Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

November 20, 1998  1749 - 1793                                                       le 20 novembre 1998

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Gary T. Allen

Robert J. McComb

McComb Dockrill

v. (26910)

McLean, Budden Limited et al. (Ont.)

Sean F. Dunphy

Stikeman, Elliot

FILING DATE 23.10.1998

Howard Shulman

Chris N. Buhr

Buhr & Kert

v. (26912)

The United States of America (Ont.)

David Littlefield

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 13.10.1998

David Murray-Audain

David Murray-Audain

v. (26913)

The Corporation of the Town of Newcastle et al. (Ont.)

Sandra E. Dawe

Shibley Righton

FILING DATE 14.10.1998

William D. Hulme

David Hager

Lang Michener

v. (26915)

The Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited (Ont.)

William Scott

McCarthy, Tétrault

FILING DATE 13.10.1998

Robert E. Martin

William G. Dingwall, Q.C.

Dingwall, McLauchlin

v. (26916)

Clifford Goldfarb et al. (Ont.)

Geoffrey D.E. Adair, Q.C.

Enfield, Hemmerick, Adair & Wood

FILING DATE 16.10.1998

2897041 Canada Inc.

George Peizler

Lebovics, Cytrynbaum, Peizler

v. (26936)

Immobilière Natgen Inc. et al. (Qué.)

Richard Lebrun

Lebrun, Papineau

FILING DATE 25.10.1998

Lorrie Tsaoussis, by her Litigation Guardian, The Children’s Lawyer, Carol Metcalf et al. (Ont.)

André I.G. Michael

Siskind, Cromarty, Ivey & Dowler

v. (26945)

Juanita M. Baetz et al. (Ont.)

Sheldon A. Gilbert, Q.C.

Gilbert, Wright & Kirby

FILING DATE 29.10.1998

George Hines

George Hines

v. (26506)

Ontario Human Rights Commission et al. (Ont.)

Cathryn Pike

Ontario Human Rights Commission

FILING DATE 30.10.1998

Mark Edward Russell

Balfour Q.H. Der

Batting, Der

v. (26699)

Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

Goran Tomljanovic

Agent of Alberta Justice - Appeals and Criminal Law Policy

FILING DATE 9.11.1998

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, District 9

Eric del Junco

Green & Chercover

v. (26911)

Peter G. Barton et al. (Ont.)

Leonard Kavanaugh

Kavanaugh, Milloy

FILING DATE 19.10.1998

Norman Groot

Irwin Koziebrocki

v. (26929)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Miriam Bloomenfeld

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 4.11.1998

Sa Majesté la Reine

Henri-Pierre Labrie

Subs. du procureur général

c. (26939)

Renaud Lévesque (Qué.)

Pauline Bouchard

McSilver, Morenas et Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION 6.11.1998

Albert Fisher Canada Limited

P. Daniel Le Dressay

Le Dressay & Company

v. (26940)

Win Sun Produce Company (B.C.)

Gordon K.M. Yu

Tao & Company

FILING DATE 2.11.1998

Accent Architectural

Julius H. Grey

Grey Casgrain

v. (26941)

Commission de la construction du Québec et al. (Qué.)

Danielle Turcotte

Turcotte, Nolet

FILING DATE  3.11.1998

Credit Lyonnais Canada in its capacity as Security Agent for the Abitibi and Gulf Lenders

Lyndon A.J. Barnes

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt

v. (26942)

National Bank of Canada et al. (Ont.)

Benjamin Zarnett

Goodman, Phillips & Vineberg

FILING DATE 2.11.1998

Kevin Lathangue

Stephen N. Suntok

Raincoast Business Centre

v. (26943)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Peter W. Hogg

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 6.11.1998

Le procureur général du Québec

Monique Rousseau

Min. de la Justice

c. (26944)

Ronald Cross et al. (Qué.)

Julio Peris

Girouard, Peris & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION 29.10.1998

Dale Martin

Anthony H. Dalmyn

Walsh, Micay & Company

v. (26946)

The Rural Municipality of St. Andrews (Man.)

Michael G. Finlayson

D’Arcy & Deacon

FILING DATE 9.11.1998

Anthony Joseph Kubanowski

Aaron A. Fox, Q.C.

McDougall, Ready

v. (26952)

Primerica Life Insurance Company of Canada (Sask.)

Maurice O. Laprairie, Q.C.

MacPherson Leslie & Tyerman

FILING DATE 9.11.1998

John Leonard Bennett

Brian H. Greenspan

Greenspan Humphrey Lavine

v. (26590)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

W. Graeme Cameron

Min. of the Attorney General

FILING DATE 30.10.1998

Mr. Justice John E. Sheppard

Mr. Justice John E. Sheppard

Ontario Court of Justice

v. (26949)

The Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

Peter A. Vita, Q.C.

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 6.11.1998

NOVEMBER 9, 1998 / LE 9 NOVEMBRE 1998

                                              CORAM:  Chief Justice Lamer and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ. /

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges McLachlin et Iacobucci

                                                                                    Her Majesty The Queen

                                                                                                v. (26772)

                                                                        Anthony James Gillies (Crim.)(B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sentencing - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the effective sentence for second degree murder is ten years, and that therefore the range for manslaughter must usually be below ten years - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the range of sentence for manslaughter is four to six years, and that a sentence of eight years or more could not be imposed in the absence of special circumstances - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by substituting its view of the facts for that of the trial judge - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by treating as a mitigating circumstance the fact the Respondent was part of a mob when he killed the deceased.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                           Esther Neuman

                                                                                                v. (26778)

                                                                       Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Constitutional law - Division of powers - Whether the Animal Pedigree Act is intra vires the Parliament of Canada  - Whether the Canadian Kennel Club was a properly authorized association under the Livestock Pedigree Act and was therefore properly authorized under the Animal Pedigree Act through the latter’s transitional provisions - Whether the precedent set by the Court of Appeal permits Parliament to legislate in respect of matters outside the jurisdiction conferred on it by the Constitution Act, 1867  provided that such legislation is “tacked onto” validly enacted federal legislation rather than enacted in a separate piece of legislation.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                                     M.S.

                                                                                                v. (26886)

                                                                        Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Whether motions judge erred in precluding the Applicant from returning anew to the court on habeas corpus with new grounds with fresh evidence - Whether Correctional Service and National Parole Board lost jurisdiction to continue to detain Applicant based on their  failure to act within the 30-day time limitation prescribed by law and/or to notify the Applicant of the referral of his case to the National Parole Board - Whether courts below erred in disallowing the Applicant’s constitutional attack on the validity of s. 135(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act for overbreadth and vagueness as it relates to the detention criterion “for the protection of society”.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                                      F.N.

                                                                                                v. (26805)

                                                                                    Her Majesty the Queen

                                                                                                      and

                                                                 Roman Catholic School Board for St. John’s

                                                                                                      and

                                                              Avalon Consolidated School Board (Crim.)(Nfld.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Young offenders - Criminal law - Whether the Provincial Court of Newfoundland exceeded its jurisdiction by releasing and distributing the Youth Court docket to the Respondent school boards - Whether distribution of the Youth Court docket is a violation of the non-disclosure requirements of s. 45 of the Young Offenders Act - Whether distribution of the Youth Court docket is a violation of the non-publication requirement of s. 38 of the YOA.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                             N.V. Reykdal & Associates Ltd.

                                                                                                v. (26764)

                                                                           K. & Fung Canada Limited (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Lease and hire of work - Property law - Landlord tenant - Mechanics’ liens - Tenant contracting with builder to perform leasehold improvements - Builder completing renovations - Tenant defaulting on lease and abandoning premises - Builder registering lien against property - Whether landlord is an “owner” within meaning of Builders’ Lien Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. B-12  so that builder can claim under lien - Whether landlord made express or implied request for work to be done and materials to be furnished within meaning of s. 12(1) of the Act.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

March 27, 1997

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Master Laycock)

Order striking builders’ liens filed by the Applicant from title to land owned by the Respondent

July 15, 1997

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Prowse J.)

Order removing Applicant’s liens filed against Respondent’s land

May 12, 1998

Court of Appeal of Alberta

(Bracco, Hunt and Berger JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

July 30, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

                                                                                           City of Nanaimo

                                                                                                v. (26786)

                                                                                Rascal Trucking Ltd. (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Standard of review - Torts - Statutes - Interpretation - Municipal Law - Municipal corporations - Judicial review  - Jurisdiction - Nuisance - Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 290, s. 936 (removal of dangerous buildings and other structures) - Ejusdem generis rule of statutory interpretation - Whether the Applicant municipality had jurisdiction under s. 936 of the Municipal Act to declare a pile of topsoil to be a nuisance and to order it removed - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Applicant had no such jurisdiction - Whether pile of topsoil constituted “other matter or thing” within the meaning of s. 936 - Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that it did not and that “other matter or thing” referred to “constructed items” and “watercourses” pursuant to the ejusdem generis rule of statutory interpretation - Whether Court of Appeal unjustifiably interfered in a decision of an elected municipal council - What is the threshold test for judicial interference in municipal decisions? Shell Canada Products v. Vancouver, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 231.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:    L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Bastarache JJ. /

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache

                                            Terrasse Jewellers Inc., Larry Baily and Ross Brothers (1975) Inc.

                                                                                                v. (26598)

                                                                       Her Majesty The Queen (F.C.A.)(Que.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Illegal seizure of jewellery by the Respondent - Action for damages - Applicants entitled to a return of or compensation for 25% of  the value of the goods still remaining in the custody of the Respondent - Subsequent directive by trial judge - Order declaring trial judge functus officio - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in its interpretation of the effect of the judgment of Rouleau J. of June 9, 1988, and his direction of December 8, 1989 - Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly applied the principle of functus officio to this case.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                       J. Adory Laliberté et

Georgette Otis Laliberté

                                                                                                c. (26734)

                                                                          Sa Majesté la Reine (C.A.F.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit fiscal - Intérêts - Prêt - Cautionnement - Hypothèques - Déduction de frais d’intérêts encourus pour produire un revenu - La Cour fédérale d’appel a-t-elle erré en rejetant la demande de révision des demandeurs?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

                                                                               John Loring Patrick Sinclair

                                                                                                v. (26743)

                                                                         The Law Society of Manitoba (Man.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative Law - Jurisdiction - Whether a provincial Law Society has jurisdiction to prohibit a bencher of the Law Society from appearing before the governing body or its committees as counsel on behalf of a member - Whether such a prohibition is incidental or necessary to the conduct of Law Society’s activities - Lawyer cited by the Law Society on charges of professional misconduct wished to be represented before a disciplinary committee by a bencher - Rule 25(1) of the Law Society Rules enacted under The Law Society Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. L.100, prohibited  bencher from representing lawyer.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                           John Gallant and Bernice Gallant

                                                                                                v. (26785)

                                                                      The Province of New Brunswick (N.B.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Actions - Appeals - Whether Court of Appeal erred by not addressing the issue raised by the Applicant which was that the Applicant was not given a fair hearing - Whether Court of Appeal erred in law when it raised an issue which was not raised by either party at the trial or at the appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in determining that Applicant had no cause of action against the Province of New Brunswick.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                             Roy Morency

                                                                                                c. (26900)

                                         La Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail du Québec (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Procédure civile - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en refusant la requête du demandeur pour ordonnance de sauvegarde des droits au motif qu’elle constituait une tentative de remettre en cause des jugements passés en force de chose jugée?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 17 janvier 1996

Cour supérieure du Québec

(Richard j.c.s.)

Requête de l’intimée accueillie; ordonnance interdisant au greffe d’accepter des procédures du demandeur concernant les séquelles de son accident de travail à moins d’avoir reçu une autorisation préalable du juge en chef ou d’un juge désigné

Le 15 juin 1998

Cour supérieure du Québec

(Dionne j.c.a.c.s.)

Demande du demandeur visant à forcer la Commission à se prononcer sur une aggravation et à payer une indemnité rejetée

Le 6 juillet 1998

Cour d’appel du Québec

(LeBel, Gendreau et Rousseau-Houle jj.c.a.)

Requête pour ordonnance de sauvegarder les droits rejetée

Le 28 septembre 1998

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

                                                                           William James Bradford Canning

                                                                                                v. (26814)

                                                                       Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Man.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing appeal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:   Cory, Major and Binnie JJ. /

Les juges Cory, Major et Binnie

                                                                              Howard White, Theresa White

                                                                                                v. (26722)

                                                                                    Raffaele Cugliari (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes - Interpretation - Torts - Damages - Whether Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, which are obtained pursuant to a mandatory public statutory program, are deductible from an award of damages either at common law or pursuant to s. 267(1)(c) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.  I. 8 - Whether Canada Pension Plan disability benefits were indemnity payments - Where s.  267 displaced the common law principles relating to the deductibility of benefits from damages awards in the context of motor vehicle accidents - Cunningham v. Wheeler, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 359.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                           Tam Thanh Chu

                                                                                                v. (26741)

                                                        Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Immigration - Convention refugee - Documentary evidence - Administrative law - Judicial Review - Danger to the public determination pursuant to s. 70(5) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1976-77, c. 52 - What is the appropriate standard of review - Whether the lower court erred by deciding that certain information on country conditions considered by the Minister’s delegate in forming the opinion that the Applicant was a danger to the public was not extrinsic evidence requiring disclosure to the Applicant - Whether the lower court erred by making a presumption that documentary evidence was available to the Applicant.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                 Jon Oprea and Elena Oprea

                                                                                                v. (26749)

                                                               The Royal Insurance Company of Canada (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial Law - Insurance - Claim for property losses following incendiary fire - Allegation of arson - Onus of proving arson - Whether evidence of motive and opportunity were proven and substantiated finding of arson.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                       Ernest A.J. Hawrish

                                                                                                v. (26752)

The Law Society of Saskatchewan, The Benchers, The Committees and the Officers of the Law Society of Saskatchewan (Sask.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Jurisdiction - Statutes - Interpretation - Disciplinary proceedings - Whether time requirements imposed by statute on tribunals of limited authority are to be strictly interpreted - Whether non-observance of time requirements by tribunal results in failure of jurisdiction - Whether a tribunal is required to stay its own proceedings when an application is made to the Supreme Court of Canada challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

November 10, 1997

Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench

(Hrabinsky J.)

Order prohibiting the Respondents from filing any further proceedings or actions alleging that Applicant is guilty of conduct unbecoming a barrister and solicitor

May 19, 1998

Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

(Cameron, Sherstobitoff and Lane JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed

July 17, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

                                                                                          Peter D. Shanoha

                                                                                                v. (26763)

                                                                               Motorways (1980) Ltd. (Man.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Civil procedure - Summary judgment - Labour law - Collective agreement -Whether summary judgment was appropriately granted in this case - Whether the courts have jurisdiction in this case - Whether the collective agreement addresses the issues raised in the Applicant’s statement of claim - Whether unionized workers can sue for wrongful dismissal if their collective agreement does not address the issue of termination.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

NOVEMBER 16, 1998 / LE 16 NOVEMBRE 1998

CORAM:   Chief Justice Lamer and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ. /

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges McLachlin et Iacobucci

                                                                                          Mark Bodenstein

                                                                                                v. (26728)

                                                                       Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in applying section 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code of Canada  circumstances of this case - Whether Court of Appeal effectively denied the applicant the opportunity of making full answer and defence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                        Ladner Downs and Arthur Equipment and Services Ltd.

                                                                                                v. (26780)

                                                                                      Douglas Shore (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Master and Servant - Dismissal - Appropriate period of notice of termination of employment - Contract of Employment - Contractual terms - Enforceability of contractual terms - Term in employment contract providing for 30 days notice - Statutory notice provisions - Employment Standards Act, S.B.C. 1980, c. 10, s. 2 - Common law presumption of reasonable notice - Whether the lower courts disposed of the case properly - Whether the contractual term in question is enforceable.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:   L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Bastarache JJ. /

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache

                                                                                             Imtiaz Husain

                                                                                                v. (26798)

                                                            Canadian Airlines International Ltd. (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Labour law - Statutes - Interpretation - Canada Labour Code , R.S.C. 1985, c.L-2  - Unjust dismissal - s. 242(3.1) (limitation on complaints) - Whether an adjudicator appointed under Part III of the Canada Labour Code  had jurisdiction to hear a complaint of unjust dismissal - Whether such a hearing was barred by s. 242(3.1) of the Code which bars a complaint where the complainant “has been laid off because of lack of work or because of the discontinuance of a function” - An adjudicator held that the provision did not apply and that the Applicant had been unjustly dismissed - This was reversed by the Federal Court of Appeal - Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in quashing the adjudicator’s award - Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s. 242(3.1)(a) - Whether Federal Court of Appeal misapplied Flieger v. New Brunswick, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 651 - Whether Federal Court of Appeal misconstrued its role by substituting its opinion for that of the adjudicator on a finding of fact relating to the adjudicator’s jurisdiction - Whether decision of Federal Court of Appeal is inconsistent with the pronouncements of this Honourable Court on the role of a court on judicial review of a labour tribunal.                          

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                                     G.G.

                                                                                                c. (26829)

                                                                                                J.L. (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit de la famille - Divorce - Garde - Accès - Changement du lieu de résidence - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en statuant que l’imposition de restrictions au “droit” du parent gardien de choisir le lieu de résidence est l’exception? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en refusant de considérer la conduite de l’intimée? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en confirmant la décision du juge Audet, laquelle fut prise sans nouvelle expertise et sans analyse complète de tous les éléments permettant de déterminer l’intérêt des enfants? - Gordon c. Goertz, [1996] 2 R.C.S. 27.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

CORAM:   Cory, Major and Binnie JJ. /

Les juges Cory, Major et Binnie

                                                                                         Ellis-Don Limited

                                                                                                v. (26709)

The Ontario Labour Relations Board

and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 894 (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Natural justice - Panel of an administrative tribunal hears grievance and drafts decision but then engages in discussions with full membership of the tribunal that lead to significant changes to the decision - Tribunal refuses to disclose what was discussed by the full membership and refuses documentary disclosure - Whether tribunal discussed questions of fact or discussed questions of policy - Whether tribunal interfered with panel’s fact-finding process - Onus of proving interference - Whether the change in the panel’s decision was evidence of interference - Whether an adverse inference should have been drawn from the refusal to disclose - Whether any presumption of regularity in the tribunal’s process was displaced by the refusal to disclose.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                Mid Canada Millwork Ltd., and Sanford Weiss

                                                                                                v. (26809)

                             Delano Building Products Ltd., Michael Shamray, and 3082512 Manitoba Ltd. (Man.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Inexperienced business person sharing confidential information with another business person in an attempt to convince that person to join him as a full partner in acquiring a business opportunity - Not extracting an express promise that the second person will not use the information to secretly acquire the opportunity for himself - Whether first person’s resultant vulnerability to having the opportunity secretly acquired by the second person “gratuitously incurred” such that no fiduciary duty prevents the second party from secretly acquiring the opportunity - Can a person acquire enforceable confidentiality rights over information belonging to another party by virtue of lawfully acquiring possession of the information and sharing it in confidence with a third party? - Is it contrary to good conscience in Canada, such that a constructive trust will be imposed as occurred in Soulos v. Korkontzilas, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 217, for a party to retain the benefit of a business opportunity obtained by lying to a potential joint venture partner?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

NOVEMBER 19, 1998 / LE 19 NOVEMBRE 1998

26642    JAMES WARREN WELLS  - v. - MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Alta.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sentencing - Conditional sentencing - Aboriginal people - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation, definition and application of s. 718.2 (e) of the Criminal Code  by concluding that those provisions do not affect aboriginal offenders convicted of serious crimes - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that non-traditional sanctions within the framework of the conditional sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code  might result in the victims of aboriginal offenders being entitled to less protection under the law - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that a conditional sentence would not ordinarily be available for those offences where the paramount consideration is denunciation and deterrence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that a sentencing court need not make inquiries regarding offenders before the court.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

November 8, 1996

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (McMahon J.)

Conviction: sexual assault

December 19, 1996

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (McMahon J.)

Sentence: 20 months imprisonment

January 16, 1998

Court of Appeal of Alberta

(Irving, Picard and Sulatycky JJ.A.)

Appeal from conviction dismissed

April 15, 1998

Court of Appeal of Alberta

(Sulatycky, Cairns and Belzil JJ.A.)

Appeal from sentence dismissed

June 4, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal sentence filed

26712                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - v. - RONALD CHARLES DALTON (Crim.)(Nfld.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Fresh Evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in accepting the Respondent’s fresh evidence and ordering a new trial - Whether the Court of Appeal adopted a test that ignored relevance and due diligence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

December 15, 1989

Supreme Court of Newfoundland (Trial Division)

(Barry J.)

Conviction: Second degree murder

May 29, 1998

Supreme Court of Newfoundland (Court of Appeal)

(Gushue C.J.N., Marshall and Green JJ.A.)

Fresh evidence application allowed; appeal allowed; conviction quashed and new trial ordered

June 15, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

26701                    THE PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARDS’ ASSOCIATION OF ALBERTA, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE EDMONTON SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 7 AND CATHRYN STARING PARRISH -AND- THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALGARY BOARD OF EDUCATION NO. 19 AND MARGARET WARD LOUNDS - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALBERTA AND THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (Alta.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

The applications for leave to appeal are granted.

Les demandes d'autorisation d'appel sont accordées.

NATURE OF THE CASE                                   

Constitutional Law  - Schools - Whether the Constitution of Canada impliedly or by convention guarantees the reasonable autonomy of school boards - Whether the School Act, 1988, S.A. c. S-3.1, as amended, violates the Constitution of Canada - Whether public schools have been denied a right enjoyed by separate schools to opt out of a provincial system of school funding in violation of a constitutional guarantee of “mirror” equality between public and separate schools - Whether public school boards in Alberta have been denied fairness, equal government and legislative treatment in respect to funding or equal ability to make expenditures without discrimination - Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding that s.17(1) of the Alberta Act does not provide for “mirror equality” between public and separate school boards - Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the School Act, 1988, S.A. c. S-3.1, as amended, is not discriminatory within the meaning of s. 17(2) of the Alberta Act.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26705                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - v. - GLENN WHITE (Crim.)(Nfld.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

The application for an oral hearing is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d’audition est rejetée.  La demande d'autorisation d'appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Procedure - Appeals - Jurisdiction - Court of Appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal has inherent jurisdiction to vary sentence where no appeal from sentence has been sought.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26732                    LANCE WILLIAM WUST - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(B.C.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted on the following issue:

Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the provisions of s. 719(1) and (3) cannot be applied to take into account time spent in custody pending disposition of charges to reduce a sentence below the minimum four years required by s. 344 (a) of the Criminal Code ?

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accueillie relativement à la question suivante:

La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en statuant que les dispositions des par. 719(1) et (3) ne peuvent être appliquées de manière à tenir compte de la période de détention écoulée en attendant une décision sur les accusations, pour réduire une peine en deçà de la peine minimale de quatre ans requise par l’al. 344 a )  du Code criminel ?

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Sentencing - Mandatory minimum sentences - Cruel and unusual punishment - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the test relating to the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences as stated in R. v. Smith [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045 -  Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the provisions of s. 719(1) and (3) cannot be applied to take into account time spent in custody pending disposition of charges to reduce a sentence below the minimum four years required by s. 344 (a) of the Criminal Code .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

February 26, 1998

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Grist J.)

Convictions: robbery with a firearm; possession of a prohibited weapon

Sentence: three and one half years imprisonment

May 7, 1998

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(McEachern C.J.B.C., Lambert and Finch JJ.A.)

Respondent’s appeal from sentence allowed and term of imprisonment increased to four years

June 26, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal sentence filed

26800                    KELLY NEIL ARTHURS - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(B.C.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted on the following issue:

Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the provisions of s. 719(1) and (3) cannot be applied to take into account time spent in custody pending disposition of charges to reduce a sentence below the minimum four years required by s. 344 (a) of the Criminal Code ?

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accueillie relativement à la question suivante:

La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en statuant que les dispositions des par. 719(1) et (3) ne peuvent être appliquées de manière à tenir compte de la période de détention écoulée en attendant une décision sur les accusations, pour réduire une peine en deçà de la peine minimale de quatre ans requise par l’al. 344 a )  du Code criminel ?

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Sentencing - Mandatory minimum sentences - Cruel and unusual punishment - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the test relating to the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences as stated in Regina v. Smith [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the provisions of s. 719(1) and (3) cannot be applied to take into account time spent in custody pending disposition of charges to reduce a sentence below the minimum four years’ imprisonment required by s. 344 (a) of the Criminal Code .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26802                    CHRISTOPHER RONALD ARRANCE - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(B.C.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted on the following issue:

Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the provisions of s. 719(1) and (3) cannot be applied to take into account time spent in custody pending disposition of charges to reduce a sentence below the minimum four years required by s. 344 (a) of the Criminal Code ?

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accueillie relativement à la question suivante:

La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en statuant que les dispositions des par. 719(1) et (3) ne peuvent être appliquées de manière à tenir compte de la période de détention écoulée en attendant une décision sur les accusations, pour réduire une peine en deçà de la peine minimale de quatre ans requise par l’al. 344 a )  du Code criminel ?

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Sentencing - Mandatory minimum sentences - Cruel and unusual punishment - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the mandatory minimum punishment of imprisonment for four years in s. 344 (a) of the Criminal Code  was constitutionally valid -  Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the term of four years imprisonment mandated by s. 344(a) cannot be reduced by taking into account pre-disposition time served pursuant to s. 719(3)  of the Criminal Code .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26687                    GLEN CHARLES LALANNE - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(N.S.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and McLachlin 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 - Whether lower courts were correct in disposition of case - Whether Applicant’s rights were respected.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26695    VINCENT SCALERA - v. - M.J. OPPENHEIM IN HIS QUALITY AS ATTORNEY IN CANADA FOR THE NON-MARINE UNDERWRITERS, MEMBERS OF LLOYD’S OF LONDON (B.C.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Insurance - Duty to defend - Interpretation - Applicant’s homeowners’ policy provides liability coverage for actions relating to “bodily injury” subject to an intentional act exclusion - Can an insurer under a contract of insurance obligate itself to provide a defence to a claim even if the insurance contract does not create a possible obligation to indemnify the insured - Do liability insurance policies containing intentional act exclusions relieve the insurer of its duty to defend a claim alleging harm as a result of sexual activity?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26708                    NICODEMO SANSALONE - v. - THE WAWANESA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (B.C.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Insurance - Duty to defend - Interpretation - Applicant’s homeowners’ policy provides liability coverage for actions relating to “bodily harm” subject to an intentional injury exclusion - Underlying civil action for sexual misconduct and breach of fiduciary duty - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of Co-operative Fire & Casualty Co. v. Saindon et al., [1976] 1 S.C.R. 735, by concluding that “harm is a natural and probable consequence” of sexual activity.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26770                    W.C.W. - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(B.C.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Young offenders - Transfer to ordinary court - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by making contrary findings of fact to those made by the Youth Court judge - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by not affording due deference to the findings of fact made by the Youth Court judge in the evaluation of the evidence heard at the transfer hearing.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26682    NOËLLA ARSENAULT-CAMERON, MADELEINE COSTA-PETITPAS AND LA FÉDÉRATION DES PARENTS DE L’ÎLE-DU-PRINCE-ÉDOUARD INC. v. GOVERNMENT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND  (P.E.I.)

CORAM:               L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Bastarache JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Civil - Minority language rights - Whether the Applicants’ section 23 rights entitle them to minority language education - If so, what level of minority language education are appropriate on the facts of this case.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26634                    JAMES INGLES v. THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF TORONTO  (Ont.)

CORAM:               L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Bastarache JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence - Duty of Care - Municipalities - Negligent building inspection - Whether conduct of Applicant vitiates duty of care owed by the Respondent - Applicant agreeing to contractor’s scheme to commence home renovation without requisite building permit - Applicant subsequently obtaining permit - Inspection of the renovation carried out by Respondent at a time when critical portion no longer visible or accessible - Inspector allowing construction to continue - Serious flaws in renovation apparent after completion - Whether conduct of Applicant brings him outside of the sphere of duty owed by the Respondent to conduct reliable inspections - Whether Court of Appeal correctly applied test in Rothfield v. Manolakos, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1259.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26636                    GUILLAUME KIBALE c. SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE  (C.A.F.)(Ont.)

CORAM:               Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache

La requête pour la tenue d’une audience et la demande d’autorisation d’appel sont rejetées avec dépens.

The application for a hearing and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Procédure civile - Jugements et ordonnances - Preuve - Responsabilité civile - Dommages-intérêts - Action en responsabilité en application de la Loi sur la responsabilité de la Couronne, S.R.C. 1970, ch. C-38 - Concours - Principe du mérite - Le demandeur se classe premier à la suite d'un examen visant à combler un poste d'économiste-analyste stratégique au ministère fédéral des Transports - Au moment de l'examen, il apprend que le concours vise également à combler deux autres postes à la direction de la planification des systèmes du ministère - À la suite d'une entrevue, aucun candidat n'est retenu pour le poste d'analyste et le demandeur ne s'est pas qualifié pour les deux autres postes - Le demandeur intente divers recours devant divers forums dont une action en responsabilité pour omission de l'intimée de le nommer à l'un des postes visés par le concours - Action rejetée en Section de première instance et en Cour d'appel fédérale - Demande d’autorisation d’appel rejetée en Cour suprême du Canada, dossier 24082 - Demande de réexamen rejetée par la Cour suprême du Canada - Nouvelle preuve - Fraude - Dépôt de nouvelles requêtes en rétractation du jugement du juge Dubé du 2 novembre 1992 - Requêtes jugées irrecevables par directive de la Cour fédérale compte tenu du principe de la chose jugée - Demande de contrôle judiciaire rejetée par directive de la Cour fédérale - Quatrième requête en rétractation rejetée par la Section de première instance de la Cour fédérale - Appel du demandeur rejeté par la Cour d’appel fédérale - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle commis une erreur en rejetant l’appel du demandeur?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

26659    PLACEMENTS ARMAND LAFLAMME INC. c. JULES ROY ET PRUDENTIAL-BACHE COMMODITIES CANADA LTD.  (Qué.)

CORAM:               Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Responsabilité civile - Courtiers en valeurs mobilières - Dommages-intérêts - Évaluation - Preuve - Point de rupture du lien de causalité - Obligation de mitiger les dommages - Lorsque la faute d’un courtier en valeurs mobilières a consisté à acquérir sur le marché boursier un placement inapproprié pour le compte de son client, l’obligation de réparation du courtier s’étend-elle à la dépréciation de ce placement survenue après sa remise, quand le fait de conserver ce placement ne revêt pas un caractère déraisonnable dans le contexte prévalant lors de sa remise? - Dans l’affirmative, qui du client ou du courtier supporte le fardeau de démontrer le caractère raisonnable ou déraisonnable du fait de conserver le placement? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en modifiant les conclusions du juge de première instance portant sur l’évaluation des dommages?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

26658    DANS L’AFFAIRE DE LA PROPOSITION DE PERRETTE INC., DÉBITRICE: ULTRAMAR CANADA INC. c. RICHTER ET ASSOCIÉS INC., ÈS QUALITÉS DE SYNDIC  (Qué.)

CORAM:               Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache

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 commercial - Faillite - Législation - Interprétation - Proposition concordataire - Paiement préférentiel - Recours - Dans le cadre d’une proposition, le paragraphe 101.1(1)  de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité , L.R.C. (1985), chap. B-3 , permet-il au syndic de recouvrer des paiements préférentiels? - Dans l’affirmative, le syndic a-t-il valablement été autorisé à agir?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

26666    DANS L’AFFAIRE DE LA PROPOSITION DE PERRETTE INC., DÉBITRICE: SOUS-MINISTRE DU REVENU DU QUÉBEC, REVENU CANADA ET LE PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL DU CANADA c. RICHTER ET ASSOCIÉS INC., ÈS QUALITÉS DE SYNDIC  (Qué.)

CORAM:               Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache

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 commercial - Faillite - Législation - Interprétation - Proposition concordataire - Paiement préférentiel - Recours - Dans le cadre d’une proposition, le paragraphe 101.1(1)  de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité , L.R.C. (1985), chap. B-3 , permet-il au syndic de recouvrer des paiements préférentiels? - Dans l’affirmative, le syndic a-t-il valablement été autorisé à agir? 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

26679    ANITA ENDEAN - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, and THE CANADIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY (B.C.)

CORAM:               Cory, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Actions - Civil procedure - Torts - Whether the Court of Appeal for British Columbia erred in striking out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, pleadings alleging the tort of “spoliation”.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26689    UNITED ARTISTS CORPORATION - v. - PINK PANTHER BEAUTY CORPORATION (F.C.A.) (Ont.)

CORAM:               Cory, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Trade-marks - Well-known or famous marks - Likelihood of confusion - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by not giving deference to the findings of fact of the trial judge on the question of confusion - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the use of the mark Pink Panther in respect of hair care and beauty supplies could not result in a likelihood of confusion with the well- known United Artist’s mark in the mind of the average consumer - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that where there was no connection between the wares or services of an applicant for registration and the wares or services of an opposing trade-mark holder, it is “only in exceptional circumstances, if ever” that likelihood of confusion can be established under the Trade-marks Act notwithstanding that the opposing mark is recognized as a famous and well-known mark - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in giving undue emphasis to the public’s right to competition as opposed to the rights of the established trade-mark owner in its consideration of the tests for confusion under the Trade-marks Act - Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-10 .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

25784    THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD OF BRITISH COLUMBIA - v. -  FRANCES ELIZABETH KOVACH and G.S. SINGH - and between - DR. G.S. SINGH - v. - FRANCES ELIZABETH KOVACH, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (B.C.)

CORAM:               Cory, Major and Binnie JJ.

The applications for leave to appeal are granted.

Les demandes d’autorisation d’appel sont accordées.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Torts - Negligence - The Workers’ Compensation Board of British Columia determining that the alleged injuries suffered by an employee during the treatment of a work-related injury, were also injuries “arising out of and in the course of her employment”, which arguably precluded her from bringing an action in negligence against the employee/doctor - Court of Appeal allowing appeal and setting aside certificate issued under s. 11 of the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 437 - Whether appellate court failed to follow Pasiechnyk v. Saskatchewan (Workers’ Compensation Board), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 890 - Whether appellate court confused sections 10 and 11 of the Act - Whether appellate court correctly applied the patent unreasonableness test.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26484    CARPENTER FISHING CORPORATION, DON JOHANNES, KAARINA ETHERIDGE, WHITE HOPE HOLDINGS LTD., SIMPSON FISHING CO. LTD. And NORMAN JOHNSON - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA and BERNARD VALCOURT, MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS - and between - TITAN FISHING LTD. - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA and BERNARD VALCOURT, MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS (F.C.A.) (B.C.)

CORAM:               Cory, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for an oral hearing and the application for reconsideration are dismissed.

La demande d’audition et la demande de réexamen sont rejetées.

2.11.1998

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondent’s factum and book of authorities

Lee Edward Campbell

     v. (26454)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire et le cahier de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’intimée

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to October 22, 1998.

2.11.1998

Before / Devant:   L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ J.

Motion to extend the time in which to apply for leave to appeal

Neil Grandmaison et al.

    v. (26898)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai pour déposer la demande d’autorisation d'appel

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to October 2, 1998, nunc pro tunc.

3.11.1998

Before / Devant:    THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum of an intervener

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Manitoba

IN/DANS:              Her Majesty the Queen

v. (26161)

John Sundown (Sask.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire d’un intervenant

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to October 16, 1998, nunc pro tunc.

3.11.1998

Before / Devant:    THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum and book of authorities of an intervener

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Alberta

IN/DANS:              J.G.

v. (26005)

Minister of Health and Community Services et al. (Sask.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire et le cahier de jurisprudence et de doctrine d’un intervenant

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to October 28, 1998, nunc pro tunc to serve and file the factum and time extended to October 29, 1998 to serve and file the book of authorities.

3.11.1998

Before / Devant:   LE REGISTRAIRE

Requête en prorogation de délai

Dany Fafard

     c. (26856)

Commission d’enquête chargée de faire enquête sur la sureté du Québec (Qué.)

Motion to extend time

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   La requête pour obtenir une ordonnance prorogeant le délai pour produire et signifier la réponse à la demande d’autorisation d’appel au 16 novembre 1998, est accordée.

5.11.1998

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum of an intervener

BY/PAR:                Union of New Brunswick Indians

IN/DANS:              Donald Marshall, Jr.

v. (26014)

Her Majesty the Queen (N.S.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire d’un intervenant

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to October 23, 1998.

5.11.1998

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion accepting appellant's record without marginal numbering

Her Majesty the Queen

     v. (26339)

Thomas Andrew Bunn (Man.)

Requête visant à accepter le dossier de l'appelante sans numérotation dans la marge

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

5.11.1998

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum of an intervener

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Canada

IN/DANS:              Vincent Godoy

v. (26078)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire d’un intervenant

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to November 4, 1998.

5.11.1998

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the book of authorities of an intervener

PY/PAR:  Charter Committee on Poverty issues

J.G.

    v. (26005)

Minister of Health and Community Services et al. (N.B.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le cahier de jurisprudence et de doctrine d’un intervenant

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to October 26, 1998.

5.11.1998

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the appellant’s book of authorities

Her Majesty the Queen

     v. (26570)

John Biniaris (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le cahier de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’appelante

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to October 26, 1998.

6.10.1998

Norman Groot

    v. (26929)

Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)

AS OF RIGHT

9.10.1998