This Bulletin is published at the direction of the Registrar and is for general information only. It is not to be used as evidence of its content, which, if required, should be proved by Certificate of the Registrar under the Seal of the Court. While every effort is made to ensure accuracy, no responsibility is assumed for errors or omissions. |
|
Ce Bulletin, publié sous l'autorité du registraire, ne vise qu'à fournir des renseignements d'ordre général. Il ne peut servir de preuve de son contenu. Celle‐ci s'établit par un certificat du registraire donné sous le sceau de la Cour. Rien n'est négligé pour assurer l'exactitude du contenu, mais la Cour décline toute responsabilité pour les erreurs ou omissions. |
|
|
|
Subscriptions may be had at $200 per year, payable in advance, in accordance with the Court tariff. During Court sessions it is usually issued weekly. |
|
Le prix de l'abonnement, fixé dans le tarif de la Cour, est de 200 $ l'an, payable d'avance. Le Bulletin paraît en principe toutes les semaines pendant les sessions de la Cour. |
|
|
|
The Bulletin, being a factual report of recorded proceedings, is produced in the language of record. Where a judgment has been rendered, requests for copies should be made to the Registrar, with a remittance of $10 for each set of reasons. All remittances should be made payable to the Receiver General for Canada. |
|
Le Bulletin rassemble les procédures devant la Cour dans la langue du dossier. Quand un arrêt est rendu, on peut se procurer les motifs de jugement en adressant sa demande au registraire, accompagnée de 10 $ par exemplaire. Le paiement doit être fait à l'ordre du Receveur général du Canada. |
|
|
|
CONTENTS TABLE DES MATIÈRES
Applications for leave to appeal filed
Applications for leave submitted to Court since last issue
Oral hearing ordered
Oral hearing on applications for leave
Judgments on applications for leave
Motions
Notices of appeal filed since last issue
Notices of intervention filed since last issue
Notices of discontinuance filed since last issue
Appeals heard since last issue and disposition
Pronouncements of appeals reserved
Rehearing
Headnotes of recent judgments
Weekly agenda
Summaries of the cases
Cumulative Index ‐ Leave
Cumulative Index ‐ Appeals
Appeals inscribed ‐ Session beginning
Notices to the Profession and Press Release
Deadlines: Motions before the Court
Deadlines: Appeals
Judgments reported in S.C.R. |
1123 - 1128
1129 - 1158
-
-
-
1159 - 1173
1174
1175
1176
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1177
- |
Demandes d'autorisation d'appel déposées
Demandes soumises à la Cour depuis la dernière parution
Audience ordonnée
Audience sur les demandes d'autorisation
Jugements rendus sur les demandes d'autorisation
Requêtes
Avis d'appel déposés depuis la dernière parution
Avis d'intervention déposés depuis la dernière parution
Avis de désistement déposés depuis la dernière parution
Appels entendus depuis la dernière parution et résultat
Jugements rendus sur les appels en délibéré
Nouvelle audition
Sommaires des arrêts récents
Ordre du jour de la semaine
Résumés des affaires
Index cumulatif ‐ Autorisations
Index cumulatif ‐ Appels
Appels inscrits ‐ Session commençant le
Avis aux avocats et communiqué de presse
Délais: Requêtes devant la Cour
Délais: Appels
Jugements publiés au R.C.S. |
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FILED |
|
DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION D'APPEL DÉPOSÉES |
Robert Proudfoot Hess et al.
Brian A. Rumanek
v. (26304)
Fair-Day Investments Ltd. (Ont.)
Harvin D. Pitch
Teplitsky, Colson
FILING DATE 2.6.1998
Noëlla Arsenault-Cameron et al.
Robert A. McConnell
Campbell, Lea, Michael, McConnell & Pigot
v. (26682)
Government of Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.)
Roger B. Langille, Q.C.
FILING DATE 2.6.1998
Vincent Lore
Paul Skolnik
v. (26683)
Her Majesty The Queen (Qué.)
Richard Starck
Dept. of Justice
FILING DATE 26.5.1998
Bruce Hahn
Clayton C. Ruby
Ruby & Edwardh
v. (26685)
Her Majesty The Queen (P.E.I.)
James W. Gormley
Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales
FILING DATE 4.6.1998
Dale Kroppmanns et al.
Donald A. Farquhar, Q.C.
Pearlman & Lindholm
v. (26686)
Pamela Jean Townsend (B.C.)
Aaron A.G. Gordon
Gordon & Velletta
FILING DATE 29.5.1998
Glen Charles Lalanne
Glen C. Lalanne
v. (26687)
Her Majesty The Queen (N.S.)
Kenneth W.F. Fiske, Q.C.
Attorney General of N.S.
FILING DATE 2.6.1998
Heinz Gunter Krapohl et al.
Brian H. Greenspan
Greenspan Humphrey Lavine
v. (26688)
Her Majesty The Queen et al. (Ont.)
George Dolhai
Dept. of Justice
FILING DATE 29.5.1998
United Artists Corp.
B.A. Crane, Q.C.
Gowling Strathy & Henderson
v. (26689)
Pink Panther Beauty Corp. (F.C.A.)(Ont.)
S. Chong
Lang Michener
FILING DATE 29.5.1998
Alexander Yaari
Timothy E. Breen
Fleming, Breen
v. (26690)
Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)
David Finley
A.G. of Ontario
FILING DATE 4.6.1998
Paul Wallach
David T. Parkatti
Smith Gawlinski Parkatti
v. (26693)
Blue Ridge Lumber (1981) Ltd. (Alta.)
Andrea B. Moen
Milner Fenerty
FILING DATE 4.6.1998
Garry B. Abraham et al.
Chris G. Paliare
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
v. (26694)
Coopers and Lybrand Ltd. et al. (Ont.)
Joseph W. Mik
Blake, Cassels & Graydon
FILING DATE 1.6.1998
Dr Gérard Monfette
Suzanne Côté
Stikeman, Elliott
c. (26697)
Hôtel-Dieu de Saint-Jérôme et al. (Qué.)
André Ramier
Prévost Auclair Fortin D’Aoust
DATE DE PRODUCTION 1.6.1998
Marty Lorraine Morrisey
Malcolm S. Jeffcock
Nova Scotia Legal Aid
v. (26703)
Her Majesty The Queen et al. (N.S.)
David Meadows
Dept. of Justice
FILING DATE 25.5.1998
Heinz Gunter Krapohl et al.
Brian H. Greenspan
Greenspan Humphrey Lavine
v. (24584)
Federal Republic of Germany (Ont.)
George Dolhai
Dept. of Justice
FILING DATE 29.5.1998
Her Majesty The Queen
William F. Ehrcke, Q.C.
Min. of the A.G.
v. (26473)
Joann Kimberley White (B.C.)
Peter Burns
FILING DATE 17.6.1998
William O’Malley
William O’Malley
v. (26480)
Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)
Kenneth J. Yule
A.G. of Canada
FILING DATE 4.6.1998
Albany George Conrad
Larry L. Ross, Q.C.
Ross Hepner
v. (26643)
Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.)
Bernadette Schmaltz
Dept. of Justice
FILING DATE 8.6.1998
J.-J.L.
André Labelle
c. (26653)
Sa Majesté La Reine (Qué.)
Henri-Pierre Labrie
Subs. procureur général
DATE DE PRODUCTION 25.5.1998
Dr. Michael Barry et al.
Henry S. Brown, Q.C.
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
v. (26655)
Andrea Marie Oakley et al. (N.S.)
Donald C. Shewfelt
Landry, McGillivray
FILING DATE 25.5.1998
M.S.
M.S.
v. (26696)
The National Parole Board et al. (F.C.A.)
Simon Fothergill
Dept. of Justice
FILING DATE 14.5.1998
Gordon Edward Ledinski
John M. Williams
Gerrand Rath Johnson
v. (26698)
Her Majesty The Queen (Sask.)
D.M. Brown, Q.C.
Saskatchewan Justice
FILING DATE 5.6.1998
Stefan Hadrian Comsa
Stefan Hadrian Comsa
v. (26700)
Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.)
Bart Rosborough
A.G. of Alberta
FILING DATE 1.6.1998
The Public School Boards’ Association of Alberta et al.
Dale Gibson
Dale Gibson Associates
v. (26701)
The Attorney General of Alberta et al. (Alta.)
Robert C. Maybank
A.G. of Alberta
FILING DATE 1.6.1998
Giovanni Didomizio et al.
Ronald G. Chapman
v. (26702)
Frank Porto et al. (Ont.)
Lawrence A. Pick
Bennett Best Burn
FILING DATE 15.6.1998
Great Tempo S.A.
Sean J. Harrington
McMaster Gervais
v. (26704)
Jian Sheng Co. Ltd. et al. (F.C.A.)
David F. McEwen
McEwen Schmitt & Co.
FILING DATE 11.6.1998
Her Majesty The Queen
Wayne Gorman
Dept. of Justice
v. (26705)
Glenn White (Nfld.)
William Collins
Collins & Associates
FILING DATE 11.6.1998
Ronald John Baas et al.
Michael R. Giroday
The Law Office of Michael R. Giroday
v. (26706)
Gail Lorraine Jellema (B.C.)
Robert C. Brun
Harris & Brun
FILING DATE 10.6.1998
Peter Kornelsen et al.
William W. Shores
Shores Belzil
v. (26707)
Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (Alta.)
Kimberley D. Wakefield
Milner Fenerty
FILING DATE 1.6.1998
Nicodemo Sansalone
David P. Church
Camp Church & Associates
v. (26708)
The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. (B.C.)
Mark Skorah
Skorah Doyle Khanna
FILING DATE 4.6.1998
Ellis-Don Ltd.
Earl A. Cherniak, Q.C.
Lerner & Associates
v. (26709)
The Ontario Labour Relations Board et al. (Ont.)
Sheila R. Block
Tory Tory Deslauriers & Binnington
FILING DATE 12.6.1998
Freda Evelyn Langenhahn et al.
Harold W. Veale, Q.C.
Ogilvie and Co.
v. (26710)
Richard M. Czyz et al. (Alta.)
Raymond C. Purdy
Brownlee Fryett
FILING DATE 15.6.1998
Her Majesty The Queen
Wayne Gorman
Dept. of Justice
v. (26712)
Ronald Charles Dalton (Nfld.)
Jerome Kennedy
Simmonds & Kennedy
FILING DATE 15.6.1998
Michael Gauthier et al.
Kevin T. Williams
Taylor McCaffrey
v. (26715)
Gerald Robert Mousseau (Man.)
Morris Kaufman
Kaufman Cassidy Ramsay
FILING DATE 19.6.1998
Hugh Abbey
Julian N. Falconer
Falconer, Macklin
v. (26716)
Her Majesty The Queen (Qué.)
Martin Lamontagne
A.G. for Quebec
FILING DATE 18.6.1998
Bharat Goel et al.
Bharat Goel
v. (26717)
Marion MacNeil et al. (Ont.)
Luke Saites
FILING DATE 14.5.1998
Thomas Peter Paul
Cleveland J. Allaby
v. (26718)
Her Majesty The Queen (N.B.)
J.T. Keith McCormick
A.G. of N.B.
FILING DATE 19.6.1998
Bharat Goel et al.
Bharat Goel
v. (26719)
Lawrence H. Mandel et al. (Ont.)
Benson Percival Brown
DATE DE PRODUCTION 14.5.1998
Ram Goel et al.
Anita Goel
v. (26720)
Timothy P. Boland et al. (Ont.)
B.A. Percival
Benson Percival Brown
FILING DATE 14.5.1998
Commonwealth Insurance Co.
Eric L. Clark
Clark & Latraverse
c. (26721)
Hôtel Le Chanteclerc (1985) Inc. et al. (Qué.)
Guy Pépin
Pépin, Létourneau
DATE DE PRODUCTION 18.6.1998
Howard White et al.
Neil Finkelstein
Davies Ward & Beck
v. (26722)
Raffaele Cugliari (Ont.)
Terence J. Collier
Dutton, Brock, MacIntyre & Collier
FILING DATE 19.6.1998
Patricia Joan Marie Hill
Ingrid Lincoln
Perlov Stewart Lincoln
v. (26724)
Florence McMillan et al. (Man.)
Chris Fulmyk
Broadway Law Corp.
FILING DATE 23.6.1998
Marthe Gagnon
Marthe Gagnon
c. (26726)
La Métropolitaine, Compagnie d’assurances (Qué.)
Marzia Frascadore
Lafleur Brown
DATE DE PRODUCTION 12.6.1998
John Zaretski
Kevin A. Clarke
Merchant Law Group
v. (26727)
The Workers’ Compensation Board et al. (Sask.)
Robert G. Richards
McPherson, Leslie & Tyerman
FILING DATE 23.6.1998
Brian Doody
Brian Doody
v. (26729)
Canada (Employment Insurance Commission) et al. (F.C.A.)
Carole Bureau
A.G. of Canada
FILING DATE 11.5.1998
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE
|
|
DEMANDES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION
|
JUNE 8, 1998 / LE 8 JUIN 1998
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ. /
Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges McLachlin et Iacobucci
v. (26535)
Richard Floyd Oickle (Crim.)(N.S.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Evidence - Police - Confessions - Polygraph tests - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling the Respondent’s inculpatory statements inadmissible - Whether the tactics used by police to extract a confession were improper.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 10, 1997 Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (MacDonald P.C.J.) |
|
Conviction: arson (seven counts) |
|
|
|
January 21, 1998 Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (Pugsley, Flinn and Cromwell JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed; convictions set aside and acquittals entered |
|
|
|
March 23, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Troy Allan Bukmeier
v. (26579)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Whether the British Columbia Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that the trial judge correctly instructed the jury that s. 34(2) of the Criminal Code was only available to the Applicant if he had intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 16, 1996 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Bouck J.) |
|
Conviction: second degree murder |
|
|
|
February 27, 1998 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (McEachern, Hollinrake and Braidwood JJ.A.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Appeal dismissedApril 9, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Werner Naef, Jean-Marc Duval, and Peter Smith
v. (26389)
McLean Brothers Fisheries Inc.
-and-
Jane Barnett and Canadian Association of Fish Exporters,
Kingsville Fisherman’s Company Ltd., Top Coq S.A.,
Walter Herrlich, Omstead Foods Limited (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Torts - Libel and slander - Procedural law - Pre-trial procedure - Pleadings - Application to strike out statement of claim against certain defendants - Chambers judge dismissing defamation action against three defendants - Court of Appeal reversing decision - Whether an individual can be held personally responsible for alleged acts of libel in circumstances where the conduct complained of was performed within the scope of the individual’s employment - Whether the reasoning of the Court of Appeal which relieves an employee acting within the scope of his or her employment from personal liability, in the circumstances of the intentional tort of interference with economic relations, can be applied to the circumstances of the alleged intentional tort of libel.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 14, 1997 Ontario Court (General Division) (Daudlin J.) |
|
Applicants’ motion to dismiss the action for defamation and conspiracy to defame allowed |
|
|
|
October 21, 1997 Court of Appeal for Ontario (McKinlay, Doherty and Abella JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed; judgment set aside; matter to proceed to trial |
|
|
|
January 15, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada (L’Heureux-Dubé J.) |
|
Motion for extension of time allowed |
|
|
|
February 20, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Roland Home Improvements Limited and Shahnaz Dadvand
v. (26528)
National Bank of Canada (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural Law - Courts - Jurisdiction - Ontario Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction under Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, to hear appeals from interlocutory orders granted by Ontario Court (General Division) - Appeals lie to Divisional Court - Whether Court of Appeal properly quashed an appeal because it lacked jurisdiction.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 24, 1997 Ontario Court (General Division) (Manton J.) |
|
Motion to set aside ex parte order to continue and to dismiss action dismissed |
|
|
|
January 16, 1998 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Labrosse, Abella and Charron JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction |
|
|
|
March 17, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Bastarache JJ. /
Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache
Virgil Lee Big Eagle
v. (26553)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Sask.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter - Section 7- Criminal Law - Procedural Law - Evidence - Application to admit as “fresh evidence” evidence that crown witness had recanted his trial testimony - Whether the test for the admission of fresh evidence should be reassessed in light of reform to the hearsay rule.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 13, 1994 Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench (Hrabinsky J.) |
|
Crown witness declared adverse; audiotape and transcript of witness’s testimony at pre-trial hearing admitted into evidence |
|
|
|
June 24, 1994 Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench (Hrabinsky J.) |
|
Conviction of second degree murder and sentence to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years |
|
|
|
December 11, 1997 Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (Tallis, Gerwing and Sherstobitoff JJ.A.) |
|
Application to adduce fresh evidence dismissed; Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
March 30, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Applications for extension of time and for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Sandra E. Gernhart
v. (26469)
Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Taxation - Assessment - Whether financial assistance given to the Applicant by her employer to offset the increased income tax burden imposed upon her as a consequence of change in residence from the United States to Canada is income from office or employment under sections 5 and 6 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-1 (5th Supp.).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 26, 1996 Tax Court of Canada (Bonner J.T.C.C.) |
|
Appeal from assessment dismissed |
|
|
|
December 11, 1997 Federal Court of Appeal (Isaac C.J., Pratte and Marceau JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
December 11, 1997 Federal Court of Appeal (Isaac C.J., Pratte and Marceau JJ.A.) |
|
Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed |
|
|
|
February 6, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Ronald Fortin
c. (26552)
Jean Gosselin, Jean-Guy Lévesque et Réjean Germain (C.A.F.)(Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit du travail - Relations de travail - Législation - Interprétation - Plainte du demandeur reprochant au syndicat de ne pas avoir traité un grief de harcèlement - Plainte rejetée parce que déposée hors délai - Application des paragraphes 97(1) et (2) du Code canadien du travail, L.R.C. (1985), chap. L-2 - Application de l’arrêt Upper Lake Shipping Ltd., [1979] 1 R.C.S. 902, - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle commis une erreur en rejetant la demande de contrôle judiciaire du demandeur?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 21 février 1997 Conseil canadien des relations du travail (Doyon, vice-présidente, FitzGerald et Aronovitch, membres) |
|
Plainte du demandeur pour pratiques déloyales de travail rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 25 avril 1997 Conseil canadien des relations du travail (Weatherill, président, Handman et Guilbeault, vice-présidents) |
|
Demande de révision rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 6 février 1998 Cour d’appel fédérale (Pratte, Décary et Chevalier [ad hoc] JJ.C.A.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Demande de contrôle judiciaire rejetéeLe 19 mars 1998 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
Mary Robinson and Evelyn Gertrude Robinson, The Trustees of the Percival Samuel Robinson Trust
v. (26513)
Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.A.)(Man.)
AND BETWEEN:
Mary Robinson, The Trustee of the Robert Simon Robinson Trust
v. (26513)
Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.A.)(Man.)
AND BETWEEN:
Mary Robinson, The Trustee of the Evelyn Gertrude Robinson Trust
v. (26513)
Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.A.)(Man.)
AND BETWEEN:
Mary Robinson, The Trustee of the Linda Dale Robinson Trust
v. (26513)
Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.A.)(Man.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Taxation - Assessment - Eligibility of limited partners for graduated tax rates - Limited partner not taking part in the management of the partnership nor the conduct of its business but held to have carried on the partnership’s business for the purposes of applying a flat tax rate under paragraph 122(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.1 (5th Supp.) - Whether merely being a limited partner means carrying on partnership business - Whether sections of the Partnership Act of Manitoba, R.S.M. 1987, c. P-30, should determine if a limited partner is carrying on the partnership’s business for income tax purposes.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 26, 1993 Tax Court of Canada (Beaubier J.) |
|
Four separate appeals from assessments of 1988 taxation years allowed |
|
|
|
January 8, 1998 Federal Court of Appeal (Isaac C.J., Stone and McDonald JJ.A.) |
|
Appeals allowed, all four judgments of Tax Court of Canada set aside, assessments restored |
|
|
|
March 9, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
CORAM: Cory, Major and Binnie JJ. /
Les juges Cory, Major et Binnie
Nicholas Quinn Lapointe
v. (26578)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Alta.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Sentencing - Conditional sentence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in substituting a sentence of one year actual imprisonment for the conditional sentence imposed - Whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was clearly unreasonable so as to justify the Court of Appeal in varying the sentence that had been imposed - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that a conditional sentence was not appropriate in the circumstances of this case.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
September 23, 1997 Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (McIntyre J.) |
|
Conviction: sexual assault |
|
|
|
February 9, 1998 Court of Appeal of Alberta (Fraser, Medhurst, Veit JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
April 7, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Carpenter Fishing Corporation, Don Johannes, Kaarina Etheridge, White Hope Holdings Ltd.,
Simpson Fishing Co. Ltd. and Norman Johnson
v. (26484)
Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada and Bernard Valcourt,
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (F.C.A.)(B.C.)
AND BETWEEN:
Titan Fishing Ltd.
v. (26484)
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada and Bernard Valcourt, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (F.C.A.)(B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law - Jurisdiction - Judicial review - Imposition of a quota policy for halibut fishing on the west coast of Canada - Formula took into account historical performance of the licence, restricted to its current owner of licence - Applicants contending that a catch history allocation based on the licence itself is more democratic - What criteria determine whether or not a governmental measure is of a policy or legislative nature - What is the standard for judicial review of policy/legislative discretion if there is not absolute immunity from review - Whether or not policy/legislative discretion can be the subject of a legitimate expectation of consultation - Whether an appellate court may disregard findings of fact in the absence of palpable and overriding error - Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 14, 1996 Federal Court of Canada (Trial Division) (Campbell J.) |
|
Minister’s decision to implement the Current Owner Restriction, and each similar decision, declared unlawful and a nullity |
|
|
|
December 23, 1997 Federal Court of Appeal (Pratte, Décary, Linden JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed and the actions dismissed |
|
|
|
February 18, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
65302 British Columbia Ltd.
(Formerly Veekens Poultry Farms Ltd.)
v. (26352)
Her Majesty The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Taxation - Assessment - Business tax - Deductions - Whether a levy on chickens kept in excess of the Applicant’s quota was deductible - Whether the Court of Appeal correctly asked whether an expense that meets the purpose of s.18(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act should none the less be denied as offending a test of morality or public policy.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 31, 1995 Tax Court of Canada (Lamarre J.T.C.C.) |
|
Appeal from the assessments made by the Minister of National Revenue for the 1995, 1988 and 1989 taxation years allowed |
|
|
|
November 5, 1997 Federal Court of Appeal (Strayer, Desjardins and McDonald JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed |
|
|
|
December 15, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada (Bastarache J.) |
|
Motion for the extension of time allowed |
|
|
|
February 2, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION -- REHEARING /
DEMANDES DE RÉEXAMEN -- NOUVELLE AUDITION
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Major JJ. /
Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Major
Wayne B. Carter v. Patricia J. Boardman, et al. (N.B.) 25921
CORAM: Gonthier, Major and Bastarache JJ. /
Les juges Gonthier, Major et Bastarache
Nandu Patel v. Department of National Health and Welfare (F.C.A.)(Ont.) 25997
JUNE 15, 1998 / LE 15 JUIN 1998
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ. /
Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges McLachlin et Iacobucci
The Attorney General of Canada
v. (26534)
Wanda Marie Halpert (Crim.)(B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal Law - Procedural Law - Restraint and Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime - Whether any forfeiture order relating to restrained proceeds of crime extinguishes the restraint order governing that property - Whether a court has jurisdiction to vary a restraining order with respect to one person’s interest in the restrained property after an order has been made forfeiting another person’s interest in the property.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
October 5, 1994 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Collver J.) |
|
Order restraining property |
|
|
|
June 27, 1997 Provincial Court of British Columbia (Libby J.) |
|
Order forfeiting interest of Respondent’s husband in the restrained property |
|
|
|
January 20, 1998 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Dillon J.) |
|
Restraining order varied with respect to Respondent’s interest in the property |
|
|
|
March 23, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
D.J.S.
v. (26573)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Sexual assault - Oath versus oath - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the learned trial judge did not explicitly err in applying reasonable doubt to the evidence in the proceeding - Whether the trial judge disregarded the Applicant’s evidence.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 9, 1997 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Errico J.) |
|
Conviction: sexual assault |
|
|
|
March 9, 1998 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Southin, Finch and Huddart JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
April 8, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
T.B.K.
v. (26581)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter - Criminal - Criminal Law - Whether the right to be presumed innocent is violated by the reverse onus of proof required in s.350(b)(ii) of the Criminal Code which stipulates that a person deemed to have broken and entered bears the onus of proving lawful justification or excuse - Whether the stipulation in s. 348(2)(a) of the Criminal Code that evidence of break and entry is evidence of break and entry with intent to commit an indictable offence is reasonable within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter - Whether the application of the deeming provision in s.350(b)(ii) and the common-law doctrine of constructive breaking to s. 348(2)(a) is saved by s. 1 of the Charter.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 7, 1997 Ontario Youth Court (Kukurin J.) |
|
Conviction of break and enter with intent; sentenced to 12 days open custody and 18 months probation |
|
|
|
February 10, 1998 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Labrosse, Doherty and Laskin JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal from conviction dismissed |
|
|
|
April 9, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Bastarache JJ. /
Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache
Jeffrey Aaron Beyer
v. (26437)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Man.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal Law - Sentencing - Multiple sentences on eight counts of fraud - Sentences to be served in three consecutive groups of terms of imprisonment - On appeal cumulative total of terms of imprisonment reduced from 13.5 years to 9 years - Whether fair hearing denied on appeal - Whether sentences should have been reduced further - Whether cumulative total of 9 years is excessive, cruel and unusual punishment - Whether gambling is an addiction.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
September 19, 1996 Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench (Morse J.) |
|
Sentenced to consecutive terms of 9, 1.5 and 3 years of imprisonment for convictions on eight counts of fraud |
|
|
|
November 25, 1997 Court of Appeal of Manitoba (Twaddle and Kroft JJ.A., Scott C.J.) |
|
9 year term reduced to 4.5 year term |
|
|
|
April 9, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed.
|
|
|
|
Kathryn Ann Grimsson
v. (26595)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Sentencing - Parole - Parole Ineligibility - Fitness of sentence - Whether the sentencing judge erred in considering public opinion in determining the sentence - Whether the trial judge erred in not advising defence counsel prior to imposing sentence that he would not follow the joint submission on parole ineligibility.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
October 21, 1996 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Hutchison J.) |
|
Conviction: second degree murder; Sentence: life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 15 years |
|
|
|
December 17, 1997 British Columbia Court of Appeal (Lambert [dissenting], Macfarlane, Huddart JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed
|
|
|
|
April 17, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
|
|
|
|
Application for leave to appeal and motion for the extension of time filed |
|
|
|
|
|
Free World Trust
c. (26406)
Électro Santé inc., Paul Demers, Noël Desjardins (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit des biens - Brevets d’invention - Contrefaçon - Appareil électromagnétique servant à des fins thérapeutiques - Absence de définition de la “contrefaçon” dans la Loi sur les brevets, L.R.C., ch. P-4 - Définition de la “contrefaçon” en droit canadien - Méthode d’interprétation utilisée par les tribunaux chargés d’interpréter un brevet d’invention en cas d’allégations de contrefaçon - Critères et champ d’application de la méthode adoptée par la Cour d’appel fédérale dans O’Hara Manufacturing Ltd. c. Eli Lilly & Co., (1990) 26 C.P.R. (3d) 1 - Demanderesse alléguant absence de règles uniformes et cohérentes.
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 25 août 1993 Cour supérieure du Québec (Bergeron j.c.s.) |
|
Brevets d’invention de la demanderesse déclarés invalides; action de la demanderesse en injonction et dommages-intérêts pour contrefaçon rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 27 octobre 1997 Cour d’appel du Québec (Rousseau-Houle, Forget et Biron [ad hoc] jj.c.a.) |
|
Pourvoi accueilli à la seule fin de déclarer les brevets d’invention valides |
|
|
|
Le 22 décembre 1997 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
CORAM: Cory, Major and Binnie JJ. /
Les juges Cory, Major et Binnie
Richard Alan Noname
v. (26543)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Alta.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Defence - Self-defence - Charge to the jury - Whether the trial judge erred in law in his instructions to the jury on the defence of self-defence and whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to direct a new trial- Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that there was no air of reality to the defence of self-defence, that self-defence should not have been before the jury and that any errors in the charge to the jury on self-defence were insufficiently prejudicial to the Applicant to constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice - Whether the trial judge’s charge to the jury on attempted murder was erroneous in law, confusing and prejudicial to the Applicant and whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to direct a new trial.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 20, 1996 Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Lefsrud J.) |
|
Conviction: one count of attempted murder, one count of possession of a weapon for the purpose of committing an offence, one count of aggravated assault and one count of assault with a weapon. |
|
|
|
January 28, 1998 Court of Appeal of Alberta (McClung, Côté and Picard JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
March 26, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Doris Mae Eisenhauer
v. (26561)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(N.S.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Appeal - Curative proviso - Criminal Code s. 686(1)(b)(iii) - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the curative proviso in this case.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 27, 1996 Nova Scotia Supreme Court (Boudreau J.) |
|
Conviction: second degree murder |
|
|
|
January 30, 1998 Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (Freeman, Flinn, Cromwell JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
April 8, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal and motion for the extension of time filed |
|
|
|
Daryl Bax
v. (26515)
The Workers’ Compensation Board (Sask.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Labour law - Workers’ Compensation - Administrative law - Judicial review - Statutes - Legislation - Interpretation - The Workers’ Compensation Act, 1979, S.S. 1979, c. W-17.1 - Whether the Court of Appeal applied the appropriate standard of review - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by concluding that the legislative scheme of the Act gave the Board the jurisdiction and discretion to determine the amount of the Applicant’s compensation benefits.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 15, 1997 Court of Queen’s Bench of Saskatchewan (Malone J.) |
|
Applicant’s application for an order quashing or setting aside the Respondent’s decisions and for an order remitting the matter to the Respondent with a direction to reconsider the matter according to the provisions of the Act allowed |
|
|
|
January 14, 1998 Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (Tallis, Cameron and Gerwing JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed; judgment set aside and decision of the Respondent reinstated |
|
|
|
March 12, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Air Canada
v. (26421)
Ticketnet Corporation (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Damages - Contracts - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not deducting the opportunity cost in assessing the damages - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not granting a new trial on the issue of damages - Whether trial judge deprived the Applicant of its fundamental right to cross-examine on substantive issues relating to damages - Whether the Court of Appeal ought to have held that it was an error in law fatal to the assessment of damages for lost profits for a new venture such as the Respondent to ignore evidence of similar enterprises carrying on that business in the marketplace.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 10, 1993 Ontario Court (General Division) (Farley J.) |
|
Action allowed: Applicant liable for damages in the amount of $11,510,000 for loss of profits or loss of business opportunity and $10,000 in punitive damages |
|
|
|
November 18, 1997 Court of Appeal for Ontario (McMurtry C.J.O, McKinlay and Laskin JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal on liability dismissed; Appeal against award of damages allowed in part by varying reducing damages to $10,160,000; Cross-appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
January 14, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
JUNE 22, 1998 / LE 22 JUIN 1998
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ. /
Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges McLachlin et Iacobucci
Jean-Marie Roussel
c. (26551)
Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit criminel - Procès - Directives au jury - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en déterminant que les directives du juge de première instance étaient suffisantes lorsque lues dans leur ensemble, et ce malgré les contradictions et les lacunes concernant l’évaluation de la preuve et l’application du principe du doute raisonnable contrairement aux arrêts R. c. Lifchus, [1997] 3 R.C.S. 320, et R. c. W(D.), [1991] 1 R.C.S. 742?- La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en déterminant que la preuve présentée par la Couronne était écrasante et conséquemment que le sous-al. 686(1)b)(iii) du C.cr. pouvait trouver son application en dépit du fait que l’erreur reprochée au juge de première instance portait sur la notion de doute raisonnable, notion intimement liée au principe fondamental de la présomption d’innocence?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 18 mai 1994 Cour supérieure du Québec (Martin j.c.s.) |
|
Verdict: Coupable de meurtre au premier degré |
|
|
|
Le 3 février 1998 Cour d’appel du Québec (Beauregard, Deschamps et Delisle jj.c.a.) |
|
Appel de la condamnation rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 6 avril 1998 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
Ian Fergus Hunter
v. (26580)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Appointment of counsel - Section 684(1) of the Criminal Code - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the Applicant’s motion.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
September 25, 1997
Supreme Court of British Columbia
(Drake J.)
Conviction: cultivation of marihuana; possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking; possession of a restricted drug
February 17, 1998 British Columbia Court of Appeal (Hall J.A.) |
|
Applicant’s motion dismissed |
|
|
|
April 17, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
M.S.
v. (26696)
The National Parole Board and the Deputy Commissioner of Corrections (F.C.A.)(B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural law - Whether Federal Court of Appeal has inherent jurisdiction to waive filing fees - Right of appeal from order of single judge of Federal Court of Appeal - Whether order refusing production of transcripts is integral part of order sought to be appealed.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
March 9, 1998 Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (Hugessen J.) |
|
Motions dismissed |
|
|
|
May 14, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Bastarache JJ. /
Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache
Patricia A. Burke
v. (26512)
Workers’ Compensation Board of Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Labour law - Workers’ compensation - Board decision to terminate benefits to nurse claiming to suffer from “Multiple Chemical Sensitivity” as a result of exposure to fumes in the workplace - Conflicting medical opinions - Decision of Board upheld on appeal - Whether appellate court erred in holding that it had no jurisdiction to interfere with Board’s findings of fact - Whether appellate court erred in holding that the Board gave the Applicant the benefit of the doubt pursuant to section 12 of the Workers’ Compensation Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. W-7.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 24, 1995 Workers’ Compensation Board (Jamieson, MacDonald and Howard) |
|
Decision to terminate Applicant’s benefits |
|
|
|
January 7, 1998 Prince Edward Island Supreme Court - Appeal Division (Mitchell, Carruthers and McQuaid JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
March 9, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Alta Limitée, Argo Construction Inc., Broccolini Construction Inc., Cegerco Constructeur Inc.,
Cetil Inc., Consortium M.R. Canada Ltée, Construction Château St-Marc Inc., Construction Socam Ltée, Les Constructions Sicor Inc., Divco Limitée, Magil Construction Canada Ltée,
Oméga Canada division de Sogedec Inc., Quégéco Inc. et Société Désourdy 1949 Inc.
c. (26533)
La Corporation des maîtres mécaniciens en tuyauterie du Québec, la Corporation des maîtres électriciens
du Québec et l’Association de la construction du Québec
et
L’Association des constructeurs de routes et grands travaux du Québec (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit commercial - Code civil - Contrats - Validité du Code provincial du Bureau des soumissions déposées du Québec (ci-après le “Code”) - Contrat d’adhésion - Liberté de commerce et liberté contractuelle - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en droit en concluant que les intimées pouvaient légalement conclure l’entente du 1er septembre 1993 qui promulguait le Code? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en concluant que le Code ne porte pas illégalement atteinte à la liberté de commerce? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en concluant que l’article C-2 du Code, en vertu duquel les entrepreneurs généraux doivent adhérer au Code, ne constitue pas un contrat d’adhésion dont les dispositions sont abusives et déraisonnables?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 27 juillet 1995 Cour supérieure du Québec (Normand J.C.S.) |
|
Requête des demanderesses en jugement déclaratoire visant à faire déclarer nul le Code rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 22 janvier 1998 Cour d’appel du Québec (Chouinard, Mailhot et Pidgeon JJ.C.A.) |
|
Appel des demanderesses rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 23 mars 1998 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
Rodrigue Girard
c. (26559)
Corporation municipale de Saint-Léonard de Portneuf (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit municipal - Municipalités - Infractions au règlement de zonage - Délivrance par l’inspecteur de la municipalité d’un permis de construction au demandeur - Annulation deux jours plus tard du permis de construction par l’inspecteur - Poursuite des travaux de construction - Acquittement du demandeur des trois infractions au règlement de zonage en Cour municipale - Appel de la municipalité accueillie par le juge Desjardins en Cour supérieure - Demandeur reconnu coupable de deux des trois infractions - Requête du demandeur pour permission d’appel en Cour d’appel rejetée par le juge Otis - Requête subséquente du demandeur en mandamus en vue d’obtenir la délivrance d’un permis de construction accordée compte tenu d’une entente entre les parties - Requête de l’intimée en irrecevabilité de la requête du demandeur en évocation de la décision du juge Desjardins du 24 mai 1995 accueillie - Première requête en rétractation de la décision du juge Desjardins du 24 mai 1995 rejetée - Demande d’autorisation d’appel 25688 à l’encontre de la décision du juge Otis de la Cour d’appel rejetée le 20 mars 1997 - Confirmation par la Cour d’appel de la décision de la Cour supérieure d’accueillir la requête du demandeur en mandamus - Seconde requête en rétractation de la décision du juge Desjardins du 24 mai 1995 rejetée - Requête pour permission d’appel relativement à la seconde requête en rétractation rejetée - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle commis une erreur en rejetant la requête pour permission d’appel?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 31 janvier 1995
Cour municipale de Saint-Raymond (Côté J.C.M.)
Demandeur acquitté de trois infractions au règlement de zonage
Le 24 mai 1995 Cour supérieure du Québec (chambre criminelle) (Desjardins J.C.S.) |
|
Appel de l’intimée accueilli |
|
|
|
Le 29 juin 1995 Cour d’appel du Québec (Otis J.C.A.) |
|
Requête pour permission d’appel de la décision du juge Desjardins rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 19 décembre 1995 Cour supérieure du Québec (Journet J.C.S.) |
|
Requête du demandeur en mandamus pour obtenir la délivrance d’un permis de construction accordée |
|
|
|
Le 10 juin 1996 Cour supérieure du Québec (Desmeules J.C.S.) |
|
Requête de l’intimée en irrecevabilité de la requête du demandeur en évocation de la décision du juge Desjardins rendue le 24 mai 1995 accueillie |
|
|
|
Le 10 juillet 1996 Cour supérieure du Québec (Beaulieu J.C.S.) |
|
Première requête en rétractation de la décision du juge Desjardins rendue le 24 mai 1995 rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 13 septembre 1996 Cour d’appel du Québec (Rousseau-Houle J.C.A.) |
|
Requête pour permission d’appel de la décision de la Cour supérieure rejetant la première requête en rétractation rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 20 mars 1997 Cour suprême du Canada (Lamer J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé et Gonthier, JJ.) |
|
Demande de prorogation de délai accordée Demande d’autorisation d’appel à l’encontre de la décision du juge Otis rendue le 29 juin 1995 rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 16 avril 1997 Cour d’appel du Québec |
|
Confirmation du jugement rendu par le juge Journet le 19 décembre 1995 |
|
|
|
Le 22 décembre 1997 Cour supérieure du Québec (Beaulieu J.C.S.) |
|
Seconde requête en rétractation de la décision du juge Desjardins rendue le 24 mai 1995 rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 30 décembre 1997 Cour d’appel du Québec (Delisle J.C.A.) |
|
Requête pour permission d’appel relativement à la seconde requête en rétractation rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 26 mars 1998 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel à l’encontre de la décision de la Cour d’appel du 30 décembre 1997 rejetant la seconde requête en rétractation de jugement déposée |
|
|
|
Le 15 mai 1998 Cour suprême du Canada (Cory J.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Requête en prorogation de délai du dépôt de la demande d’autorisation jusqu’au 26 mars 1998 accordée |
|
|
|
|
|
Claude Deslauriers
c. (26565)
Le Bureau de l’OAGQ, l’Office des professions du Québec
- et -
Le Procureur général du Québec (Qué.)
ENTRE:
Claude Deslauriers
c. (26565)
Roch Labelle, a.g., ès qualité de syndic
- et -
L’Office des professions du Québec (Qué.)
ENTRE:
Claude Deslauriers
c. (26565)
Roch Labelle, a.g., ès qualité de syndic
- et -
L’Office des professions du Québec (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Procédure - Procédure civile - Appel - Requêtes du demandeur en injonction interlocutoire et pour interdire à Roch Labelle d’exercer la fonction de syndic de l’Ordre des arpenteurs-géomètres rejetées par la Cour supérieure, qui conclut que l’exigence d’indépendance du syndic mentionnée à l’art. 121 du Code des professions, L.R.Q., ch. C-26, ne signifie pas que ce dernier doive exercer cette fonction à temps plein - Décision portée en appel par le demandeur - Requêtes des intimés en rejet d’appel alléguant la non-existence du droit d’appel et le caractère abusif et dilatoire de l’appel (art. 501(2) et (5) du Code de procédure civile, L.R.Q., ch. C-25) - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en accordant les requêtes en rejet d’appel?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 20 octobre 1997 Cour supérieure du Québec (Croteau j.c.s.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Requête en injonction interlocutoire contre le Bureau de l’OAGQ et l’Office des professions du Québec rejetée; requête pour interdire à Roch Labelle d’exercer la fonction de syndic rejetée; requête en injonction interlocutoire contre le syndic rejetéeLe 2 février 1998 Cour d’appel du Québec (Proulx, Forget et Pidgeon jj.c.a.) |
|
Requêtes des intimés visant à faire rejeter l’appel du demandeur accueillies |
|
|
|
Le 3 avril 1998 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
Claude Deslauriers
c. (26591)
Bureau de direction de l’Ordre des arpenteurs-géomètres du Québec,
Yvon Chabot, a.-g., en sa qualité de secrétaire-général du Bureau de direction de l’OAGQ,
le Tribunal des professions, l’honorable Jacques Biron, j.c.q.,
l’honorable Paule Lafontaine, j.c.q. et l’honorable André Quesnel, j.c.q. (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Procédure - Procédure civile - Appel - Appel du demandeur rejeté par le Tribunal des professions en raison du défaut de produire son mémoire - Requête en révision judiciaire et en mandamus rejetée par la Cour supérieure - Requête pour rejet de l’appel du demandeur en raison de son caractère abusif et dilatoire accordée par la Cour d’appel - La Cour supérieure et la Cour d’appel ont-elles erré en laissant intact un jugement du Tribunal des professions qui fait passer la procédure avant le droit?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 1er avril 1996 Tribunal des professions (Biron, Quesnel et Lafontaine jj.c.q.) |
|
Requête pour rejet de l’appel logé par le demandeur contre une décision du Bureau de direction de l’OAGQ prononçant sa radiation en date du 18 août 1995 accueillie |
|
|
|
Le 16 octobre 1996 Cour supérieure du Québec (Lévesque j.c.s.) |
|
Requête en irrecevabilité à l’encontre de la requête du demandeur en révision judiciaire et mandamus accueillie, sauf à se pourvoir |
|
|
|
Le 26 août 1997 Cour supérieure du Québec (Lévesque j.c.s.) |
|
Seconde requête du demandeur en révision judiciaire et mandamus rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 16 février 1998 Cour d’appel du Québec (Rothman, Dussault et Forget jj.c.a.) |
|
Requête en rejet d’appel accueillie; appel du demandeur rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 16 avril 1998 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
CORAM: Cory, Major and Binnie JJ. /
Les juges Cory, Major et Binnie
Delbert Wallace McCaw
v. (26589)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Evidence - Vetrovec warning - Corroborative evidence - Evidence of reaction to polygraph testing - Whether the lower courts erred in describing some evidence as capable of corroborating the evidence of two admitted participants in the crime - Whether this evidence was either neutral in its probative value or not independent of the accomplices - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge had not caused prejudice to the Applicant by providing too many examples of purportedly corroborative evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial judge’s decision not to allow defence counsel to question a witness and suspect on her demeanour during and her reactions to polygraph testing.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 15, 1994 Ontario Court (General Division) (McKinnon J.) |
|
Conviction: first degree murder |
|
|
|
February 20, 1998 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Finlayson, Catzman and Goudge JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
April 18, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Stanley Livingston, Junior
v. (26609)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal Law - Defence - Evidence - Trial - Charge to the jury - Whether trial judge’s charge to the jury failed to follow R. v. Vetrovec, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 822 - Whether a caution should have applied against accepting evidence of a witness - Whether proof of prior inconsistent statement improperly prevented - Whether voir dire should have been held to consider reliability of statements sought to be admitted for the truth of their contents - Whether trial judge fairly presented evidence and theory of defence to jury.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 7, 1995 Court of Queen’s Bench of Saskatchewan (Noble J.) |
|
Convictions of first degree murder and armed robbery; Sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole until 25 years served and 10 years, concurrently |
|
|
|
February 19, 1998 Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (Vancise, Lane and Sherstobitoff JJ.A.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Appeal from conviction dismissedApril 20, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Town of Port McNeill
v. (26628)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Procedural law - Courts - Jurisdiction - Costs - Statutes - Statutory instruments - Interpretation - Whether the cost provisions in the Offence Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.338, ss.79 and 80 and the Criminal Code, ss.809 and 840 should be interpreted to include the jurisdiction for a Summary Conviction Trial Court to award all expenses properly incurred in the defence or prosecution of a complaint where a Justice considers it reasonable to do so.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 14, 1993 Provincial Court of British Columbia (Joe P.C.J.) |
|
Application for costs dismissed |
|
|
|
July 5, 1994 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Meredith J.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
March 11, 1998 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Goldie [dissenting], Rowles and Huddart JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
May 1, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -- REHEARING /
DEMANDE DE RÉEXAMEN -- NOUVELLE AUDITION
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and Cory and McLachlin JJ. /
Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Cory et McLachlin
M-Jay Farms Enterprises Ltd., suing on its own behalf and on behalf of all other holders of permit v. Canadian Wheat Board (Man.) 26346
JUNE 25, 1998 / LE 25 JUIN 1998
CORAM: Cory, Major and Binnie JJ. /
Les juges Cory, Major et Binnie
Thomas Bruce Baker
v. (26562)
Monica Frieda Francis (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Family law - Divorce - Spousal and child maintenance - Application of Federal Child Support Guidelines - Incomes over $150,000 - Whether Court of Appeal erred in ordering Applicant to pay Table amount pursuant to ss. 4(a) of the Guidelines - Whether Court of Appeal erred in interpreting meaning of “inappropriate” pursuant to ss. 4(b) of the Guidelines - Lump sum spousal support - Whether Court of Appeal erred in applying the principles set out in Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813 in ordering Applicant to pay lump sum of $500,000 to Respondent.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 22, 1997 Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) (Benotto J.) |
|
Judgment awarding Respondent lump sum spousal support of $500,000 and child support of $10,034 per month |
|
|
|
March 10, 1998 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Abella, Austin and Charron JJ.A.) |
|
Applicant’s appeal dismissed with costs |
|
|
|
May 8, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
JUNE 29, 1998 / LE 29 JUIN 1998
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ. /
Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges McLachlin et Iacobucci
John Carlos Terceira
v. (26546)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Evidence - DNA evidence - Burden of proof - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that DNA statistical evidence is admissible in criminal trials - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that forensic laboratories applying a novel scientific technique should be subject to special scrutiny pursuant to R. v. Mohan - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Crown is not required to prove the reliability of a novel DNA technique beyond a reasonable doubt.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 4, 1993 Ontario Court (General Division) (Campbell J.) |
|
Conviction: first degree murder |
|
|
|
February 9, 1998 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Brooke, Finlayson, McKinlay JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
March 27, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
|
|
|
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
|
|
T.G.
v. (26550)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(N.S.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - Reverse onus - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that ss. 128 and 130(1) of the Liquor Control Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 260 were inapplicable to the prosecution - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that s. 794 of the Criminal Code was applicable to the case instead - Whether ss. 128 and 130(1) of the Liquor Control Act violate s. 11(d) of the Charter.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 22, 1997 Youth Court (Dyer Y.C.J.) |
|
Conviction: illegal possession of liquor |
|
|
|
January 28, 1998 Court of Appeal (Chipman, Roscoe, Pugsley JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
March 30, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Germain Jean Poudrier
v. (26554)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - Right to counsel - Whether the Court of Appeal misinterpreted the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada when it held that upon arrest an individual need not be given information concerning the existence of a toll-free telephone line to access duty counsel - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in only applying requirements of the decision in R. v. Brydges, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 190 to the facts of this case - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not determining if the evidence admitted at trial should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
October 19, 1995 British Columbia Provincial Court (Collingwood P.C.J.) |
|
Conviction: “over 80" |
|
|
|
March 27, 1997 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Bauman J.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Summary conviction appeal dismissedMarch 11, 1998 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Lambert, Newbury, Hall JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
May 11, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Michael Casimir Lagowski
v. (26635)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Man.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in not dealing with two fundamental legal issues raised by the Applicant relating to the complainant’s testimony as to what she had been told by police regarding a confession by the Applicant - Whether the trial judge had held that there was an onus on the Applicant to raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt when he said that Applicant “has not succeeded in raising a reasonable doubt as to his guilt” - Applicability of R. v. W.D., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 17, 1997 Provincial Court of Manitoba (Minuk P.C.J.) |
|
Summary conviction: sexual assault |
|
|
|
October 22, 1997 Court of Queen’s Bench (Goodman J.) |
|
Summary conviction appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
March 13, 1998 Court of Appeal of Manitoba (Monnin J.A.) |
|
Application for leave to appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
May 11, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Bastarache JJ. /
Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache
Bevis Dean Durack
v. (26660)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter - Criminal - Criminal law - Pre-trial procedure - Jurisdiction - Appeal - Abuse of process - Stay of proceedings - Unreasonable delay - Whether the Court of Appeal had supervisory jurisdiction to review the pretrial ruling made in this case - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Crown’s use of the stay provision did not constitute an abuse of process - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in concluding that the Applicant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time was not infringed.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 15, 1997 Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan (Pritchard J.) |
|
Motion for stay dismissed |
|
|
|
March 16, 1998 Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (Tallis, Cameron and Lane JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
May 14, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Jules Fafard
c. (26585)
Commission de la construction du Québec
et
Procureur général du Québec (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - Droit du travail - Relations de travail - Législation - Interprétation - Industrie de la construction - Compétence constitutionnelle - Liberté d’association - Obligation d’appartenir à une association d’employeurs - Les articles 28, 40 et 41 de la Loi sur les relations de travail, la formation professionnelle et la gestion de la main-d’oeuvre dans l’industrie de la construction, L.R.Q., chap. R- 20, portent-ils atteinte à l’alinéa 3d) de la Charte canadienne et à l’article 3 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., chap. C-12 - Contestation du demandeur en reprise d’instance rejetée - Requête du demandeur pour permission d’appel rejetée.
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 15 décembre 1997 Cour du Québec (Pinard, J.C.Q.) |
|
Contestation du demandeur en reprise d’instance rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 9 février 1998 Cour d’appel du Québec (Pidgeon J.C.A.) |
|
Requête du demandeur pour permission d’appel rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 14 avril 1998 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
Comité d’appel pour les fonctionnaires non régis par une convention collective
et
Me Jean-Paul Roberge, ès qualité de commissaire, membre du Comité d’appel (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit du travail - Relations de travail - Législation - Interprétation - Service continu - Conditions pour obtenir la permanence au sein de la fonction publique - L’article 14 de la Loi sur la fonction publique, L.R.Q., chap. F-3.1.1, permet-il au demandeur de computer la période de travail effectuée avant son acte de titularisation pour les fins de l’acquisition de sa permanence?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 6 mars 1996 Comité d’appel de la fonction publique pour les fonctionnaires non régis par une convention collective (Roberge, président) |
|
Décision: Au moment de sa mise à pied, le demandeur n’avait pas acquis le statut de fonctionnaire permanent |
|
|
|
Le 12 juillet 1996 Cour supérieure du Québec (Grenier, J.C.S.) |
|
Requête du demandeur en révision judiciaire accueillie |
|
|
|
Le 13 février 1998 Cour d’appel du Québec (Michaud J.C.Q., Deschamps et Forget, JJ.C.A.) |
|
Appel de l’intimée accueillie |
|
|
|
Le 27 mars 1998 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
Claude Deslauriers
c. (26592)
Roch Labelle, a.-g., es qualité de syndic principal de l’Ordre des arpenteurs-géomètres
du Québec, Jean-Charles Legault, a.-g., es qualité de syndic-adjoint de l’Ordre des arpenteurs-géomètres du Québec, le Tribunal des professions et honorable juge Claude Pothier, j.c.q.
- et -
Le comité de discipline de l’Ordre des arpenteurs-géomètres du Québec (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit administratif - Droit des professions - Contrôle judiciaire - Compétence - Législation - Interprétation - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que l’art. 121 du Code des professions, L.R.Q., ch. C-26, n’interdit pas le cumul des fonctions de syndic et d’arpenteur-géomètre? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que la décision du Tribunal des professions refusant de suspendre l’exécution d’une ordonnance de radiation provisoire n’était pas susceptible de révision judiciaire? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en négligeant de se prononcer sur les conséquences du changement d’état de l’intimé Legault et sur la fausseté d’un affidavit produit par les intimés?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 27 septembre 1995 Tribunal des professions (Pothier j.c.q.) |
|
Requête en suspension d’exécution de l’ordonnance de radiation provisoire prononcée par le comité de discipline de l’OAGQ le 18 juillet 1995 rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 15 novembre 1995 Cour supérieure du Québec (Crépeau j.c.s.) |
|
Requête en révision judiciaire et requête en suspension de l’ordonnance de radiation provisoire accueillies |
|
|
|
Le 16 février 1998 Cour d’appel du Québec (LeBel, Fish et Rousseau-Houle jj.c.a.) |
|
Requête en rejet d’appel du demandeur rejetée; pourvoi de Labelle et Legault accueilli |
|
|
|
Le 17 avril 1998 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
CORAM: Cory, Major and Binnie JJ. /
Les juges Cory, Major et Binnie
James Walter Taylor
v. (25726)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(N.S.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Procedure - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the trial decision should stand even though the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal was still pending before the Supreme Court of Canada.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 31, 1994 Provincial Court |
|
Conviction: entering premises where entry prohibited by notice |
|
|
|
August 16, 1994 Supreme Court of Nova Scotia |
|
Summary conviction appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
June 22, 1995 Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (Hallett, Pugsley, Bateman JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered |
|
|
|
December 7, 1995 Provincial Court (Archibald P.C.J.) |
|
Stay of proceedings |
|
|
|
March 26, 1996 Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Scanlan J.) |
|
Summary conviction appeal allowed; new trial ordered |
|
|
|
November 8, 1996 Nova Scotia Court of Appeal |
|
|
|
|
|
Appeal dismissed; matter remitted to Provincial CourtJune 19, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada (La Forest, Gonthier, Major JJ.A.) |
|
Application for leave to appeal dismissed (25726) |
|
|
|
June 27, 1997 Provincial Court (Prince P.C.J.) |
|
Conviction: entering premises where entry prohibited by notice |
|
|
|
September 25, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada (La Forest, Gonthier, Major JJ.A.) |
|
Motion for reconsideration dismissed |
|
|
|
October 9, 1997 Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Stewart J.) |
|
Summary conviction appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
February 5, 1998 Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (Bateman, Jones, Hallett JJ.A.) |
|
Application for leave to appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
March 31, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Ronald Reid Perley
v. (26599)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(N.B.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Procedural law - Defence - Whether there was a miscarriage of justice at trial because of the incompetence of counsel for the Applicant.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 19, 1995 Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick (Clendening J.) |
|
Conviction: sexual assault |
|
|
|
November 8, 1996 Court of Appeal of New Brunswick (Hoyt C.J.N.B., Ayles and Turnbull JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
April 21, 1998 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal and motion to extend time filed |
|
|
|
Roger Lawrence
v. (26610)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Evidence - Fresh Evidence - Charge to the jury - Whether the trial judge misstated the evidence - Jurisdiction - Apprehension of Bias - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to exercise jurisdiction to reopen the appeal - Whether the trial judge erred in the charge to the jury on conspiracy.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
October 5, 1993
Supreme Court of British Columbia
(Wong J.)
Convictions: five counts of fraud and two counts of possession of proceeds obtained by the commission of an indictable offence
January 29, 1996
British Columbia Court of Appeal
(McEachern C.J., Wood and Ryan JJ.A.)
Applicant’s appeal dismissed
January 29, 1996
British Columbia Court of Appeal
(McEachern C.J., Wood and Ryan JJ.A.)
Addendum to reasons for judgment
February 26, 1998
British Columbia Court of Appeal (Southin J.A.)
Applicant’s application dismissed
April 24, 1998
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal and other ancillary motions filed
Ndem Belende Kouldjim
v. (26511)
University of Ottawa, Dr. Marcel Hamelin, Dr. Denis Carrier, Dr. Michel
Saint-Germain, Mr. Victor Lapointe, Mr. Pierre-Yves Boucher,
Mr. Marcel O. Lalonde, Ms. Lise Dufour-Boivin & L’A.E.F.O. (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law - Colleges & Universities - Human Rights - Discrimination - Torts - Procedural law - Civil Procedure - Pre-trial procedure - Whether the lower courts disposed of the case properly?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 31, 1997
Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)
(Beaulieu J.)
Respondents’ motions in part allowed; Applicant’s motion dismissed
January 12, 1998
Ontario Court of Appeal
(Labrosse, Charron JJ.A., Sharpe (ad hoc))
Applicant’s appeal dismissed
March 9, 1998
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal and request for an oral hearing filed
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -- REHEARING /
DEMANDE DE RÉEXAMEN -- NOUVELLE AUDITION
CORAM: Cory, Iacobucci and Major JJ. /
Les juges Cory, Iacobucci et Major
Eddie McDowall v. Tamara Terry-Anne Showdra et al. (Ont.)(26127)
MOTIONS |
|
REQUÊTES
|
3.6.1998
Before / Devant: IACOBUCCI J.
Motion for leave to intervene
BY/PAR: Child Solicitor
IN/DANS: Minister of Health and Community Services
v. (26321)
M.L. et al. (N.B.)
Requête en autorisation d’intervention
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
1. The application for an extension of time and for leave to intervene is granted;
2. The applicant be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length to be filed no later than June 9, 1998 and to have time for oral argument not to exceed 15 minutes.
3.6.1998
Before / Devant: IACOBUCCI J.
Motion for leave to intervene
BY/PAR: United Native Nations Society
IN/DANS: Batchewana Indian Band et al.
v. (25708)
John Corbiere et al. (Ont.)
Requête en autorisation d’intervention
Opposed.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
1. The application for an extension of time and leave to intervene is granted on the issues that are the focus of this appeal;
2. The applicant be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length and to have time for oral argument not to exceed 15 minutes.
4.6.1998
Before / Devant: IACOBUCCI J.
Motion to extend the time in which to apply for leave to appeal
T.B.K.
v. (26581)
Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)
Requête en prorogation du délai pour déposer la demande d’autorisation d’appel
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to April 9, 1998.
5.6.1998
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file an intervener’s factum
BY/PAR: A.G. of Canada
IN/DANS: Travis Orlowski
v. (25751)
Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute et al. (B.C.)
and
Gordon Wayne Bese
v. (25855)
Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute et al. (B.C.)
and
Joseph Ronald Winko
v. (25856)
Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute et al. (B.C.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire d’un intervenant
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to May 29, 1998.
5.6.1998
Before / Devant: LE REGISTRAIRE
Requête pour permission de déposer un mémoire sur une demande d’autorisation de plus de 20 pages
Marie-France Leroux
c. (26650)
Centre Hospitalier Ste-Jeanne D’Arc et al. (Qué.)
Motion to file a memorandum of argument on leave to appeal of over 20 pages
ACCORDÉE / GRANTED Permission de déposer un mémoire de 31 pages.
5.6.1998
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent’s argument
T. G.
v. (26550)
Her Majesty The Queen (N.S.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer l’argumentation de l’intimée
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to May 27, 1998.
8.6.1998
Before / Devant: CORY J.
Hearing of miscellaneous motions
James G. Stuart et al.
v. (25964)
Ernst & Young (B.C.)
Audience sur autres requêtes
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
Upon the consent of the parties, an Order will go holding this application for leave to appeal in abeyance for 14 days from the 7 June 1998.
In the absence of further request for a delay by the parties, the application will be dealt with at that time.
8.6.1998
Before / Devant: MAJOR J.
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file an application for leave to appeal
Robert Proudfoot Hess
v. (26304)
Fair-Day Investments Ltd. (Ont.)
Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la demande d’autorisation
Opposed.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application for an extension of time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal is granted nunc pro tunc to June 5, 1998.
11.6.1998
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file an intervener’s factum
BY/PAR: A.G. for Ontario
IN/DANS: Travis Orlowski
v. (25751)
Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute et al. (B.C.)
and
Gordon Wayne Bese
v. (25855)
Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute et al. (B.C.)
and
Joseph Ronald Winko
v. (25856)
Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute et al. (B.C.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire d’un intervenant
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to May 22, 1998.
11.6.1998
Before / Devant: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER
Motion to state a constitutional question
BY/PAR: The appellant
L.C.
v. (26358)
Brian Joseph Mills et al. (Crim.)(Alta.)
Requête pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle
Mary A. Marshall for the appellant (Edmonton).
Dennis Edney, for the respondent (Edmonton).
Consent filed by the A.G. of Alberta to the proposed questions by the appellant.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
1. Do ss. 278.1 to 278.91 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 infringe s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
1. Les articles 278.1 à 278.91 du Code criminel, L.R.C. (1985), ch. C‐46, portent‐ils atteinte à l’art. 7 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés?
2. If so, is the infringement demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society?
2. Si oui, s’agit‐il d’une atteinte dont la justification est démontrable dans le cadre d’une société libre et démocratique?
3. Do ss. 278.1 to 278.91 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‐46 infringe s. 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
3. Les articles 278.1 à 278.91 du Code criminel, L.R.C. (1985), ch. C‐46, portent‐ils atteinte à l’art. 11d) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés?
4. If so, is the infringement demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society?
4. Si oui, s’agit‐il d’une atteinte dont la justification est démontrable dans le cadre d’une société libre et démocratique?
Notices of intention to intervene are to be filed no later than July 17, 1998.
11.6.1998
Before / Devant: THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Motion for additional time to present oral argument
BY/PAR: A.G. of Canada
Denis Lucien Lepage
v. (26320)
Her Majesty The Queen et al. (Ont.)
and
Travis Orlowski
v. (25751)
Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute et al. (B.C.)
Requête en prorogation du temps accordé pour la plaidoirie
and
Gordon Wayne Bese
v. (25855)
Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute et al. (B.C.)
and
Joseph Ronald Winko
v. (25856)
Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute et al. (B.C.)
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE The application on behalf of the intervener Attorney General of Canada for an order permitting 30 minutes for oral argument and for two counsels to address the Court is granted.
15.6.1998
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file an intervener’s factum
BY/PAR: A.G. of Québec
IN/DANS: Travis Orlowski
v. (25751)
Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute et al. (B.C.)
and
Gordon Wayne Bese
v. (25855)
Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute et al. (B.C.)
and
Joseph Ronald Winko
v. (25856)
Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute et al. (B.C.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire d’un intervenant
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to June 1, 1998.
16.6.1998
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file an intervener’s factum and book of authorities
BY/PAR: A.G. of Canada
Deltonia R. Cook
v. (25852)
Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire et le cahier de jurisprudence et de doctrine d’un intervenant
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to June 11, 1998.
16.6.1998
Before / Devant: MAJOR J.
Motion to extend the time in which to file the notice of appeal
Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Newfoundland et al.
v. (26362)
Andrew Wells (Nfld.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer l’avis d’appel
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to June 10, 1998.
17.6.1998
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion for substitutional service
Ndem Belende Kouldjim
v. (26511)
University of Ottawa et al. (Ont.)
Requête en substitution de signification
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
1. It is ordered that delivery by courier of the response of the respondents Lalonde and AEFO to the attention of Ndem Belende Kouldjim, 1468 Victoria Park, Office 110, Toronto, Ontario, M4A 2M2 on or near May 5, 1998 shall be good and sufficient service of the response.
2. It is ordered that delivery by courier of the Notice of motion and affidavit of Anne Marshall in support to the attention of Ndem Belende Kouldjim, 1468 Victoria Park, Office 110, Toronto, Ontario, M4A 2M2 on or near May 5, 1998 shall be good and sufficient service of the Notice of Motion and affidavit.
17.6.1998
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file a response
Ndem Belende Kouldjim
v. (26511)
University of Ottawa et al. (Ont.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer une réponse
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to May 4, 1998.
18.6.1998
Before / Devant: L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ J.
Motion to add parties
L.C.
v. (26358)
Brian Joseph Mills (Alta.)
Requête en jonction de parties
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE The motion for an order adding the Attorney General of Alberta as a party appellant is granted.
19.6.1998
Before / Devant: MAJOR J.
Motion for leave to intervene
BY/PAR: Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund;
Disabled Women’s Network Canada; and The Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton
IN/DANS: Her Majesty The Queen
v. (26493)
Steven Brian Ewanchuk (Alta.)
Requête en autorisation d’intervention
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
(1) the application for an extension of time and for leave to intervene by the applicants Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) and the Disabled Women’s Network Canada (DAWN) is granted; the applicants shall be entitled to file and serve a joint factum not to exceed 20 pages and to present joint oral argument limited to 15 minutes.
(2) the application for an extension of time and for leave to intervene by the applicant The Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton is granted; the applicant shall be entitled to file and serve a factum not to exceed 20 pages and to present oral argument limited to 15 minutes.
22.6.1998
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to file a factum on appeal over 40 pages
Donald Marshall Jr.
v. (26014)
Her Majesty The Queen (N.S.)
Requête pour permission de déposer un mémoire d'appel de plus de 40 pages
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
The motion for an order extending the time to serve and file the respondent’s factum, record and book of authorities to June 11, 1998, and for an order permitting the filing of a 43 page factum is granted.
22.6.1998
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the appellant’s book of authorities
John Lauda
v. (26444)
Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le cahier de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’appelant
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to June 8, 1998.
22.6.1998
Before / Devant: MAJOR J.
Motion for leave to intervene
BY/PAR: Canadian Labour Congress;
Coalition of B.C. Businesses
IN/DANS: United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1518
v. (26209)
Kmart Canada Ltd. et al. (B.C.)
Requête en autorisation d’intervention
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
(1) the application for leave to intervene by the applicant Canadian Labour Congress is granted; the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages and to present oral argument limited to 15 minutes. The respondent Kmart has the right to file a 10 page written reply to the intervener. The respondent and the intervener have the right to make representation as to costs.
(2) the application for an extension of time and leave to intervene by the applicant Coalition of B.C. Businesses is granted; the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages and to present oral argument limited to 15 minutes.
22.6.1998
Before / Devant: MAJOR J.
Motion for leave to intervene
BY/PAR: Canadian Labour Congress;
IN/DANS: United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1228P
v. (26203)
Allsco Building Products Ltd. (N.B.)
Requête en autorisation d’intervention
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
The application for an extension of time and for leave to intervene is granted; the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages and to present oral argument not to exceed 15 minutes. The respondent has the right to file a 10 page written reply to the intervener. The respondent and intervener have the right to make representation on costs.
23.6.1998
Before / Devant: MAJOR J.
Motion for a stay of execution
Thomas Bruce Baker
v. (26562)
Monica Frieda Francis (Ont.)
Requête en vue de surseoir à l'exécution
Opposed.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stay granted by order of the Court of Appeal for Ontario dated March 10, 1998 shall continue on the following conditions:
(1) That the applicant continue to pay maintenance for the children of the marriage in the amount of $10,034 per month.
(2) That the applicant pay to the solicitors for the respondent, in trust, the sum of $500,000, forthwith, to be deposited into an interest bearing account pending disposition of the application for leave to appeal, and if granted, disposition of the appeal.
(3) That costs of this motion are in the cause.
23.6.1998
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to file a reply of over 5 pages
Edwin K. Lewis
v. (26603)
Her Majesty The Queen (P.E.I.)
Requête pour permission de déposer une réplique de plus de 5 pages
Opposed.
DISMISSED / REJETÉE
The application to file an 8 page reply is denied. The application for an extension of time to file an amended reply is granted, reply to be filed by July 6, 1998.
24.6.1998
Before / Devant: McLACHLIN J.
Motion for leave to intervene
BY/PAR: Wunnumin Lake First Nation
IN/DANS: Childrens’ Foundation
v. (26013)
Patrick Allen Bazley (B.C.)
Requête en autorisation d’intervention
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE The application for intervention is granted; the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length and to present oral argument not to exceed 15 minutes.
24.6.1998
Before / Devant: McLACHLIN J.
Motion for leave to intervene
BY/PAR: Wunnumin Lake First Nation
IN/DANS: Gail Taylor-Jacobi et al.
v. (26041)
Boys’ and Girls’ Club of Vernon (B.C.)
Requête en autorisation d’intervention
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE The application for intervention is granted; the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length and to present oral argument not to exceed 15 minutes.
25.6.1998
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent’s response
Stefan Hadrian Comsa
v. (26700)
Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer la réponse de l’intimée
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to June 18, 1998.
26.6.1998
Before / Devant: MAJOR J.
Motion for leave to intervene
BY/PAR: Alberta Association of Sexual Assault Centres;
Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton;
L’Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense;
Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF);
Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario);
Canadian Mental Health Association;
Child and Adolescent Services Association;
Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers
IN/DANS: L.C.
v. (26358)
Brian Joseph Mills (Alta.)
Requête en autorisation d’intervention
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
IT IS HEREBY ordered that:
(1) The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Alberta Association of Sexual Assault Centre is granted. Leave is granted to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages and to present oral argument limited to 15 minutes.
(2) The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers is granted. Leave is granted to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages and to present oral argument limited to 15 minutes.
(3) The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Association Québécoise des Avocats et Avocates de la Défense is granted. Leave is granted to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages and to present oral argument limited to 15 minutes.
(4) The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) is granted. Leave is granted to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages and to present oral argument limited to 15 minutes.
(5) The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Child and Adolescent Services Association (CASA) is granted. Leave is granted to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages and to present oral argument limited to 15 minutes.
(6) The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) is granted. Leave is granted to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages and to present oral argument limited to 15 minutes.
(7) The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton is granted. Leave is granted to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages and to present oral argument limited to 15 minutes.
(8) The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario) is granted. Leave is granted to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages and to present oral argument limited to 15 minutes.
29.6.1998
Before / Devant: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER
Motion to state a constitutional question
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1288P
v. (26203)
Allsco Building Products et al. (N.B.)
Requête pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
1. Does section 104(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. I-4 limit freedom of expression as guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the extent that it prohibits union members from distributing leaflets elsewhere than at the employer’s place of business in the context of a labour dispute?
1. Le paragraphe 104(2) de la Loi sur les relations industrielles, L.R.N.-B. 1973, ch. I-4, restreint-il la liberté d’expression garantie par l’al. 2b) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, dans la mesure où il interdit aux syndiqués de distribuer des tracts ailleurs que dans le lieu d’affaires de l’employeur dans le cadre d’un conflit de travail?
2. If the answer to Question 1 is yes, is the limit reasonable and demontrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter?
2. En cas de réponse affirmative à la première question, s’agit-il d’une restriction raisonnable dont la justification peut se démontrer au sens de l’article premier de la Charte?
Notices of intention to intervene are to be filed no later than August 7, 1998.
29.6.1998
Before / Devant: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER
Motion to state a constitutional question
United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1518
v. (26209)
Kmart Canada Ltd. et al. (B.C.)
Requête pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
1. Do sections 1 (definition of “picket” or “picketing”), 65 and 67 of the Labour Relations Code, S.B.C. 1992, c. 82 limit freedom of expression as guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the extent that they prohibit union members from distributing leaflets at secondary sites of the employer in the context of a labour dispute?
1. Les articles 1 (définition de «picket» («piquet de grève») ou «picketing» («piquetage»)), 65 et 67 du Labour Relations Code, S.B.C. 1992, ch. 82, restreignent-ils la liberté d’expression garantie par l’al. 2b) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, dans la mesure où ils interdisent aux syndiqués de distribuer des tracts dans les lieux de travail secondaires de l’employeur dans le cadre d’un conflit de travail?
2. If the answer to Question 1 is yes, is the limit reasonable and demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter?
2. En cas de réponse affirmative à la première question, s’agit-il d’une restriction raisonnable dont la justification peut se démontrer au sens de l’article premier de la Charte?
Notices of intention to intervene are to be filed no later than August 7, 1998.
30.6.1998
Before / Devant: MAJOR J.
Motion to extend the time in which to file a notice of appeal
Kok Leong Liew
v. (26676)
Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer un avis d’appel
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to May 29, 1998, nunc pro tunc.
NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
|
AVIS D’APPEL DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
4.6.1998
Richter & Associés Inc.
c. (26272)
Le sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec et al.
et entre
Tremblay & Compagnie Syndics et Gestionnaires Ltée
c. (26272)
Le sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec et al. (Qué.)
17.6.1998
Andrew Scott Darrach
v. (26564)
Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)
17.6.1998
Her Majesty The Queen
v. (26377)
R.A.R. (Man.)
17.6.1998
Her Majesty The Queen
v. (26376)
Jeromie Keith D. Proulx (Man.)
17.6.1998
Her Majesty The Queen
v. (26339)
Thomas Andrew Bunn (Man.)
10.6.1998
Her Majesty The Queen in right of Newfoundland et al.
v. (26362)
Andrew Wells (Nfld.)
23.6.1998
N.H. and D.H.
v. (26555)
H.M., M.H. and The Director of Child, Family and Community Services (B.C.)
NOTICES OF INTERVENTION FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
|
AVIS D’INTERVENTION DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
BY/PAR: Attorney General of Ontario
IN/DANS: L.C.
v. (26358)
Brian Joseph Mills et al. (Alta.)
BY/PAR: Attorney General of Canada
Attorney General of Manitoba
Attorney General of Alberta
Procureur général du Québec
IN/DANS: Her Majesty The Queen
v. (26161)
John Sundown (Sask.)
BY/PAR: Attorney General of Alberta
Attorney General for Ontario
IN/DANS: Her Majesty The Queen in right of Canada et al.
v. (26174)
Angelo Del Zotto et al. (F.C.A.)
NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
|
AVIS DE DÉSISTEMENT DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION
|
29.6.1998
Yvan Deblois
c. (26604)
Michel Tremblay (Qué.)
(demande d’autorisation)
DEADLINES: APPEALS
|
|
DÉLAIS: APPELS |
Pursuant to the Supreme Court Act and Rules, the following requirements for filing must be complied with before an appeal can be inscribed for hearing:
Appellant’s record; appellant’s factum; and appellant’s book(s) of authorities must be filed within four months of the filing of the notice of appeal.
Respondent’s record (if any); respondent’s factum; and respondent’s book(s) of authorities must be filed within eight weeks of the date of service of the appellant's factum.
Intervener's factum and intervener’s book(s) of authorities, if any, must be filed within four weeks of the date of service of the respondent's factum, unless otherwise ordered.
Parties’ condensed book, if required, must be filed on or before the day of hearing of the appeal.
Please consult the Notice to the Profession of October 1997 for further information.
The Registrar shall inscribe the appeal for hearing upon the filing of the respondent's factum or after the expiry of the time for filing the respondent's factum.
|
|
Conformément à la Loi sur la Cour suprême et aux Règles, il faut se conformer aux exigences suivantes avant qu'un appel puisse être inscrit pour audition:
Le dossier de l’appelant, son mémoire et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine doivent être déposés dans les quatre mois de l’avis d’appel.
Le dossier de l’intimé (le cas échéant), son mémoire et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine doivent être déposés dans les huit semaines suivant la signification de ceux de l’appelant.
Le mémoire de l'intervenant et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine, le cas échéant, doivent être déposés dans les quatre semaines suivant la signification de ceux de l'intimé.
Le recueil condensé des parties, le cas échéant, doivent être déposés au plus tard le jour de l’audition de l’appel.
Veuillez consulter l’avis aux avocats du mois d’octobre 1997 pour plus de renseignements.
Le registraire inscrit l'appel pour audition après le dépôt du mémoire de l'intimé ou à l'expiration du délai pour le dépôt du mémoire de l'intimé. |
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE
CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME
- 1998 -
OCTOBER - OCTOBRE |
|
NOVEMBER - NOVEMBRE |
|
DECEMBER - DECEMBRE |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
1 |
M 2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
M 5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
8 |
9 |
10 |
H 11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
|
6 |
M 7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
11 |
H 12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
|
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
|
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
|
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
|
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
H 25 |
26 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
29 |
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27 |
H 28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
- 1999 -
JANUARY - JANVIER |
|
FEBRUARY - FÉVRIER |
|
MARCH - MARS |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
|
|
|
|
H 1 |
2 |
|
|
M 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
|
M 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
|
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
|
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
|
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
17 |
19 |
20 |
17 |
M 18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
|
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
|
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APRIL - AVRIL |
|
MAY - MAI |
|
JUNE - JUIN |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
|
|
|
1 |
H 2 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
H 5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
2 |
M 3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
|
6 |
M 7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
|
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
|
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
18 |
M 19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
|
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
|
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
23 |
H 24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
|
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sittings of the court: Séances de la cour: |
|
18 sitting weeks / semaines séances de la cour 81 sitting days / journées séances de la cour 9 motion and conference days / journées requêtes, conférences 4 holidays during sitting days / jours fériés durant les sessions |
Motions: Requêtes: |
M |
|
Holidays: Jours fériés: |
H |
|
|
|
|