(b), (c) and (d) and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and ss. 3 and 10 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The sections of the Act affected by the Appellants’ proceedings limited and regulated the expenses incurred to promote or oppose an option submitted to a referendum and provided for the creation of national committees favourable to each option. At the hearing, counsel for the Appellant argued solely that his clients’ freedom of expression and association had been infringed.
The Superior Court declared that the impugned provisions infringed freedom of expression but that the infringement had been shown to meet the test of s. 1 of the Charter. The Appellants appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal, where they challenged only the validity of certain sections of Appendix 2 on the basis that they violated freedom of expression. The Appellants claimed only the right to conduct a campaign independently of the national committees and in the same capacity as them, that is, to be able to incur regulated expenses up to the prescribed limit. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, with a partial dissent.
The Supreme Court of Canada granted the application for leave to appeal and, on October 21, 1996, the Chief Justice formulated the following constitutional questions:
1.Do ss. 402, 403, 404, 406(3), 413, 414, 416 and 417 of the Election Act (R.S.Q., c. E‐3.3), as amended by Appendix 2 of the Referendum Act (R.S.Q., c. C‐64.1) enacted under s. 44 of the Referendum Act, violate s. 2(b) and/or s. 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in whole or in part?
2.If so, are any of these sections a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Origin of the case: Quebec
File No.: 24960
Judgment of the Court of Appeal: August 2, 1995
Counsel: Julius H. Grey for the Appellants
Benoit Belleau for the Respondent
24960Robert Libman The Equality Party c. Le Procureur général du Québec
Droit constitutionnel - Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - Liberté d’expression - Élection - Référendum - Dépense réglementée - Comités nationaux - Affiliation obligatoire.
Les appelants ont présenté une requête pour jugement déclaratoire visant à faire déclarer inopérants et invalides certains articles de la Loi sur la Consultation Populaire, L.R.Q., c. C-64.1, et certains de l’appendice 2 (version spéciale de la Loi Electorale pour la tenue d’un référendum). Les appelants ont demandé également au tribunal de reconnaître leur droit de faire une campagne référendaire sans restriction et de recevoir une portion équitable des fonds publics disponibles pour pareille campagne. Les appelants ont allégué que ces articles violaient les art. 2b), c) et d), et 15 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés et les art. 3 et 10 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne. Les articles de la Loi visés par la procédure des appelants prévoient une limitation et une réglementation des dépenses pour favoriser ou défavoriser une option soumise à la consultation populaire et la création de comités nationaux favorisant chacune des options. À l’audience, le procureur des appelants s’est limité à prétendre qu’il y avait atteinte à la liberté d’expression et la liberté d’association de ses clients.
La Cour supérieure déclare que les dispositions contestées portent atteinte à la liberté d’expression mais qu’il a été démontré que cette atteinte respecte le test de l’article premier de la Charte. Les appelants interjettent appel à la Cour d’appel du Québec. Ils n’attaquent maintenant que la validité de certains articles de l’appendice 2, eu égard à la liberté d’expression. Ils réclament seulement le droit de faire campagne indépendamment des comités nationaux, au même titre que ceux-ci, soit de pouvoir effectuer des dépenses réglementées, assujetties à un certain plafonnement. La Cour d’appel rejette l’appel, avec dissidence partielle.
La Cour suprême du Canada accorde la demande d’autorisation d’appel et le 21 octobre 1996 le juge en chef formule les questions constitutionnelles suivantes:
1.Les articles 402, 403, 404, 406(3), 413, 414, 416 et 417 de la Loi électorale (L.R.Q., ch. E-3.3), modifiés par l'appendice 2 de la Loi sur la consultation populaire (L.R.Q., ch. C-64.1) établi en vertu de l'art. 44 de la Loi sur la consultation populaire, violent-ils, pour tout ou partie, l'al. 2b) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, l'al. 2d) de cette loi ou ces deux dispositions?
2.Si oui, est-ce que ces articles ou l'un d'entre eux constituent, au sens de l'art. premier de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, une limite raisonnable prescrite par une règle de droit?
Origine: Québec
No du greffe: 24960
Arrêt de la Cour d’appel: Le 2 août 1995
Avocats: Me Julius H. Grey pour l’appelant
Me Benoit Belleau pour l’intimé
24964 Daniel Germain et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec and City of Montreal
Constitutional law - Division of powers - Municipal law - Municipalities - Tax law - Taxation - By‐law - Validity - Application of s. 92(2) of Constitution Act, 1867, which provides that provinces have power of “Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes” - Tests to determine whether tax direct or indirect - Constitutional validity of surtax on non-residential immovables and water-rate and service tax imposed by City of Montreal by‐law - Constitutional validity of provincial legislation authorizing City of Montreal to impose surtax and tax.
The Appellants owned non-residential or partly residential immovables in the City of Montreal. By means of a motion to quash and for a declaratory judgment, they challenged the validity of legislative and by-law provisions concerning the new real estate surtax scheme to which they were subject as of January 1, 1993. More specifically, they challenged all or some of the provisions of City of Montreal by-law No. 9285, entitled By‐law concerning taxes, interest rates and rent for the occupancy of the public domain (1993 fiscal period), and certain provisions of the Act respecting municipal taxation, R.S.Q. 1977, c. F-2.1, the Act to amend various legislative provisions respecting municipal finances, S.Q. 1991, c. 32, and the Act to amend the Act respecting municipal taxation and other legislative provisions, S.Q. 1992, c. 53. In support of their motion, the Appellants argued that the new real estate surtax scheme, which replaced the business, water-rate and service tax previously collected from the occupants of non-residential premises, resulted in a shifting of the surtax to those occupants, such that it was an indirect tax that violated s. 92(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The City was thus imposing a hidden tax on the lessor, the real debtor of the surtax, on condition that the owner collect and pay it. The Appellants also argued that s. 69 of the Act respecting municipal taxation did not set any standard for preparing the comprehensive schedule and therefore had to be declared void on the ground of vagueness under s. 6 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-12.
The Superior Court granted the Appellants’ motion and found that the surtax and the water-rate and service tax on non-residential immovables were indirect taxes. However, the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the Respondents’ appeals, set aside the Superior Court’s judgment and dismissed the Appellants’ motion to quash and for a declaratory judgment without costs.
Origin of the case: Quebec
File No.: 24964
Judgment of the Court of Appeal: August 15, 1995
Counsel: Jérôme Choquette, Q.C., for the Appellants
Monique Rousseau for the Attorney General of Quebec
24964Daniel Germain et autres c. Procureur général du Québec et la Ville de Montréal
Droit constitutionnel - Partage des compétences - Droit municipal - Municipalités - Droit fiscal - Taxation - Règlement - Validité - Application de l’art. 92(2) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 qui dispose que les provinces ont un pouvoir de “taxation directe dans les limites de la province en vue de prélever un revenu pour des objets provinciaux” - Critères servant à déterminer le caractère direct ou indirect d’une taxe - Validité constitutionnelle de la surtaxe sur les immeubles non résidentiels et de la taxe d’eau et de services imposées par un règlement de la Ville de Montréal - Validité constitutionnelle de la législation provinciale qui autorise la Ville de Montréal à imposer cette surtaxe et cette taxe.
Les appelants sont propriétaires d’immeubles non résidentiels ou en partie résidentiels situés sur le territoire de la Ville de Montréal. Ils contestent par voie de requête en nullité et pour jugement déclaratoire la validité de dispositions législatives et réglementaires concernant le nouveau régime de surtaxe foncière auquel ils sont assujettis depuis le 1er janvier 1993. Plus particulièrement, ils contestent tout ou certaines dispositions du règlement 9285 de la Ville de Montréal, intitulé Règlement sur les taxes, les taux d’intérêt et le loyer d’occupation du domaine public (Exercice financier de 1993), ainsi que certaines dispositions de la Loi sur la fiscalité municipale, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. F-2.1, de la Loi modifiant diverses dispositions législatives concernant les finances municipales, L.Q. 1991, ch. 32, et de la Loi amendant la Loi sur la fiscalité municipale et d’autres dispositions législatives, L.Q. 1992, ch. 53. Au soutien de leur requête, les appelants prétendent que le nouveau régime de surtaxe foncière, qui succède à la taxe d’affaires, d’eau et de services auparavant prélevée de l’occupant de lieux non résidentiels, en aménage le report sur ce dernier de sorte qu’il s’agit d’une taxe indirecte qui contrevient à l’art. 92(2) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867. Ainsi, la Ville impose une taxe déguisée au locataire, véritable débiteur de la surtaxe, à la charge par le propriétaire de la percevoir et de la payer. Les appelants plaident également que l’art. 69 de la Loi sur la fiscalité municipale ne fixe aucune norme quant à la confection de l’annexe intégrale et doit donc être déclaré nul pour cause d’imprécision en vertu de l’art. 6 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. C-12.
La Cour supérieure accueille la requête des appelants et conclut que la surtaxe sur les immeubles non résidentiels, ainsi que la taxe d’eau et de services sur ces immeubles, constituent des taxes indirectes. Toutefois, la Cour d’appel accueille à l’unanimité les pourvois interjetés par les intimés, infirme le jugement de la Cour supérieure et rejette sans frais la requête en nullité et pour jugement déclaratoire des appelants.
Origine: Qué.
No du greffe: 24964
Arrêt de la Cour d’appel: Le 15 août 1995
Avocats: Me Jérôme Choquette, c.r., pour les appelants
Me Monique Rousseau pour le Procureur général du Québec
Me Serge Barrière pour la Ville de Montréal
24896Robin Susan Eldridge, John Henry Warren and Linda Jane Warren v. Attorney General of British Columbia, Attorney General of Canada and Medical Service Commission
Constitutional law - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Statutes - Interpretation - Medical insurance and medical interpreter services - Benefits - Discrimination on the basis of physical disability - Whether the definition of “benefits” in s. 1 of the Medical and Health Care Services Act, S.B.C. 1992, c. 76 and ss. 3, 5 and 9 of the Hospital Insurance Act, R.S.B.C 1979, c. 180 and Regulation infringe s. 15(1) of the Charter and are not reasonable limits pursuant to s. 1 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the failure of the Government of the Province of British Columbia to fund medical interpreter services for the Deaf did not infringe s. 15(1).
The Appellants, Robin Eldridge, John Warren and his wife Linda Warren, all born deaf, challenge the constitutionality of the Medical and Health Care Services Act, S.B.C. 1992, c. 76 and the Hospital Insurance Act, R.S.B.C 1979, c. 180. The Appellants contend that both statutes discriminate against the Deaf and are contrary to s. 15 of the Charter because the legislation does not permit funding for interpreters for the Deaf when they are receiving medical services or treatment.
The Appellants communicate by means of American Sign language ("ASL"). "ASL" is a visual/gestural language used as the primary means of communication in North America by the majority of those born deaf. However, when communicating with the vast majority of people who do not know "ASL", the Appellants attempt to communicate by using written notes, and gestures that are sometimes supplemented by lip reading. These means of communication are considered inadequate by the Deaf mostly because of the length of time which it takes to communicate even small amounts of information. The Appellants contend that the absence of interpreting services impairs the level of communication between doctor or other health provider and a deaf patient, and thus increases the risk of misdiagnosis or reduced effectiveness of treatment.
On October 27, 1992, the application for a declaration that the failure of the Government to provide interpreting services for the Deaf as an insured benefit under the B.C. Medical Services Plan as contrary to s. 15 of the Charter was dismissed. The Appellants appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal who dismissed their appeal, Lambert J.A. partially dissenting.
Origin of the case: British Columbia
File No.: 24896
Judgment of the Court of Appeal: May 26, 1995
Counsel: Lindsay M. Lyster for the Appellants
Harvey M. Groberman for the Respondents
24896Robin Susan Eldridge, John Henry Warren et Linda Jane Warren c. Le procureur général de la Colombie-Britannique, le procureur général du Canada et Medical Service Commission
Droit constitutionnel - Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - Lois - Interprétation - Régime d'assurance-maladie et services d'interprétation dans le domaine médical - Bénéfices - Discrimination fondée sur une déficience physique - La définition du terme «benefits» (bénéfices) à l'article premier de la Medical and Health Care Services Act, S.B.C. 1992, ch. 76 et aux art. 3, 5 et 9 de l'Hospital Insurance Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, ch. 180 et de son règlement d'application contrevient-elle au par. 15(1) de la Charte? - Ces bénéfices constituent-ils des limites qui soient raisonnables en vertu de l'article premier? - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en statuant que le non-financement par le gouvernement de la Colombie-Britannique des services d'interprétation dans le domaine médical à l'intention des personnes sourdes ne contrevenait pas au par. 15(1)?
Les appelants, Robin Eldridge, John Warren et son épouse, Linda Warren, sourds de naissance, contestent la constitutionnalité de la Medical and Health Care Services Act, S.B.C. 1992, ch. 76 et de l'Hospital Insurance Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, ch. 180. Les appelants soutiennent que ces deux lois sont discriminatoires contre les personnes sourdes et qu'elles contreviennent à l'art. 15 de la Charte parce que ces lois ne permettent pas le financement de services d'interprétation pour les personnes sourdes lorsqu'elles reçoivent des services ou des traitements médicaux.
Les appelants communiquent au moyen du langage ASL («l'ASL»). L'ASL est un langage visuel et gestuel que la majorité des personnes sourdes de naissance utilisent comme principal moyen de communication. Cependant, lorsqu'ils communiquent avec la vaste majorité des personnes qui ne connaissent pas «l'ASL», les appelants tentent d'utiliser des notes écrites et des gestes que vient parfois compléter la lecture labiale. Ces moyens de communication ne sont pas considérés comme appropriés par les personnes sourdes vu le temps requis pour communiquer même quelques renseignements. Les appelants soutiennent que l'absence de services d'interprétation entrave la communication entre un patient sourd et les médecins ou d'autres fournisseurs de soins de santé, et accroît ainsi le risque de mauvais diagnostic ou réduit l'efficacité du traitement.
Le 27 octobre 1992, un tribunal a rejeté la demande de jugement visant à faire déclarer que l'omission par le gouvernement de fournir des services d'interprétation aux personnes sourdes en tant que bénéfice assuré en vertu du régime de service médical de la C.-B. contrevenait à l'art. 15 de la Charte. Les appelants ont interjeté appel de cette décision auprès de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie-Britannique; celle-ci a rejeté l'appel, le juge Lambert étant dissident en partie.
Origine: Colombie-Britannique
No de greffe: 24896
Arrêt de la Cour d'appel: Le 26 mai 1995
Avocats:Lindsay M. Lyster pour les appelants
Harvey M. Groberman pour les intimés
25503Belmoaris Gilberto Coreas v. Her Majesty The Queen
Criminal law - Procedural law - Trial - Trial judge stating his conclusion before the trial was completed - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial judge’s statement was unfair to the Crown and constituted a miscarriage of justice - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the verdicts would not necessarily have been the same were it not for the error of the trial judge.
The Appellant, Belmoaris Gilberto Coreas, was charged with committing the offences of sexual assault and sexual interference with the daughter of the woman with whom he had been cohabiting.
At the conclusion of the Crown’s case, the Appellant moved for a directed verdict. The trial judge dismissed the motion. At a meeting between the trial judge and counsel for the setting of a date to commence the defence evidence, the trial judge told counsel that on the evidence, which was all of the Crown’s case, he would not convict the Appellant.
When the trial resumed, Crown counsel moved for a mistrial because the trial judge’s remarks in chambers concerning the evidence had compromised the fairness of the trial. The trial judge dismissed the motion and the Appellant elected not to call evidence. The Appellant was acquitted. On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the verdict of acquittal and ordered a new trial.
Origin of the case: Ontario
File No.: 25503
Judgment of the Court of Appeal: July 9, 1996
Counsel: John A. Sutherland for the Appellant
Feroza Bhabha for the Respondent
25503Belmoaris Gilberto Coreas c. Sa Majesté la Reine
Droit criminel - Procédure - Procès - Le juge du procès a rendu sa conclusion avant que le procès soit complété - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que la déclaration du juge du procès était inéquitable envers le ministère public et constituait une erreur judiciaire? - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que les verdicts n'auraient pas nécessairement été les mêmes n'eût été l'erreur du juge du procès?
L'appelant, Belmoaris Gilberto Coreas, a été accusé d'agression sexuelle et de contacts sexuels sur la personne de la fille de la femme avec qui il cohabitait.
À la fin de la preuve du ministère public, l'appelant a demandé qu'on rende un verdict dirigé. Le juge du procès a rejeté la requête. Au cours d'une rencontre entre le juge du procès et les avocats pour la fixation d'une date pour le début de la preuve de la défense, le juge du procès a dit aux avocats que vu la preuve, qui représentait tous les arguments du ministère public, il ne déclarerait pas l'appelant coupable.
Lorsque le procès a repris, le substitut du procureur général a demandé qu'on déclare la nullité du procès parce que les remarques du juge du procès en son cabinet concernant la preuve avaient compromis l'équité du procès. Le juge du procès a rejeté la requête et l'appelant a choisi de ne présenter aucune preuve. L'appelant a été acquitté. La Cour d'appel a accueilli l'appel, infirmé le verdict d'acquittement et ordonné la tenue d'un nouveau procès.
Origine: Ontario
No du greffe: 25503
Arrêt de la Cour d'appel: Le 9 juillet 1996
Avocats: John A. Sutherland pour l'appelant
Feroza Bhabha pour l'intimé
APPEALS INSCRIBED FOR HEARING AT THE SESSION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, BEGINNING MONDAY, APRIL 21, 1997 |
APPELS INSCRITS POUR AUDITION À LA SESSION DE LA COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA COMMENÇANT LE LUNDI 21 AVRIL 1997 |
|
|
|
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA - COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA
Session commencing Monday, April 21, 1997 g g g Session commençant le lundi 21 avril 1997 |
|||||
1 |
Robin Susan Eldridge, et al v. Attorney General of British Columbia, et al |
24896 |
Heenan Blaikie
Attorney General of British Columbia |
Nelligan, Power
Burke-Robertson |
B.C. |
|
2 |
American Home Assurance Company v. Brkich & Brkich Enterprises Ltd., et al |
24959 |
Alexander, Holburn, Beaudin & Lang
Oreck, Chernoff, Tick & Farber |
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt
Macey Schwartz |
B.C. |
|
3 |
The Workers’Compensation Board v. Elaine Pasiechnyk, et al - and between - Government of Saskatchewan v. Elaine Pasiechnyk, et al |
24913 |
Attorney General for Saskatchewan
Merchant Law Group
McPherson Leslie & Tyerman
Merchant Law Group |
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
|
SASK. |
|
4 |
Husky Oil Operations Ltd. v. Saint John Shipbuilding Limited, et al - and between - Bow Valley Industries Ltd. v. Saint John Shipbuilding Limited, et al - and between - Saint John Shipbuilding Limited v. Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd., et al - and between - Raychem Canada Limited, et al v. Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd., et al - and between - Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Saint John Shipbuilding Limited, et al |
24855 |
Code Hunter Wittman
Haley Hunt
McCarthy, Tétrault
Haley Hunt
Haley Hunt
Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales
McInnes Cooper & Robertson
Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales
Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales
Haley Hunt |
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt
McCarthy, Tétrault
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt |
NFLD. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
Robert Libman, et al v. Attorney General of Quebec |
24960 |
Grey Casgrain
Bernard, Roy & Associés |
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Noël, Berthiaume |
QUÉ.
|
6 |
Daniel Germain, et al c. Procureur général du Québec - et entre - Daniel Germain, et al c. Ville de Montréal
|
24964 |
Choquette Rhéaume
Bernard Roy & Associés
Choquette Rhéaume
Jalbert, Séguin, Verdon, Caron, Mahoney |
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Noël, Berthiaume
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Bergeron, Gaudreau
|
QUÉ. |
7 |
Delgamuukw, a.k.a. Earl Muldoe, suing on his own behalf and on behalf of all the members of the Houses of Delgamuukw and Haaxw, et al v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia, et al |
23799 |
Rush, Crane, Guenther & Adams Blake, Cassels & Graydon
Arvay, Finlay |
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Burke-Robertson |
B.C. |
- 733 - 8 |
Belmoaris Gilberto Coreas v. (Crim.) Her Majesty the Queen |
25503 |
John A. Sutherland
Attorney General for Ontario |
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Burke-Robertson |
ONT. |
9 |
Heinrich Martin v. Artyork Investments Limited |
25006 |
Blake, Cassels & Graydon
Raymond & Honsberger |
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Burke-Robertson |
ONT. |
10 |
Ernest Richard Greyeyes v. (Crim.) Her Majesty the Queen |
25501 |
Grier, Sim, Crookshanks & Associates Attorney General of Canada |
Nelligan, Power
Attorney General of Canada |
SASK.
|
11 |
Citadel General Assurance Company, et al v. Lloyds Bank Canada, et al |
25189 |
Duncan & Craig
Cruickshank Karvellas |
Nelligan, Power
Fraser & Beatty |
ALTA.
|
12 |
Jack Wallace v. United Grain Growers Limited |
24986 |
Riley Orle Giesbrecht Born
Wolch Pinx Tapper Scurfield |
Lang, Michener
Burke-Robertson |
MAN. |
13 |
Ian Bernard Gallimet Doliente v. (Crim.) Her Majesty the Queen |
25417 |
Batting, Der
Attorney General of Alberta |
Lang, Michener
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson |
ALTA.
|
14 |
Terri Jean Bedford, et al v. (Crim.) Her Majesty the Queen |
25473 |
Manning & Simone
Attorney General for Ontario |
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Burke-Robertson |
ONT. |
15 |
Brian Gordon Jack v. (Crim.) Her Majesty the Queen |
25505 |
Gindin, Wolson, Simmonds
Attorney General of Manitoba |
Burke-Robertson
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson |
MAN. |
16 |
Carol Lawrence, et al v. (Crim.) Her Majesty the Queen |
25507 |
Pinkofsky, Lockyer & Kwinter
Attorney General for Ontario |
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Burke-Robertson |
ONT. |
17 |
Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Pineview Poultry Products Ltd. - and between - Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Frank Richardson operating as Northern Poultry |
25192 |
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt
McLennan Ross
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt
McLennan Ross |
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson |
N.W.T. |
18 |
Locksley Alphonso Washington Senior v. (Crim.) Her Majesty the Queen |
25283 |
Singleton Urquhart Scott
Attorney General of Alberta |
Burke-Robertson
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson |
ALTA. |
19 |
Sa Majesté la Reine c. (Crim.) Michel Cogger |
25221 |
Procureur général du Québec
Lapointe, Schachter, Champagne & Talbot |
Procureur général du Québec
Noël, Berthiaume |
QUÉ. |
20 |
Jeffrey Lorne Gold v. Primary Developments Limited, et al |
25064 |
Blake, Cassels & Graydon
Sims, Clement, Eastman |
Blake, Cassels & Graydon
|
ONT. |
21 |
Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. G. (D.F.) |
25508 |
Wolch, Pinx, Tapper, Scurfield
Phillips, Aiello, Boni |
Burke-Robertson
Burke-Robertson |
MAN. |
22 |
David Allen Gauthier c. Corporation Municipale de Ville de Lac Brôme, et al |
25022 |
Delorme Bessette
Lavin & Associés |
Bédard, Saucier |
QUÉ. |
23 |
General Accident Assurance Company of Canada v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company |
24998 |
Clark, Drummie & Company
Barry & O’Neil |
Scott & Aylen
Cooligan, Ryan |
N.B. |
24 |
Ville de Longueuil c. Michèle Godbout
-et entre-
Michèle Godbout c. Ville de Longueuil |
24990 |
Dunton Rainville
Trudel, Nadeau, Lesage, Larivière et Associés
Trudel, Nadeau, Lesage, Larivière et Associés Dunton Rainville |
Noël, Berthiaume
Bergeron, Gaudreau
Bergeron, Gaudreau
Noël, Berthiaume |
QUÉ. |
25 |
André Côté, et al v. (F.C.A.) George Addy |
25262 |
Pateras & Iezzoni
Industry Canada, Legal Affairs |
Charron, Hollander, Mattar |
QUÉ. |
26 |
Her Majesty the Queen v. (Crim.) William Lifchus |
25404 |
Attorney General of Manitoba
Wolch, Pinx, Tapper, Scurfield |
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Burke-Robertson |
MAN. |
27 |
Brian William Frederick Allender v. (Crim.) Her Majesty the Queen |
25179 |
Peck and Tammen
Smart & Williams |
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Burke-Robertson |
B.C. |
28 |
Canadian Red Cross Society, et al v. (F.C.A.) The Honourable Horace Krever, Commissioner of the Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada |
25810 |
Lerner & Associates
Genest Murray DesBrisay Lamek |
Lang, Michener
Nelligan, Power |
ONT. |
29 |
Erichs Tobiass v. (F.C.A.) (Crim.) Minister of Citizenship and Immigration - and between- Helmut Oberlander v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration - and between - Johann Dueck v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration |
25811 |
Gesta J. Abols
Attorney General of Canada
Sack Goldblatt Mitchell
Attorney General of Canada
Bayne Sellar Boxall
Attorney General of Canada |
Shore, Davis & Perkins-McVey
Attorney General of Canada
Shore, Davis & Perkins-McVey
Attorney General of Canada
Attorney General of Canada |
ONT. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 : April 21, 1997
Service : March 31, 1997 Filing : April 7, 1997 Respondent : April 14, 1997
|
Audience du : 21 avril 1997
Signification : 31 mars 1997 Dépôt : 7 avril 1997 Intimé : 14 avril1997 |
Motion day : May 5, 1997
Service : April 14, 1997 Filing : April 21, 1997 Respondent : April 28, 1997 |
Audience du : 5 mai 1997
Signification : 14 avril 1997 Dépôt : 21 avril 1997 Intimé : 28 avril 1997 |
DEADLINES: APPEALS
|
DÉLAIS: APPELS |
The Spring session of the Supreme Court of Canada will commence April 21, 1997.
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.
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.
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 de printemps de la Cour suprême du Canada commencera le 21 avril 1997.
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.
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.
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 [1996] 3 S.C.R. Part 5
2747-3174 Québec Inc. v. Quebec (Régie des permis d’alcool), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 919
Cooper v. Canada (Human Rights Commission), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 854
R v. Rockey, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 829 |
Jugements publiés dans [1996] 3 R.C.S. Partie 5
2747-3174 Québec Inc. c. Québec (Régie des permis d’alcool), [1996] 3 R.C.S. 919
Cooper c. Canada (Commission des droits de la personne), [1996] 3 R.C.S. 854
R c. Rockey, [1996] 3 R.C.S. 829
|
Judgments reported in [1996] 3 S.C.R. Part 6
R. v. Bramwell, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1126
R. v. Hawkins, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1043
R. v. Hinchey, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1128
R. v. I. (R.R.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1124
R. v. Nikolovski, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197
Jugements publiés dans [1996] 3 R.C.S. Partie 6
R. c. Bramwell, [1996] 3 R.C.S. 1126
R. c. Hawkins, [1996] 3 R.C.S. 1043
R. c. Hinchey, [1996] 3 R.C.S. 1128
R. c. I. (R.R.), [1996] 3 R.C.S. 1124
R. c. Nikolovski, [1996] 3 R.C.S. 1197
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE
CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME
- 1996 -
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 |
29 |
m 30 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
1 |
m 2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
|
3 |
m 4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
13 |
h 14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
|
10 |
h 11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
|
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
|
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
|
22 |
23 |
24 |
h 25 |
h 26 |
27 |
28 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
- 1997 -
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 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
|
2 |
m 3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
|
2 |
m 3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
|
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
|
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
|
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
|
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
|
|
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
h 28 |
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30 |
h 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 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
|
1 |
m 2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
|
4 |
m 5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
|
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
|
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
20 |
m 21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
|
18 |
h 19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
|
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sittings of the court: Séances de la cour: |
|
|
Motions: Requêtes: |
M |
|
Holidays: Jours fériés: |
H |
18 sitting weeks / semaines séances de la cour 83 sitting days / journées séances de la cour 8 motion and conference days / journées requêtes, conférences 1 holidays during sitting days / jours fériés durant les sessions |
|
|
|
|
|
|