Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

November 13, 1998  1723 - 1748                                                       le 13 novembre 1998

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

The Corporation of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association

Martin J. Doane

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson

v. (26897)

The Attorney General of Canada (Ont.)

David Sgayias, Q.C.

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 29.9.1998

Christian Albert Cruz

Peter Leask, Q.C.

Leask Bahen

v. (26901)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

William F. Ehrcke, Q.C.

A.G. of British Columbia

FILING DATE   29.9.1998

The Wellcome Foundation Ltd. et al.

Patrick E. Kierans

Ogilvy Renault

v. (26902)

Apotex Inc. et al. (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

H.B. Radomski

Goodman, Phillips & Vineberg

FILING DATE 29.9.1998

Merck Frosst Canada Inc. et al.

Judith Robinson

Ogilvy Renault

v. (26903)

The Minister of Health et al. (F.C.A.)

Francisco Couto

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 29.9.1998

Angela Araujo et al.

David N. Lyon

v. (26904)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Peter W. Hogg

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 29.9.1998

Robert Jenkins et al.

Sidney B. Simons

Simons McKenzie Law Corp.

v. (26899)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Peter W. Hogg

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 28.10.1998

Roy Morency

Roy Morency

c. (26900)

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

Pierre Michel Lajeunesse

DATE DE PRODUCTION 28.9.1998

913719 Ontario Limited, carrying on business as Adults Only Video

Alan D. Gold

Gold & Fuerst

v. (26905)

The Corporation of the City of Mississauga (Ont.)

George H. Rust-D’Eye

Weir & Foulds

FILING DATE 29.9.1998

Isabelle Rijntjes

D. William MacDonald

Workers’ Advisers Program

v. (26906)

Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia et al. (N.S.)

Janet Curry

Workers’ Compensation Board

FILING DATE 29.9.1998

Daniel Equizi

Henry McAlister Lang, Q.C.

v. (26907)

Algoma Steel Inc. (Ont.)

Carl W. Peterson

Filion, Wakely & Thorup

FILING DATE 2.10.1998

Sam Lévy & Associés Inc.

Jean-Philippe Gervais

Gervais & Gervais

c. (26908)

Canpro Investments Inc. (Qué.)

Abraham A. Hamerman

Wiseman, Hamerman

DATE DE PRODUCTION 29.9.1998

Société Rodaber Ltée et al.

Pierre Paradis

Paradis, Dionne, Avocats

c. (26909)

Banque nationale du Canada et al. (Qué.)

Bernard Tremblay

McCarthy, Tétrault, Avocats

DATE DE PRODUCTION 9.10.1998

Cyril E. Battye

Cyril E. Battye

v. (26917)

Maria Jose Vieria Tirano (Ont.)

Maria Jose Vieria Tirano

FILING DATE 6.10.1998

Paul Yick Wai Kwok

Chris N. Buhr

Buhr & Kert

v. (26919)

The United States of America et al. (Ont.)

Croft Michaelson

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 2.10.1998

Gilbert L. Gaudet

Harry Wrathall, Q.C.

McInnes, Cooper & Robertson

v. (26921)

Wayne Barrett et al. (N.S.)

Bill Leahey

Leahey Nearing

FILING DATE 30.10.1998

135596 Canada Inc.

François Corbeil

Étude Jean Berthiaume

c. (26923)

Comité paritaire des boueurs de la région de Montréal (Qué.)

Paul Biron

Biron, Belleville

DATE DE PRODUCTION 9.10.1998

Coopérative Fédérée du Québec

Jean-Yves Fortin

Brouillette Charpentier Fortin, s.e.n.c.

c. (26926)

Banque de commerce canadienne impériale et al. (Qué.)

Suzanne Côté

Stikeman, Elliott

DATE DE PRODUCTION 16.10.1998

Her Majesty the Queen

Morris Rosenberg

Dept. of Justice

v. (26930)

Marijana Ruzic (Ont.)

Frank Addario

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell

FILING DATE 27.10.1998

J.B.B.

J.B.B.

v. (26931)

The Director of Child Welfare for the Province of Newfoundland et al. (Nfld.)

Brian F. Furey

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 19.10.1998

Yves Richard

Michel Aubin

c. (26934)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)

Marc-André Péloquin

Subs. du procureur général

DATE DE PRODUCTION 23.10.1998

Jack Douglas Pringle

Jack Douglas Pringle

v. (26935)

London City Police Services Board and Dean Lees (Ont.)

J.D. Virtue

Siskind, Cromarty, Ivey & Dowler

FILING DATE 26.10.1998

Services des espaces verts Ltée/Chemlawn et al.

Gérard Dugré

Byers Casgrain

c. (26937)

Ville de Hudson et al. (Qué.)

Stéphane Brière

Bélanger Sauvé

DATE DE PRODUCTION 23.10.1998

Communauté urbaine de Montréal

Jean Rochette

Dunton Rainville senc

c. (26938)

Ville de Westmount et al. (Qué.)

Pierre Bourque

Desjardins, Ducharme, Stein & Monast

DATE DE PRODUCTION 29.10.1998

Christian Noël

Paule Lafontaine

Warren & Ouellet

c. (26914)

La Société d’énergie de la Baie James (SEGJ) et al. (Qué.)

Paul Faribault

Gauthier, Bergeron & Faribault

DATE DE PRODUCTION 16.10.1998

Neil Grandmaison et al.

Michael J. Munro

v. (26898)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Peter W. Hogg

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 1.10.1998

NOVEMBER 2, 1998 / LE 2 NOVEMBRE 1998

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

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges McLachlin et Iacobucci

                                                                                           Pierre Malboeuf

                                                                                                v. (26746)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Admissibility of evidence - Expert evidence - Whether the psychiatric evidence comparing the Applicant’s profile and that of the perpetrator met the standard for admissibility set by this Court - Whether the foundational evidence for the psychiatric opinion met the test for admissibility.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                                  W.C.W.

                                                                                                v. (26770)

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

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

                                                                                          Heather Johnson

                                                                                                v. (26784)

                                                               Gabriel Raymond Joseph Florent Arbez (Man.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Municipal Law - Municipal councils - Council Members - Conflict of Interests - A member of a municipal council owned a business - Business competitor sought to exercise a contractual right to purchase land from the municipality - Option to purchase had been granted by a previous council - Council member with competitive business interest had not been a member of the previous council - Councillor participated in meeting and vote regarding sale - Whether councillor had a pecuniary interest giving rise to a conflict of interest that prevented participation in the council meeting.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

December 23, 1997

Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba (McCawley  J.)

Application for declaration dismissed

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache

                                                                                          Guillaume Kibale

                                                                                                c. (26636)

                                                                                  Sa Majesté la Reine (Ont.)

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

                                                                          Placements Armand Laflamme Inc.

                                                                                                c. (26659)

                                                Jules Roy et Prudential-Bache Commodities Canada Ltd. (Qué.)

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

                                                     Dans l’affaire de la proposition de Perrette Inc., débitrice:

                                                                                      Ultramar Canada Inc.

                                                                                                c. (26658)

                                                          Richter et Associés Inc., ès-qualités de syndic (Qué.)

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

                                                     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. (26666)

                                                          Richter et associés inc., ès-qualités de syndic (Qué.)

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

CORAM:   Cory, Major and Binnie JJ. /

Les juges Cory, Major et Binnie

Robert Proudfoot Hess, Triumph Credit Corporation Limited, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, The T. Eaton Company Ltd., Bank of Montreal, Goodman and Carr, The Etobicoke Waterfront Partnership, Catherine J. Lukes, In Trust, and The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

                                                                                                v. (26304)

1233375 Ontario Inc. (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Mortgages - Interest - Whether the mortgage, as renewed from time to time, was contrary to section 6 of the Interest Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-18  - Whether the calculation of interest owing under the mortgage was wrong.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                           The Minister of National Revenue

                                                                                                v. (26834)

                                                                         Glaxo Wellcome PLC (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Civil procedure - Evidence - Statutes - Interpretation - Does the equitable bill of discovery exist in Canada, particularly given that pre-trial discovery and discovery of non-parties are matters which in Canada have been dealt with by legislation and rules of civil procedure - Is the equitable bill of discovery available where the means for disclosure of information has been expressly provided by the statute, and particularly where decisions made pursuant to that legislation are open to review by a court - Is the equitable bill of discovery  available against a person who is not connected to or involved in the alleged misconduct - Does their administration of the Customs Act mean that the Minister of National Revenue and his officials are “connected to or involved in” the importation of allegedly infringing goods - Is the equitable bill of discovery available against the Crown, absent any statutory waiver of the Crown’s prerogative immunity from discovery other than as a party to an action.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                   R. Mark Recalma, Laura D. Recalma and Arnold P. Recalma

                                                                                                v. (26668)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Indians -Taxation - Exemption - Investment income - Income received by aboriginals living on reserve  through bank located on reserve from monies invested off reserve - Whether Applicants’ investment income is “situated on a reserve” within the meaning of ss. 87(1) (b) of  the Indian Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5  - Whether the purpose of s. 87 is to prevent the erosion of property held by Indians qua Indians so as to protect their traditional Native way of life - Whether test for determining whether intangible personal property is “situated on a reserve” under s. 87(1)(b)  is so uncertain as to require re-examination.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                         Great Tempo S.A.

                                                                                                v. (26704)

                                                   Jian Sheng Co. Ltd. and Sinotrans Canada Inc. (F.C.A.)(B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Maritime law - Shipping - Procedural law - Civil procedure - Pre-trial procedure - Stay of proceedings - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in dismissing a motion for a stay - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Applicant failed to establish that its principal place of business was in Hong Kong, thus justifying a stay of proceedings in Canadian courts pursuant to a jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal imposed an unreasonable burden of proof on the Applicant - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal wrongly interfered in the exercise of discretion by the motions judge who had granted a stay.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

NOVEMBER 12, 1998 / LE 12 NOVEMBRE 1998

26736                    KELLY SYKES - 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

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 a constitutional exemption was not warranted because the sentence in question was not so grossly disproportionate that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26801                    RANDY PAUL GATZ - 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

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

26603                    EDWIN K. LEWIS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND  (P.E.I.)

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

The application for extension of time is granted.  The motion to file an additional supplementary list of documents and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée.  La requête en vue de déposer une autre liste additionnelle de documents et la demande d’autorisation d’appel sont rejetées avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Damages - Negligence - Crown - Statutory Immunity - Statutory immunity for acts done in good faith - Crown Proceedings Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. C-32, s. 4(4) - Plant Disease Eradication Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. P-7, ss. 5(2), 19(2) -  Private law duty of care and public law duty of care - Standard of care - Duty of care - “Policy/operational” decisions - Applicant ordered to spray his potato crop with a chemical to combat bacterial ring rot, a highly contagious plant disease -Whether the lower courts disposed of the case properly.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

August 11, 1995

Prince Edward Island Supreme Court - Trial Division

(Matheson J.)

Applicant’s action for damages allowed

February 25, 1998

Prince Edward Island Supreme Court - Appeal Division

(Mitchell, McQuaid JJ.A., Carruthers C.J. (dissenting))

Respondent’s appeal allowed

April 21, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

26623                    RANDAL RAY DEBRUIN v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN  (Crim.)(Alta.)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sentencing - Conditional sentences - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the phrase “would not endanger the safety of the community” as found in s. 742.1 (b) of the Criminal Code  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by implying that the Applicant would never be eligible to qualify for a conditional sentence because the offence was sexual and because paedophilia is incurable.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26651                    PIERRE BENGE c. COMITÉ D’APPEL DE LA COMMISSION DE LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE (C.A.F.)(Ont.)

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

La  demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail - Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Candidature du demandeur à un poste d’analyste principal du renseignement rejetée en raison du manque d’expérience - Demande de contrôle judiciaire du demandeur rejetée à la Section de première instance de la Cour fédérale - Appel du demandeur rejeté à la Cour d’appel fédérale - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en rejetant l’appel du demandeur?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 29 janvier 1997

Cour fédérale du Canada

(Section de première instance) (Lufty J.C.F.)

Demande de contrôle judiciaire du demandeur rejetée

Le 12 mars 1998

Cour d’appel fédérale

(Pratte, Denault et Desjardins JJ.C.A.)

Appel rejeté

Le 6 mai 1998

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

26748                    GERHARD WIEMER v. THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT (FORMERLY THE MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION) and DORTHEA H. KUKAT  (F.C.A.)(Man.)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family law - Administrative law - Delegation - Presumption of regularity - Statutes - Interpretation  - Pensions - Division of Property - Canada Pension Plan , R.S.C. 1985, c.C-8, s. 55.1(1) (c) - Interpretation Act , R.S.C. 1985, c.I-21, s. 24(2)  - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that a ministry official was entitled to the benefit of a presumption of regularity in his approval of an application for a division of unadjusted pensionable earnings under the Canada Pension Plan  - Whether, instead, such approval had to be given by the Minister or his authorized delegate - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that s. 55.1(1) (c) of the Canada Pension Plan  did not provide the Minister with residual discretion to refuse a division of unadjusted pensionable earnings - Whether, instead, the Minister should have given consideration to a separation agreement in which one spouse released the other from all future claims - Whether spouse was eligible for a division of unadjusted pensionable earnings under s. 55.1(1) (c) of the Canada Pension Plan  - Whether such a division in the circumstances was unconscionable - Whether a decision of the Pension Appeals Board was entitled to curial deference.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26761                    LARRY HAVELANGE v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN  (Crim.)(Sask.)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Defences - Provocation - Whether the trial judge erred in not allowing the jury to consider the defence of provocation if the jury concluded that the Applicant had intended to cause the death of the deceased - Whether the trial judge failed to adequately instruct the jury as to reasonable doubt as it applied to each element of the defence of provocation and the evidence adduced at trial - Whether the trial judge erred by allowing into evidence a number of hearsay statements of the deceased as evidence of the deceased’s state of mind - Whether the trial judge’s  charge regarding the application of reasonable doubt as it applied to the Applicant’s credibility occasioned a substantial wrong, miscarriage of justice or prejudice to the Applicant - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that it was not necessary to deal with  the primary ground advanced by the Applicant - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not issuing written reasons.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

October 10, 1996

Court of Queen’s Bench of Saskatchewan

(Maurice J.)

Conviction:  second degree murder

May 12, 1998

Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

(Cameron, Gerwing and Sherstobitoff JJ.A.)

Appeal against conviction dismissed

July 29, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

26633                    LUCINDA LAMONTAGNE c. LA CORPORATION PROFESSIONNELLE DES MÉDECINS DU QUÉBEC et LE PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL DU QUÉBEC (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

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit des professions - Infractions pénales - Exercice illégal de la médecine - Homéopathie - Contestation de la constitutionnalité des articles 31, 43 et 45 de la Loi médicale, L.R.Q., chap. M-9, fondée sur les articles 2  et 7  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  et 1, 3 et 5 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., chap. C-12 - Déclaration de culpabilité devant la Cour du Québec - Appel de la demanderesse rejeté en Cour supérieure et en Cour d’appel - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant à l’absence de fondement factuel et en rejetant l’appel de la demanderesse?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 28 mars 1995

Cour supérieure du Québec (Greenberg J.C.S.)

Appel de la demanderesse rejeté

Le 9 mars 1998

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Proulx, Forget et Pidgeon, JJ.C.A.)

Appel rejeté

Le 6 mai 1998

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation déposée

26693                    PAUL WALLACH v. BLUE RIDGE LUMBER (1981) LTD.  (Alta.)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial Law - Contracts - Interpretation of Contracts - Procedural Law - Evidence - Use of objective and testamentary evidence of subsequent agreements and conduct to interpret written contract - Reliance upon parole evidence - Estoppel - Whether adverse interest should be drawn from choice of witnesses.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

2.11.1998

Marty Lorraine Morrisey

    v. (26703)

Her Majesty the Queen (N.S.)

3.11.1998

Free World Trust

    c. (26406)

Électro Santé Inc. et al. (Qué.)

3.11.1998

CORAM:               Chief Justice Lamer and L’Heureux-Dubé, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.

Her Majesty the Queen

    v. (26161)

John Sundown (Crim.)(Sask.)

P. Mitch McAdam, for the appellant.

René Morin, pour l’intervenant le procureur général du Québec.

Deborah L. Carlson, for the intervener the A.G. of Manitoba.

Robert J. Normey, for the intervener the A.G. of Alberta.

James D. Jodouin and Gary L. Bainbridge, for the respondent.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Criminal Law - Indian - Aboriginal rights - Nature and scope of the constitutionally protected hunting rights of Aboriginal peoples, in particular, whether or not those rights include the right to build permanent structures like log cabins on lands where the rights may be exercised.

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel — Indiens — Droits ancestraux — Quelles sont la nature et l’étendue des droits de chasse des peuples autochtones protégés par la Constitution et, en particulier, ces droits comprennent-ils celui de construire des structures permanentes comme des cabanes en bois rond sur les terres où ces droits peuvent être exercés?

4.11.1998

CORAM:               L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.

Mavis Baker

    v. (25823)

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

Roger Rowe and Rocco Galati, for the appellant.

Sheena Scott and Sharryn Aiken, for the interveners Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law et al.

Craig Scott and John Terry, for the intervener the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues.

Barbara Jackman and Marie Chen, for the intervener the Canadian Council of Churches.

Urszula Kaczmarczyk and Cheryl D. Mitchell, for the respondent.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

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 the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that a treaty such as the International Convention on the Rights of the Child made by the executive branch of government does not have legal effect over the exercise of discretion  under s. 114(2) of the Immigration Act.

Nature de la cause:

Immigration - Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Appel - Compétence - Les autorités fédérales de l’immigration considèrent-elles les meilleurs intérêts de l’enfant canadien comme étant un facteur déterminant dans l’évaluation d’un demandeur, en vertu de l’art. 114(2) de la Loi sur l’immigration, L.R.C. (1985), ch. I-2? - L’art. 83 de la Loi sur l’immigration exclut-il l’étude de questions non certifiées par le juge de la Section de première instance? - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle commis une erreur en jugeant qu’un traité, tel que la Convention relative aux droits de l’enfant, conclu par le pouvoir exécutif du gouvernement n’a aucun effet juridique sur l’exercice du pouvoir discrétionnaire conféré par l’art. 114(2) de la Loi sur l’immigration?

5.11.1998

CORAM:               Chief Justice Lamer and L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Binnie JJ.

Donald John Marshall, Jr.

     v. (26014)

Her Majesty the Queen (N.S.)

Bruce H. Wildsmith, Q.C. and Eric A. Zscheile, for the appellant.

D. Bruce Clarke, for the intervener the Native Council of Nova Scotia.

Henry J. Bear, for the intervener the Union of New Brunswick Indians.

Michael A. Paré, Ian MacRae and Gordon Campbell, for the respondent.

Bruce Judah, Q.C., for the intervener the A.G. of N.B.

A. William Moreira, Q.C. and Daniel R. Pust, for the intervener the West Nova Fishermen’s Coalition.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Indians - Treaty Rights - Constitutional law - Fisheries - Constitution Act, 1982,  s. 35(1)  - Interpretation of the Treaties of 1760-61 - Whether the Treaties of 1760-61 provide the right to trade or sell fish and the right to truckhouses or licensed Indian traders - Whether the prohibitions on catching fish without a licence, on fishing during the close time and on the unlicensed sale of fish contained in the Maritime Provinces Fisheries Regulations and the Fisheries (General) Regulations are inconsistent with the treaty rights of the Appellant.

Nature de la cause:

Indiens - Droits conférés par les traités - Droit constitutionnel - Pêcheries - Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 , art. 35(1)  - Interprétation des traités de 1760 et 1761 - Les traités de 1760 et 1761 donnent-ils le droit de faire le commerce et de vendre le poisson et le droit de faire affaires avec des grossistes ou des commerçants indiens autorisés? - Les interdictions d’attraper du poisson sans permis, de pêcher pendant les périodes d’interdiction et portant sur la vente de poisson sans permis, contenues dans le Règlement de pêche des provinces maritimes et dans le Règlement de pêche (dispositions générales), sont-elles incompatibles avec les droits de l’appelant conférés par les traités?

6.11.1998

CORAM:               Chief Justice Lamer and Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.

M.J.B. Enterprises Ltd.

    v. (25975)

Defence Construction (1951) Limited, et al. (Alta.)

W. Donald Goodfellow, Q.C. and Eugene Meehan, for the appellant.

Larry M. Huculak, for the respondents.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Commercial law - Contracts - Invitation to tender - Privilege clause - Damages - Whether the Court of Appeal properly interpreted the privilege clause in an invitation for tenders.

Nature de la cause:

Droit commercial - Contrats - Invitation à soumissionner - Clause de réserve - Dommages - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle correctement interprété la clause de réserve contenue dans une invitation à soumissioner?

6.11.1998

CORAM:               Chief Justice Lamer and L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.

Sharon Marie Bracklow

     v. (26178)

Frank Patrick Bracklow (B.C.)

Barbara M. Young, for the appellant.

Carol W. Hickman and Bruce B. Clark, for the respondent.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Family law - Maintenance  - Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 128 - Termination of support order for disabled spouse - Parties self-supporting during four years of cohabitation and most of three years of marriage - Former wife’s mental and physical health deteriorating in latter part of marriage - Former wife disabled and unemployable - Whether a sick or disabled spouse is entitled to spousal support based on financial need at the breakdown of the marriage even in circumstances where little disadvantage was suffered as a result of marriage - Whether the Court of Appeal  erred in finding that there was no implied agreement between the parties that they would support one another in times of need - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in placing to much emphasis on the existence of an express or implied agreement between the parties and too little emphasis on economic circumstances - If a sick of disabled spouse is entitled to spousal support on the basis of need, what quantum of support should be paid and for how long?

Nature de la cause:

Droit de la famille – Aliments – Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C 1996, ch. 128 – Fin de l'ordonnance alimentaire pour l'épouse invalide – Les parties ont subvenu à leurs besoins pendant les quatre années de cohabitation et la plus grande partie des trois années du mariage – La santé mentale et physique de l'ex-épouse s'est détériorée peu de temps avant l’échec du mariage – L'ex-épouse est invalide et inapte au travail – Une épouse malade et invalide a-t-elle droit à une pension alimentaire compte tenu de ses besoins financiers au moment de l'échec du mariage même quand le mariage n'a entraîné que peu d'inconvénients? – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant qu'il n'y a pas eu d'accord tacite entre les parties en vertu duquel ils se soutiendraient mutuellement dans les moments difficiles? –  La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en insistant trop sur l'existence d'un accord exprès ou tacite entre les parties et, trop peu sur les circonstances économiques? – Si une épouse malade ou invalide a droit à une pension alimentaire compte tenu de ses besoins, quel montant de pension devrait être versé et pendant combien de temps?

AGENDA for the week beginning November 16, 1998.

ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 16 novembre 1998.

Date of Hearing/                           Case Number and Name/    

Date d'audition                             Numéro et nom de la cause

The Court is not sitting this week

La Cour ne siège pas cette semaine

NOTE: 

This agenda is subject to change.  Hearing dates should be confirmed with Process Registry staff at (613) 996-8666.

Cet ordre du jour est sujet à modification.  Les dates d'audience devraient être confirmées auprès du personnel du greffe au (613) 996-8666.

                                                         SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

                                                             CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME

                                                                                                                 - 1998 -

                                                                                                                 - 1999 -