Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

Avril 24, 1998  647 - 688                                                                      le 24 avril 1998

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Rodrigue Girard

Rodrigue Girard

c. (26559)

Corporation municipale de Saint-Léonard de Portneuf (Qué.)

Pothier, Delisle, S.EN.C.

DATE DE PRODUCTION 26.3.1998

Doris Mae Eisenhauer

Donald C. Murray

Pink Murray Graham

v. (26561)

Her Majesty The Queen (N.S.)

Dana W. Giovannetti

Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service

FILING DATE 8.4.1998

Claude Deslauriers

Claude Deslauriers

c. (26565)

Le Bureau de l’OAGQ et al. (Qué.)

Pierre C. Gagnon

Lavery, de Billy

DATE DE PRODUCTION 3.4.1998

604598 Saskatchewan Ltd., carrying on business under the name of “The Great Canadian Superbar”

Ronald J. Dumonceaux

Merchant Law Group

v. (26566)

The Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority et al. (Sask.)

D. Kovatch

Woloshyn Mattison

FILING DATE 3.4.1998

Anderson T. Walcott

Anderson T. Walcott

v. (26567)

Her Majesty The Queen in right of Ontario et al. (Ont.)

Michael Fleishman

A.G. of Ontario

FILING DATE 20.3.1998

Ronald Fortin

Ronald Fortin

c. (26552)

Jean Gosselin et al. (Qué.)

Jean Gosselin

DATE DE PRODUCTION 19.3.1998

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al.

Kevin R. Aalto

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson

v. (26568)

Montego Forest Products (Holdings) Ltd. (Ont.)

Fred Tayar

Fred Tayar & Assoc.

FILING DATE 6.4.1998

600 Talbot Street London Limited et al.

Robert A. Spence

v. (26569)

Middlesex Condominium Corporation No. 87 (Ont.)

N.W. Fursman

Siskind, Cromarty, Ivey & Dowler

FILING DATE 6.4.1998

Jeffrey Aaron Beyer

Jeffrey Aaron Beyer

v. (26437)

Her Majesty The Queen (Man.)

Murray J. Conklin

Manitoba Justice

FILING DATE 9.4.1998

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

Jack Woodward

Woodward & Co.

v. (26572)

Her Majesty The Queen in right of the province of British Columbia (B.C.)

John Finlay

Arvay Finlay

FILING DATE 8.4.1998

D.J.S.

Richard C.C. Peck, Q.C.

Peck and Tammen

v. (26573)

Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)

W.F. Ehrcke, Q.C.

Crown Counsel - Criminal Appeals

FILING DATE 8.4.1998

Peter Nordyne

Gary M. Chayko

v. (26574)

Her Majesty The Queen (Qué.)

Robert Frater        

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 8.4.1998

Nancy Chappell and News Publishing Co. Ltd. et al.

Donald W. Skogstad

Personal Law Corporation

v. (26571)

J.M.F. (B.C.)

Howard Rubin

FILING DATE 7.4.1998

Ian Fergus Hunter

Ian Fergus Hunter

v. (26580)

Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)

Kenneth J. Yule

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 17.4.1998

T.B.K.

Michael F.W. Bennett

v. (26581)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

Scott Hutchison

A.G. of Ontario

FILING DATE 9.4.1998

Harry Joseph Find et al.

Harry Joseph Find

v. (26575)

Bombardier Credit Ltd. (Ont.)

James R. Fisher

Brown, Beattie, O’Donovan

FILING DATE 7.4.1998

Antoine Thibault

Jean-François Bertrand

Guy Bertrand & Associés

c. (26576)

Collège des médecins du Québec et al. (Qué.)

Pierre Laurin

Flynn, Rivard

DATE DE PRODUCTION 9.4.1998

Distributions Percour Inc.

Julius Grey

Grey, Casgrain

c. (26577)

Boutique de sexe Ultramag Inc. et al. (Qué.)

Guy Sirois

DATE DE PRODUCTION 14.4.1998

APRIL 14, 1998 / LE 14 AVRIL 1998

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

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges McLachlin et Iacobucci

                                                                                    Roger Wallace Warren

                                                                                                v. (26216)

                                                                     Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(N.W.T.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Confessions - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Applicant’s confession was voluntary - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Applicant’s s. 10(b)  Charter  rights were not infringed - Expert evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Applicant’s expert could not testify in relation to false confessions - Whether the trial judge’s instruction to the jury that a statement made against interest is likely to be true was in error - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Applicant was correctly prohibited from cross-examining police on his pre-confession exculpatory statements - Whether the trial judge’s charge on second degree murder was correct - Whether the Applicant’s rights under s. 9  of the Charter  were infringed during the remand procedure.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                            Canadian Standards Association

                                                                                                v. (26433)

                                                             Jim Campbell and Michelle Ann-Marie Isherwood

                                                             Flexwatt Corporation, Wintertherm Corporation,

                                           Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the province of British Columbia,

                                        Thermaflex Limited, Aztech International Ltd., Flexel International Ltd.,

                                              Adair Industries Ltd., City of Vancouver, City of West Vancouver,

                                          City of Victoria, City of North Vancouver, District of North Vancouver,

                                                  City of Burnaby, Corporation of the City of New Westminster,

                                                                   District of Maple Ridge and City of Surrey,

                                                                                   City of Abbotsford (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Actions - Pre-trial procedure - Certification of class action - Chambers judge ordering certification of class of plaintiffs in whose homes allegedly defective heating panels were installed - Class comprised of approximately 2,000 plaintiffs in the province of British Columbia - Manufacturers and distributors of panels bankrupt - Applicant had set standard and approved product for use and installation - Problems with certain types of heating panels resulting in disconnect order by the Province - Damages suffered by plaintiffs - Chambers judge certifying threshold issues to be determined in a series of class proceedings trials - Court of Appeal upholding decision with amendments to certifiacation order - Applicant appealing from interlocutory order on the grounds, inter alia, that class proceedings  severely limit right to discovery of individual plaintiffs regarding possibility of negligent installation and right to seek contribution and indemnity from third parties.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache

                                                                              Provincial Tax Commissioner

                                                                                                v. (26423)

                                                                             Maritime Dredging Limited and

Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission (P.E.I.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Constitutional law - Whether Prince Edward Island has territorial jurisdiction over its land and waters or not, whether the Federal Government has complete jurisdiction, or whether that jurisdiction is shared - Whether the decision of the Commission, upheld by the Court of Appeal, interpreted and applied s. 12(1)(u) of the Revenue Tax Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988 Cap. R-14 correctly.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

June 7, 1996

The Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission

(Webber (Chair), McPhee, MacLellan)

Respondent Maritime Dredging Limited’s appeal from assessment allowed

CORAM:   Cory, Major and Binnie JJ. /

Les juges Cory, Major et Binnie

                                                                                        Warren J.M. Yake

                                                                                                v. (26360)

                                                                           The Law Society of Alberta (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Jurisdiction - Evidence - Professional misconduct hearing - Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to address the threshold question of whether it was permissible for a professional misconduct hearing to take on the appearance and air of a criminal prosecution - Whether Court of Appeal of Alberta erred in not finding that the panel conducting the hearing trenched on the federal criminal power jurisdiction, and therefore rendered the discipline hearing ultra vires - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not considering and applying the appropriate standard of proof where allegations of criminal conduct were being made - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its endorsement, without analysis or evaluation of the Law Society’s erroneous findings of fact - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its failure to consider the issue of the Law Society’s bias against the Applicant - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of "material particular" and whether there had been a dishonest deprivation.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

APRIL 7, 1998 -- REVISED APRIL 16, 1998 /   LE 7 AVRIL 1998 -- RÉVISÉ LE 16 AVRIL 1998

CORAM:   CORY, MAJOR AND IACOBUCCI JJ. /

LES JUGES CORY, MAJOR ET IACOBUCCI

                                                                                              Ernst Zündel

                                                                                                v. (26417)

                                                    The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.)(B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Civil - Civil rights - Administrative law - Judicial review - Reasonable apprehension of bias - Citizenship - Statutes - Interpretation - Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act , R.S.C. 1985, c.C-23, s.38  - Citizenship Act,  R.S.C. 1985, c.C-29, s.19  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining the test for impartiality for SIRC acting under s.19  of the Citizenship Act  - Whether that test is vague, arbitrary and capricious and contrary to s.7  of the Charter , and should be declared of no force or redefined under s.24(1)  of the Charter  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying Brosseau v. Alberta Securities Commission, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 301 and in finding that SIRC did not act outside its statutory authority in the Heritage Front Report - Whether ss.19 and 20 of the Citizenship Act , s.38(c)(ii) of the CSIS Act and the definition of “threats to the security of Canada” in s.2(c) of the CSIS Act create a legislative scheme which is so subjective, speculative, arbitrarily discretionary and devoid of objective evidentiary requirement as to be contrary to ss.2(b) , 2(c)  and 7  of the Charter  and should be declared of no force or effect by virtue of s.52  of the Charter  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing or refusing to find SIRC exhibited systemic bias against the Applicant under the “open mind” test or the appropriate “informed bystander” test in these circumstances.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

APRIL 20, 1998 / LE 20 AVRIL 1998

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

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges McLachlin et Iacobucci

                                                                                                    R.G.F.

                                                                                                v. (26461)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Child witnesses - Competence to testify - Whether the trial judge’s inquiry into the competence of the child witnesses to testify was adequate - Whether the trial judge should have allowed Crown counsel to assist in conducting the inquiry.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                          Beata Michalski

                                                                                                v. (26432)

                                                                Graydon Olson and Dariusz Michalski (Man.)

AND BETWEEN:

                                                                                        Daryl Dnistransky

                                                                                                v. (26432)

                                                                 Fred N. Horner and Gary Dnistransky (Man.)

AND BETWEEN:

                                                                                         Gary Dnistransky

                                                                                                v. (26432)

                                                                                     Fred N. Horner (Man.)

AND BETWEEN:

                                                                                         Janina Michalski

                                                                                                v. (26432)

                                                Graydon Olson, Dariusz Michalski and Beata Michalski (Man.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Conflict of laws - Limitation of actions - prescription - Motor vehicles - Injured parties not resident in province where accident occurred - Actions instituted in home province of injured parties - Tolofson v. Jensen; Lucas (Litigation Guardian of) v. Gagnon, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022 decided after statements of claim issued - Actions out of time in province where accident occurred - Whether Court of Appeal should have applied lex loci delicti rather than lex fori ‐ Whether the Court of Appeal misdirected themselves by not providing an orderly, fair and just implementation of the new law as declared in Tolofson - Whether the Manitoba Court of Appeal erred in law in holding the Respondents were not estopped from raising the limitation defence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                       Seamus Leonard, Elizabeth Leonard, and Kelly Leonard

                                                                                                v. (26440)

Stéphane Houle, Roch Peterson, Constable Guy Mathieu, Inspector Ron Lamothe, Chief of Police Thomas Flanagan, The Corporation of the City of Ottawa, The Quebec Provincial Police Force, The Hull Police Force, Pafco Insurance Company Limited, La Regie de l’assurance automobile du Québec and the Superintendent of Insurance for the province of Ontario (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Conflict of laws - Motor vehicles - Applicant injured in automobile accident occurring in Quebec during police pursuit starting in Ontario - Action for damages instituted in Ontario - Action for damages arising out of bodily injury suffered when damage is caused by an automobile statute barred in Quebec by Automobile Insurance Act, R.S.Q.1990, c.A-25 - Whether the law of Ontario or Quebec should apply - If Quebec law governs, is the action barred by Quebec’s Automobile Insurance Act - Whether there are any exceptions to the lex loci delicti rule in light of Tolofson v. Jensen; Lucas (Litigation Guardian of) v. Gagnon, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache

                                                                            La Commission scolaire Kativik

                                                                                                c. (26390)

                                 André Lachapelle et l’Association de l’enseignement du Nouveau-Québec (CEQ)

- et -

Claude H. Foisy, Lise Lavallée et Waguih El Masri (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail - Droit administratif - Compétence - Arbitrage - Convention collective - Interprétation - Bien qu’un enseignant non permanent ne peut, aux termes de la convention collective qui le régit, contester par grief le bien-fondé des causes invoquées par l’employeur à l’appui de sa décision de ne pas le réembaucher, peut-il néanmoins faire vérifier par l’arbitre l’existence des causes invoquées? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que l’arbitre n’avait pas commis d’erreur en décidant qu’il avait compétence pour vérifier l’existence des motifs allégués par l’employeur dans son avis de non-rengagement?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

                                                                              Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc.

                                                                                                v. (26403)

                                                           American Business Information, Inc. (F.C.A.)(Qué.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Copyright - Whether copyright subsists in the compilation of the information forming the Yellow Pages and Pages Jaunes directories - Selection of headings and arrangement of information under those headings - Intellectual creations - Degree of skill, judgment or labour exercised in the overall arrangement of the compilation of the information - Degree of originality required for copyright to subsist in a work resulting from a selection or arrangement of data - Copyright infringement - Is the proper test of infringement whether there was a taking of a substantial part of a work or, as found by the trial judge, whether there is substantial similarity between two works - Article 1705 of the North American Free Trade Agreement -   Copyright Act , R.S.C. 1985, c.  C-42 , as amended.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Minister of Forests and the Attorney General of British Columbia

on behalf of her Majesty the Queen in right of the province of British Columbia

                                                                                                v. (26394)

                                                                                 MacMillan Bloedel Limited

                                                                                                    - and -

                                                            Council of the Haida Nation and Miles Richardson

                                       on their own behalf and on behalf of all members of the Haida Nation (B.C.)

AND BETWEEN:

                                                                                 MacMillan Bloedel Limited

                                                                                                v. (26394)

Council of the Haida Nation and Miles Richardson

on their own behalf and on behalf of all members of the Haida Nation

                                                                                                    - and -

                                          The Minister of Forests and the Attorney General of British Columbia

                           on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the province of British Columbia (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes - Interpretation - Plain meaning rule - Whether the fundamental principle of statutory interpretation is more accurately expressed in the second edition of Driedger’s Construction of Statutes or the third edition of that work.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                   Patricia Carolyn Hickey

                                                                                                v. (26430)

                                                                               Walter Donald Hickey (Man.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family law - Maintenance - Variation of spousal and child support - Ten year old spousal and child support order varied by Chambers Judge due to Respondent’s income and eroding effect of inflation on quantum - Child support doubled to $1,500 per month for one child - Spousal support increased by $300 per month to $1,300 per month - Former wife having upgraded her education but earning income of less than $6,000 per annum - Former husband self-employed, earning in excess of $100,000 per annum - Federal Child Support Guidelines enacted prior to appeal - Court of Appeal refusing to consider Guidelines or changes to Income Tax Act regarding deductibility of child support- Court of Appeal reducing child support to $900 per month and spousal support to $1,000 per month retroactive to date of original award - Whether Court of Appeal erred  in failing to consider new legislation and in reducing support.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

January 15, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

CORAM:   Cory, Major and Binnie JJ. /

Les juges Cory, Major et Binnie

                                                                 James G. Stuart and Arthur Andersen & Co.

                                                                                                v. (25964)

                                                                                      Ernst & Young (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Labour law - Contracts - Partnership - Evidence - Damages - Exemplary or punitive damages - Partnership agreement requiring one year’s notice of retirement from partnership - Whether damages are available for an employee’s failure to provide notice of termination absent proof of actual damage - Whether notice clauses are immune from the standard of reasonableness required of covenants aimed at restraining competition - Whether the partner would have been bound to make his services available the Respondent for the duration of the notice period - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in declining to award exemplary damages in an amount which, when added to compensatory damages, was sufficient to deprive Andersen of all its wrongful gain and demonstrate that tort does not pay when the trial judge had found as a fact that Andersen had committed its tort for profit after calculating that profit would exceed any damages it might have to pay.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                   Jonathan Ashton Calvert

                                                                                                v. (26497)

                                        Mary Louise Calvert, by her Litigation guardian Stephen M. Grant (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family law - Divorce - Interpretation of  the Divorce Act , R.S.C. 1985, c.3 (2nd Supp .) - Living “separate and apart” - Capacity to form intent to divorce - Rights and obligations of incompetent spouses in relation to matters of family law.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

APRIL 16, 1998 / LE 16 AVRIL 1998

26410               LEONARD V. GRAY v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Ont.)

CORAM:           Cory, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Civil Procedure - Motion for summary judgment - Rule 20 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the motion for summary judgment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

APRIL 23, 1998 / LE 23 AVRIL 1998

26121                    AYTEL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC. - v. - REGIONAL ASSESSMENT COMMISSIONER, REGION NO. 23 AND THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON - and between - 705076 ONTARIO LIMITED - v. - REGIONAL ASSESSMENT COMMISSIONER, REGION NO. 23 AND THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON (Ont.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

The application for leave to cross-appeal is dismissed.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel-incident est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Municipal law - Assessment - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to grant leave to appeal - Whether the Divisional Court exceeded its jurisdiction by misinterpreting the legislation - What are the appropriate principles of statutory interpretation which should be applied to the interpretation of taxing statutes and did the Divisional Court apply the correct test?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

8.4.1998

Before / Devant:   McLACHLIN J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:           United Church of Canada

IN/DANS:          Children’s Foundation

v. (26013)

Patrick Alan Bazley (B.C.)

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE 

8.4.1998

Before / Devant:   BASTARACHE J.

Motion to strike out

Timothy Bartels

    v. (26482)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

Requête en radiation

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

9.4.1998

Before / Devant:   CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER

Motion to extend the time in which to file the case on appeal, the appellant’s factum and to state a constitutional question

J.G.

    v. (26005)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le dossier d’appel, le mémoire de l’appelante et pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

(1) the application for a motion by the appellant to state constitutional questions is granted (for questions see below).  Notices of intention to intervene are to be filed no later than May 22, 1998;

(2) The deadline for the serving and filing of the case on appeal is February 27, 1998;

(3) The deadline for the filing of the notice of constitutional questions is March 23, 1998;

(4) The deadline for the filing of the appellant’s factum is May 8, 1998.

Constitutional questions:   / Questions constitutionnelles:

1. In the circumstances of this case, did the failure of the Legal Aid Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. L-2, or the Government of New Brunswick under its Domestic Legal Aid Program, to provide legal aid to respondents in custody applications by the Minister of Health and Community  Services under Part IV of the Family Services Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. F-2.2, constitute an infringement of s. 7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

1.  Dans les circonstances de l’espèce, est-ce que constitue une atteinte à la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  le fait que ni la Loi sur l’aide juridique, L.R.N.-B. 1973, ch. L-2, ni le gouvernement du Nouveau-Brunswick, par son programme d’aide juridique en matière de droit de la famille, ne pourvoient au versement d’aide juridique aux défendeurs dans le cadre des demandes de garde présentées par le ministre de la Santé et des Services communautaires en vertu de la partie IV de la Loi sur les services à la famille, L.R.N.-B. 1973, ch. F-2.2?

2.  If the answer to question 1 is yes, is the infringement demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society pursuant to s. 1  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

2.  Si la réponse à la question 1 est oui, s’agit-il d’une atteinte dont la justification est démontrée dans le cadre d’une société libre et démocratique au sens de l’article premier de la  Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

14.4.1998

Before / Devant:   BASTARACHE J.

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

Shapiro, Cohen, Andrews, Finlayson

    v. (26560)

Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai pour obtenir l’autorisation d’appel

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to May 20, 1998.

14.4.1998

Before / Devant:    BASTARACHE J.

Motion to extend the time in which to file a notice of intention to intervene

BY/PAR:                A.G. of New Brunswick

IN/DANS:              Donald Marshall, Jr.

v. (26014)

Her Majesty The Queen (N.S.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer un avis d’intention d’intervenir

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to March 30, 1998.

15.4.1998

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Charter Committee on Poverty Issue

IN/DANS:              J.G.

v. (26005)

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

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application for an extension of time and for leave to intervene is granted; the applicant shall be entitled to service and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length and to present oral argument not to exceed 15 minutes.

15.4.1998

Before / Devant:   BASTARACHE J.

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

Doris Mae Eisenhauer

    v. (26561)

Her Majesty The Queen (N.S.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour obtenir l’autorisation d’appel

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to April 8, 1998.

14.4.1998

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file an intervener’s factum

Marie Sarah Eurig

    v. (25866)

The Attorney General for Ontario (Ont.)

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

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to April 2, 1998.

15.4.1998

Before / Devant:   LE JUGE BASTARACHE

Requête en vue de surseoir à l'exécution

Richard Trudel et al.

    c. (26558)

Les Immeubles Beneficial Ltée (Qué.)

Motion for a stay of execution

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

Après examen des documents et des arguments des demandeurs et de l’intimée, et compte tenu de l’article 65.1 de la Loi sur la Cour suprême et de ses critères d’application,

Je rejette la requête en sursis d’exécution, sans frais.

15.4.1998

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file the appellant’s record, factum and book of authorities

Her Majesty The Queen in right of Canada et al.

     v. (26174)

Angelo Del Zotto et al. (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer les dossier, mémoire et cahier de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’appelante

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

The motion for an order extending the time to serve and file the appellants’ record, factum and authorities to a date two (2) months after the decision on the Constitutional questions is granted.

15.4.1998

Before / Devant:    LE REGISTRAIRE

Requête en acceptation d'un mémoire d'appel de plus de 40 pages

Gaétan Delisle

    c. (25926)

Procureur général du Canada (Qué.)

Motion  for acceptance of factum on appeal over 40 pages

Avec le consentement des parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

16.4.1998

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent’s response

Sandra E. Gernhart

    v. (26469)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer la réponse de l’intimée

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to April 24, 1998.

16.4.1998

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent’s response

Elizabeth Balanyk

    v. (26498)

The Greater Niagara General Hospital et al. (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer la réponse de l’intimé

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to April 9, 1998.

20.4.1998

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file the appellants’ record, factum and book of authorities in response to the respondents’ cross appeal

FBI Foods Ltd.

    v. (25778)

Cadbury Schweppes Inc. et al. (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer les dossier, mémoire et cahier de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’appelant en réponse à l’appel incident des intimés

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to April 15, 1998.

20.4.1998

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file the appellant’s factum

Bert Thomas Stone

    v. (25969)

Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l’appelant

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to April 15, 1998.

7.4.1998

Before / Devant:   LE REGISTRAIRE

Taxation of costs

The C.S.L. Group Inc. et al.

     c. (25769)

The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority et al. (Qué.)

et entre

Furness Withy (Chartering) Ltd. et al.

    c. (25770)

The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority et al. (Qué.)

Taxation des dépens

Les deux demandes d’autorisation dans les dossiers en rubrique (nos de greffe 25769 et 25770) ont été rejetées avec dépens.  Bien qu’Hydro Québec ait taxé les dépens pour chaque appelante, dans les circonstances de ces affaires, les dépens ne seront accordés qu’une seule fois par dossier considéré globalement.  De plus le montant accordé pour les honoraires supplémentaires pour la rédaction du mémoire des arguments (art. 1c) de l’annexe B du Tarif ne sera accordé que dans un seul dossier.  Les frais inclus par l’intimée au titre des art. 1a) et 8 de l’annexe A du Tarif sont également radiés dans les deux dossiers.  Les dépens sont taxés en conséquence.

15.4.1998

David Joseph Golub

   v. (26298)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

15.4.1998

Ville de Chambly

    c. (26195)

Fernand Gagnon et al. (Qué.)

23.3.1998

M.V.

   v. (26527)

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

AS OF RIGHT

7.4.1998

Her Majesty The Queen

    v. (26570)

John Biniaris (B.C.)

AS OF RIGHT

20.4.1998

Bac Dinh Pham et al.

    v. (26459)

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

21.4.1998

James & Boyden

  v. (26378)

The United Kingdom (Ont.)

(leave)

AGENDA for the week beginning April 27, 1998.

ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 27 avril 1998.

Date of Hearing/                           Case Number and Name/    

Date d'audition                             Numéro et nom de la cause

27/04/98                                      Marie Sarah Eurig as Executor of the Estate of Donald Valentine Eurig v. Registrar of Ontario Court (General Division) et al. (Ont.)(25866)

28/04/98                                      Veluppillai Pushpanathan v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.)(Ont.)(25173) REHEARING

29/04/98                                      William Rodney Jussila v. Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.)(25888)

29/04/98                                      Ryan Robert Reed v. Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.)(25820)

30/04/98                                      FBI Foods Ltd. et al. v. Cadbury Schweppes Inc. et al. (B.C.)(25778)

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.

25866      Marie Sarah Eurig as Executor of the estate of Donald Valentine Eurig v. The Registrar of the Ontario Court (General Division) and The Attorney General of Ontario

Property law - Wills - Executors and administrators - Probate fees - Whether the probate fee, imposed by Ontario Regulation 293/92, is invalid on the ground that it is an indirect tax that is outside the legislative authority of the province under s. 92(2)  of the Constitution Act, 1867  - Whether the probate fee is invalid on the ground that it was imposed by a body other than the Legislature in contravention of s. 90 (incorporating by reference ss. 53 and 54) of the Constitution Act, 1867 .

The Appellant is the executor of the estate of her late husband, Donald Valentine Eurig, who died in October, 1992.  She applied to the Ontario Court (General Division) for an order that she be issued letters probate to enable her to administer the affairs and assets of the estate without the payment of a probate fee and for an order declaring that the regulation which required that payment was not lawful. 

The total value of the estate of the deceased was $414,000 which, by the application of the formula set out in s. 2(1) of O.Reg. 293/92 as amended by O.Reg. 359/94 resulted in a required payment to the Ministry of Finance for Ontario of a sum of money calculated to be $5,710.  The regulation was purported to be under the authority of the Administration of Justice Act.

The application was dismissed as was the Appellant’s subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Origin of the case:                                                Ontario

File No.:                                                 25866

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     January 16, 1997

Counsel:                                                                Peter W. Hogg Q.C., J. Gregory Richards and Peter T. Fallis for the Appellant

D. Thomas H. Bell and Peter C. Landmann for the Respondents

25866      Marie Sarah Eurig en qualité d’exécutrice testamentaire de la succession de Donald Valentine Eurig c. Le greffier de la Cour de l’Ontario (Division générale) et le procureur général de l’Ontario

Droit des biens — Testaments — Exécuteurs et administrateurs — Frais d’homologation — Les frais d’homologation imposés en Ontario par le Règlement 293/92 sont-ils illégalement exigés, au motif qu’ils constituent une taxe indirecte qui ne relève pas de la compétence législative de la province octroyée par le par. 92(2)  de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 ? — Les frais d’homologation sont-ils illégalement exigés au motif qu’ils sont imposés par un autre organisme que la législature en contravention de l’art. 90 (incorporant par renvoi les art. 53 et 54) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 ?

L’appelante est exécutrice testamentaire de la succession de son défunt mari, Donald Valentine Eurig, décédé en octobre 1992.  Elle a demandé à la Cour de l’Ontario (Division générale) de décerner une ordonnance portant que lui soient délivrées sans frais des lettres d’homologation qui lui permettraient d’administrer les affaires et les biens de la succession et une ordonnance déclarant illégitime le règlement qui exige le paiement de ces frais.

La valeur totale de la succession du défunt se chiffrait à 414 000 $. Par application de la formule exposée au par. 2(1) dudit règlement 293/92, modifié par le règlement 359/94, la somme à payer au ministère des Finances de l’Ontario était de 5 710 $.  On a prétendu que le règlement avait été pris en vertu de la Loi sur l’administration de la justice.

La demande a été rejetée de même que l’appel que l’appelante a subséquemment interjeté devant la Cour d’appel.

Origine:                                                  Ontario

N^o du greffe:                                          25866

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel:                    Le 16 janvier 1997

Avocats:                                                Peter W. Hogg, c.r., J. Gregory Richards et Peter T. Fallis pour l’appelante

D. Thomas H. Bell et Peter C. Landmann pour les intimés

25173      Veluppillai Pushpanathan (Pushpanathan Velupillai) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Immigration - Statutes - Interpretation - Did the Federal Court of Appeal err in interpreting Article 1F(c) of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (incorporated into Canadian law by the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985 c. I-2, s. 2) to exclude from refugee status an individual guilty of possession of heroin for the purposes of trafficking in Canada?

The Appellant arrived in Canada from Sri Lanka via India, France and Italy on March 21, 1985 whereupon he made a claim for Convention Refugee Status. In December, 1987 the Appellant was among eight individuals arrested in Toronto on charges of conspiracy to traffic in a narcotic under the Narcotic Control Act. At the time of the arrest, the Appellant’s group held heroin with a street value of some ten million dollars. Five of the eight, including the Appellant, were subsequently convicted of conspiracy to traffic in a narcotic. The Appellant received an eight year sentence, and, at the time of the Court of Appeal decision, was on parole.

The Immigration and Refugee Board (Refugee Division) decided on January 25, 1993 that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee because he is excluded by Article 1F(a) and (c) of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The Board did not deal with whether the Appellant had a well-founded fear of persecution should he be returned to Sri Lanka. The Board’s decision was confirmed at trial and on appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal.

Origin of the case:                                                Federal Court of Appeal

File No.:                                                 25173

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     December 19, 1995

Counsel:                                                                Lorne Waldman for the Appellant

Urszula Kacmarczyk for the Respondent

25173      Veluppillai Pushpanathan (Pushpanathan Veluppillai) c. Le ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration

Immigration — Lois — Interprétation — La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle commis une erreur en interprétant l’alinéa Fc) de l’article premier de la Convention des Nations Unies relative au statut des réfugiés (incorporé au droit canadien par la Loi sur l’immigration, L.R.C. (1985), ch. I-2, art. 2) de manière à exclure du statut de réfugié une personne coupable de possession d’héroïne en vue d’en faire le trafic au Canada?

Le 21 mars 1985, l’appelant est arrivé au Canada du Sri Lanka via l’Inde, la France et l’Italie a revendiqué le statut de réfugié au sens de la Convention.  En décembre 1987, l’appelant faisait partie d’un groupe de huit personnes arrêtées à Toronto et accusées de complot de trafic d’un stupéfiant au sens de la Loi sur les stupéfiants.  Au moment de l’arrestation, le groupe de l’appelant possédait une quantité d’héroïne ayant une valeur de revente évaluée à environ dix millions de dollars.  Cinq de ces huit personnes, dont l’appelant, ont par la suite été déclarées coupables de complot en vue de faire le trafic d’un stupéfiant.  L’appelant a reçu une peine de huit ans et, au moment du prononcé de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel, était en libération conditionnelle.

Le 25 janvier 1993, la Commission de l’immigration et du statut de réfugié (Section du statut) a décidé que l’appelant n’était pas un réfugié au sens de la Convention en raison des alinéas Fa) et c) de l’article premier de la Convention des Nations Unies relative au statut des réfugiés.  La Commission n’a pas examiné la question de savoir si l’appelant craignait avec raison qu’il serait persécuté s’il était renvoyé au Sri Lanka.  La décision de la Commission a été confirmée en première instance et en appel.

Origine :                                                 Cour d’appel fédérale

N^o du greffe :                                                         25173

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel :                                   Le 19 décembre 1995

Avocats :                                                               Lorne Waldman pour l’appelant

Urszula Kacmarczyk pour l’intimé

25888      William Rodney Jussila v. Her Majesty The Queen

Criminal law - Procedural law - Appeal - Conviction of sexual assault - Whether the trial judge’s verdict (upheld by the majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal) was unreasonable within the meaning of Section 686(1) (a)(i) of the Criminal Code .

The complainant, who was a family friend, went to the Appellant’s home where he smoked marijuana and became physically ill.  The Appellant drove him to the home of a third party where he  went into a bedroom and slept while the Appellant and two friends watched television in an adjoining room.  The Appellant admitted going into the bedroom a number of times to check on the complainant.  Each time the Appellant had rubbed the complainant’s shoulders and legs in an effort to make the complainant feel better.  On the last occasion, when the complainant awoke, he appeared to be having a nightmare and asked the Appellant if he was a child molester.

The complainant described having weird dreams during the afternoon and vaguely remembered the Appellant massaging his feet and on one occasion sucking his penis.  He testified that when he awoke his pants and shorts were pushed down almost to his knees, but in his statement to the police he said that his pants were open.  The complainant dressed and joined the others in watching television, but objected to the movie showing two men having oral sex and returned home.

After some discussion with his mother, he told her that he had been sexually assaulted by the Appellant.  He left his clothes in the laundry room and she called the police.  The police retrieved the only dirty clothes in the laundry room.  While testifying the complainant was unable to recall which shorts he had worn that day, but was able to identify the seized shorts as the only pair of that description belonging to him.  The trial judge accepted forensic evidence which accepted the probable presence of both human semen and saliva on the shorts, but no DNA testing was done.  The trial judge did not comment on the credibility of the Appellant’s evidence nor that of his two friends.  He did find the complainant to be a credible witness.

The Appellant was convicted of one count of sexual assault.  On appeal, the majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.  Harradence J.A. dissented that in applying the test in R. v. Yebes [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168 to the whole of the evidence, it would be dangerous to sustain the conviction. 

Origin of the case:                                                Alberta

File No.:                                                 25888

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     February 18, 1997

Counsel:                                                                Rajko Dodic for the Appellant

Joshua B. Hawkes for the Respondent

25888      William Rodney Jussila c. Sa Majesté la Reine

Droit criminel - Droit procédural - Appel - Déclaration de culpabilité d’agression sexuelle - Le verdict du juge du procès (confirmé par la Cour d’appel de l’Alberta à la majorité) était-il déraisonnable au sens de l’article 686(1) a)(i) du Code criminel ?

Le plaignant, un ami de la famille, s’est rendu chez l’appelant où il a fumé de la marijuana et est tombé malade. L’appelant l’a conduit chez un tiers où il s’est rendu dans une chambre et a dormi pendant que l’appelant et deux amis regardaient la télévision dans une pièce adjacente. L’appelant a admis s’être rendu dans la chambre à coucher plusieurs fois pour vérifier l’état du plaignant. Chaque fois, l’appelant a frictionné les épaules et les jambes du plaignant pour que celui-ci se sente mieux. La dernière fois, lorsque le plaignant s’est réveillé, il paraissait en proie à un cauchemar et a demandé à l’appelant s’il était un pédophile.

Le plaignant a dit avoir fait des rêves étranges pendant l’après-midi et s’est vaguement rappelé que l’appelant lui massait les pieds et, une fois, qu’il lui suçait le pénis. Il a témoigné que, à son réveil, son pantalon et son short étaient baissés presque jusqu’aux genoux, mais dans sa déclaration à la police il a dit que son pantalon était ouvert. Le plaignant s’est habillé et s’est joint aux autres pour regarder la télévision, mais s’est objecté au film qui montrait deux hommes pratiquant la fellation, et est retourné chez lui.

Après avoir discuté avec sa mère, il lui a dit qu’il avait été agressé sexuellement par l’appelant. Il a laissé ses vêtements dans la salle de lavage et elle a appelé la police. La police a récupéré les seuls vêtements sales dans la salle de lavage. Lorsqu’il a témoigné, l’appelant a été incapable de se rappeler quel short il portait ce jour-là, mais il a pu identifier le short saisi comme étant le seul de cette description qui lui appartenait. Le juge du procès a accepté la preuve médico-légale qui reconnaissait la présence probable de salive et de sperme humains sur le short, mais aucun test d’empreintes génétiques n’a été fait. Le juge du procès n’a pas commenté la crédibilité du témoignage de l’appelant ni de celui de ses deux amis. Il a conclu que le plaignant était un témoin crédible.

L’appelant a été déclaré coupable relativement à un chef d’agression sexuelle. La Cour d’appel à la majorité a rejeté l’appel interjeté. Le juge Harradence a exprimé sa dissidence, disant que, si on applique à l’ensemble de la preuve le critère établi dans R. c. Yebes [1987] 2 R.C.S. 168, il serait dangereux de confirmer la déclaration de culpabilité.

Origine:                                                                  Alberta

N^o du greffe:                                                          25888

Arrêt de la Cour d'appel:                                     Le 18 février 1997

Avocats:                                                                Rajko Dodic pour l'appelant

Joshua B. Hawkes pour l'intimée

25820      Ryan Robert Reed v. Her Majesty The Queen

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Dangerous driving - Reverse onus - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in placing a reverse onus on the Appellant to provide an exculpatory explanation for the accident - Whether the placing of that onus, which the Appellant was incapable of discharging, violated the Appellant’s right to be presumed innocent or his right to security of the person.

On September 17, 1994 at approximately 1:00 a.m., the Appellant was involved in a head-on collision that resulted in the deaths of three people.  The vehicle the Appellant was driving was a four-wheel drive Ford Ranger which had been modified with a “lift kit” and high tread tires. He had this work done professionally and properly certified.  An expert in motor vehicle accident reconstruction testified that the effect of the modification reduced its stability by raising the centre of gravity, and the oversized tires reduced the cornering ability of the vehicle and increased the amount of force required to make a turn.  The vehicle was, however, capable of negotiating the highway and was capable of negotiating at 100 kmph the curve where the collision occurred.

On September 16, 1994, the Appellant and a friend drove from Coquitlam to Squamish.  That day the Appellant had got up at 5:50 am and worked a regular shift.  During the drive to Squamish, the Appellant drank two cans of light beer.  After dinner at a restaurant, they drove to the hot springs at Meager Creek and consumed more beer.  At approximately 10:45 p.m. the two men began the trip to Squamish.  Prior to the accident, the Appellant had negotiated a twisting road through mountainous territory.  The expert witnesses for the Appellant and Respondent both agreed that the estimated speed of the Appellant’s vehicle at the time of the collision was between 102 and 108 kmph.  The speed limit in the zone was 80 kmph.  There was evidence called to the effect that most drivers on that highway speeded.

When the collision took place, the Appellant’s vehicle was almost entirely in the oncoming northbound lane.  There was evidence, based upon marks present on the road, that the Appellant had applied the brakes of his truck to avoid the collision prior to impact.  There was also evidence that had the Appellant been travelling at 80 kmph, and had he reacted in the same way as he did at the speed he was actually travelling, he would have been able to return to the portion of the highway reserved for southbound traffic without colliding with the oncoming northbound vehicle.

The trial judge acquitted the Appellant of three counts of dangerous driving.  The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and substituted convictions for the three acquittals.

Origin of the case:                                                British Columbia

File No.:                                                 25820

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     January 22, 1997

Counsel:                                                                Brian Mickelson for the Appellant

Alexander Budlovsky for the Respondent

25820      Ryan Robert Reed c. Sa Majesté la Reine

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit criminel - Conduite dangereuse - Renversement du fardeau de la preuve - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en imposant à l’appelant, par renversement du fardeau de la preuve,  l’obligation de fournir une explication disculpatoire de l’accident? - L’imposition de cette obligation, dont l’appelant ne pouvait s’acquitter, a-t-elle violé le droit de l’appelant à la présomption d’innocence ou son droit à la sécurité de sa personne?

Vers une heure le matin le 17 septembre 1994, l’appelant a été impliqué dans une collision frontale qui a causé la mort de trois personnes. L’appelant conduisait un véhicule à quatre roues motrices de marque Ford Ranger, modifié au moyen d’une trousse de surélévation et de pneus à grande bande de roulement. Il avait fait exécuter ce travail par des gens du métier et l’avait bien fait certifier. Un expert en reconstitution d’accident de la circulation a témoigné que la modification avait eu pour effet de réduire la stabilité du véhicule en élevant son centre de gravité et que les pneus surdimentionnés réduisaient la capacité de virage du véhicule et augmentaient la force requise pour effectuer un virage. Le véhicule était cependant capable de circuler sur la route et de négocier à 100 km/h la courbe où la collision s’est produite.

Le 16 septembre 1994, l’appelant et un ami se sont rendus de Coquitlam à Squamish.  Ce jour-là, l’appelant s’était levé à 5 h 50 et avait fait son quart normal de travail. Pendant le voyage à Squamish, l’appelant a bu deux cannettes de bière légère. Après un repas dans un restaurant, ils se sont rendus aux sources chaudes à Meager Creek et ont encore bu de la bière. Vers 22 h 45, les deux hommes sont partis vers Squamish. Avant l’accident, l’appelant avait circulé sur un chemin tortueux dans une région montagneuse. Les témoins experts de l’appelant et de l’intimée ont tous deux convenu que la vitesse approximative du véhicule de l’appelant au moment de la collision se situait entre 102 et 108 km/h. La vitesse maximale à cet endroit était de 80 km/h. Suivant la preuve testimoniale, la plupart des conducteurs dépassaient cette limite sur cette route.

Au moment de la collision, le véhicule de l’appelant était presque entièrement dans la voie inverse qui allait vers le nord. Suivant la preuve fondée sur les marques relevées sur la route, l’appelant avait appliqué les freins pour éviter la collision. Des éléments de preuve montraient que, s’il avait circulé à 80 km/h et s’il avait réagi de la même façon qu’il l’a fait à la vitesse à laquelle il circulait, l’appelant aurait été capable de revenir dans la voie réservée à la circulation allant vers le sud, sans entrer en collision avec le véhicule venant en sens inverse vers le nord.

Le juge du procès a acquitté l’appelant relativement aux trois chefs de conduite dangereuse. La Cour d’appel a accueilli l’appel et substitué des déclarations de culpabilité aux trois acquittements.

Origine:                                                  Colombie-Britannique

N^o du greffe:                                          25820

Arrêt de la Cour d'appel:                     Le 22 janvier 1997

Avocats:                                                Brian Mickelson pour l'appelant

Alexander Budlovsky pour l'intimée

25778      FBI Foods Ltd. et al v. Cadbury Schweppes Inc. et al

Whether a Court of Appeal reviewing the trial judge’s exercise of her remedial discretion in a breach of confidence case can impose new remedies simply because it takes a different view of the equities of the case - Whether a permanent injunction is an appropriate remedy in this case given the Respondents’ laches, the Appellants’ change in position, the relative insignificance of the breach of confidence and the difficulties inherent in enjoining the use of food recipe that has been used only as a springboard - Whether a confider who has suffered no loss from a breach of confidence and who has expressly elected not to seek a disgorgement remedy is entitled to an award of equitable compensation.

At trial, the Appellants Glassner, Kurlender, and FBI Foods were found liable for breach of confidence to Cadbury Schweppes for the use of the Clamato recipe which effectively gave them a head start in the development of  Caesar Cocktail.  The trial judge found that the Appellants would have independently developed a competing product within the twelve month notice period without the use of the recipe.  Because the Respondent did not face any competition that it would not have faced absent the misuse of the recipe, damages were limited to the amount that the Applicant saved as a result of their breach: the cost of hiring someone to assist in the development of a new product.  This amount was later assessed to be $29,200, payable to the Respondent, Cadbury-Schweppes Inc. only.  The trial judge held that the doctrine of laches applied to deprive the Respondents of the injunctive relief they sought.  She found that the Respondents’ delay in proceeding induced FBI Brands to purchase the assets of Caesar Canning.

Following trial, the Respondents sought to reverse their election of remedies from compensation to disgorgement of profits, but the trial judge dismissed the application on the grounds that the trial would have proceed differently had a different election been made.  Glassner settled with the Respondents prior to the appeal.  The Court of Appeal varied the remedy against the Appellants, awarding damages to Cadbury Schweppes and to Cadbury Beverages,  to be assessed based upon the amount the Respondents would have earned had they sold the Caesar Cocktail in fact manufactured and sold by FBI Foods in the twelve month period after the licence terminated, the “head start period.”  Further, the Court of Appeal held that laches or acquiescence on the part of the Respondents was not a factor to deprive them of a remedy because the delay was due to ignorance of their legal rights.  Finally, a permanent injunction was ordered against the Appellants prohibiting them from using confidential information in the production of tomato cocktails.  The operation of the injunction was suspended for a period of twenty weeks,  to permit the Appellants time to develop a new, non-infringing product, provided that the Appellants pay to the Respondents the profits the Respondents would have earned had they made the Appellants’ sales during that suspension period.

Origin of the case:                                British Columbia

File No.:                                 25778

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:     August 15, 1996

Counsel:                                                Michael P. Carroll Q.C., Peter G. Voith and Monika B. Gehlen for the Appellants

Jack Giles Q.C. and David T. Woodfield for the Respondents

25778 FBI Foods Ltd. et autres c. Cadbury Schweppes Inc. et autres

Une cour d'appel chargée du contrôle de l'exercice par le juge de première instance du pouvoir discrétionnaire d'accorder une réparation dans une affaire d'abus de confiance peut-elle imposer de nouvelles mesures de réparation pour la simple raison qu'elle conçoit différemment le droit en equity concernant l'affaire? - Une injonction permanente constitue‐t‐elle une réparation appropriée en l'espèce vu le manque de diligence des intimées, le changement de position des appelantes, le caractère assez négligeable de l'abus de confiance et les difficultés rattachées au fait d'imposer l'utilisation d'une recette qui a été utilisée uniquement comme tremplin? - La victime d'un abus de confiance qui n'a subi aucune perte et qui a expressément choisi de ne pas demander une reddition de compte visant les bénéfices a‐t‐elle droit à un dédommagement en equity?

Au procès, les appelantes Glassner, Kurlender et FBI Foods ont été reconnues coupables d'abus de confiance envers Cadbury Schweppes à cause de l'utilisation de la recette Clamato qui leur a effectivement procuré un avantage dans la mise au point du Caesar Cocktail. Le juge de première instance a conclu que les appelantes auraient, de façon indépendante, mis au point un produit concurrent au cours de la période d'avis de douze mois sans l'utilisation de la recette. Comme l'intimée n'a pas fait face à une concurrence à laquelle elle n'aurait pas fait face sans l'utilisation abusive de la recette, les dommages-intérêts ont été limités au montant que la requérante a épargné en raison de l'abus, à savoir le coût des services fournis par la personne embauchée pour participer à la mise au point d'un nouveau produit. Cette somme a par la suite été fixée à 29 200 $ et était payable à l'intimée Cadbury-Schweppes Inc. uniquement. Le juge de première instance a statué que la théorie du manque de diligence s'appliquait de manière à priver les intimées de l'injonction demandée. Elle a conclu que le retard des intimées avait amené FBI Brands à acheter les éléments d'actif de Caesar Canning.

Au terme du procès, les intimées ont cherché à modifier la réparation demandée en remplaçant les dommages-intérêts par une reddition de compte visant les bénéfices, mais le juge de première instance a rejeté leur demande au motif que le procès se serait déroulé autrement si un choix différent avait été fait. Glassner a conclu un accord avec les intimées avant l'appel. La Cour d'appel a modifié la réparation imposée aux appelantes en accordant à Cadbury Schweppes et à Cadbury Beverages des dommages-intérêts devant être calculés en tenant compte du montant que les intimées auraient gagné si elles avaient vendu le Caesar Cocktail qui a été, dans les faits, fabriqué et vendu par FBI Foods au cours de la période de douze mois qui a suivi l'expiration de la licence, soit la « période visée par l'avantage ». De plus, la Cour d'appel a statué que le manque de diligence ou l'acquiescement des intimées n'était pas un facteur de nature à les priver d'une réparation parce que le retard était attribuable à la méconnaissance de leurs droits légaux. Enfin, la Cour d'appel a prononcé une injonction permanente enjoignant aux appelantes de ne pas utiliser des renseignements confidentiels dans la production de boissons aux tomates. L'application de l'injonction a été suspendue pendant une période de vingt semaines afin de donner aux appelantes le temps de mettre au point un nouveau produit ne constituant pas une contrefaçon, à condition que les appelantes paient aux intimées les bénéfices que celles-ci auraient faits si elles avaient réalisé les ventes des appelantes au cours de la période de suspension.

Origine :                                                 Colombie-Britannique

N^o du greffe :                                                         25778

Arrêt de la Cour d'appel :                                    Le 15 août 1996

Avocats :                                                               Michael P. Carroll, c.r., Peter G. Voith et Monika B. Gehlen pour les appelantes

Jack Giles, c.r., et David T. Woodfield pour les intimées

                                                         SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

                                                             CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME

REVISED

- 1997 -