Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

December 17, 1999  2010 - 2070 (INDEX)                                          le 17 décembre 1999

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

David Askey

David Askey

v.  (27607)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Minister of Health and Emergency Health Services Commission (B.C.)

L.  Zivot

Lang, Michener, Lawrence & Shaw

FILING DATE 24.11.1999

Paul Kebe

Paul Kebe

c.  (27612)

Sally Anne Manyi Agbor (Qué.)

Christiane Constant

Dortélus Constant

DATE DE PRODUCTION 29.11.1999

Terrence Guilbault

Fred E.  Seller

Yegendorf, Brazeau, Seller, Prehogan & Wyllie

v.  (27613)

Investors Group Trust Company Limited et al.  (Ont.)

William T.  Houston

Fraser Milner

FILING DATE 26.11.1999

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

Patrick G.  Foy, Q.C.

Ladner Downs

v.  (27614)

Paulo Bevacqua (B.C.)

Armand A.  Petronio

Hawthorne, Piggott, Emerson, Petronio & MacKinnon

FILING DATE 29.11.1999

Joel Epstein et al.

Raymond G.  Colautti

Paroian, Raphael, Courey, Cohen & Houston

v.  (27608)

The Salvation Army Scarborough Grace General Hospital et al.  (Ont.)

Lisa Constantine

McCarthy, Tetrault

FILING DATE  26.11.99

Cleavon Francis et al.

Jeffery Wilson

Wilson Christen

v.  (27615)

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration et al.  (Ont.)

Kevin Lunney      

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 29.11.1999

DECEMBER 13, 1999 / LE 13 DÉCEMBRE 1999

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache

Jacques Laurendeau

c.  (27563)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Infractions - Menaces de mort - Harcèlement - Les juges de la Cour d’appel ont-ils erré en droit en statuant que les éléments essentiels pour démontrer qu’il a eu un acte criminel de commis, l’actus reus de l’infraction de menace de mort, n’avait pas à être prouver par la poursuite? - Les juges de la Cour d’appel ont-ils erré en droit en statuant que les éléments essentiels pour démontrer qu’il y a eu un acte criminel de commis, l’actus reus de l’infraction de harcèlement, devait être prouvé alors qu’il y a eu arrêt des procédures en vertu de la règle des condamnations multiples? - Les juges de la Cour d’appel ont-ils erré en droit lorsqu’ils considèrent ce qui constitue un acte interdit aux termes du paragraphe (1) de l’article 264?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Sam Lévy & Associés Inc.

c.  (27327)

2858‑4665 Québec Inc.  (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Procédure - Faillite - Actions - Action sur compte pour services rendus - Requête en irrecevabilité - La permission du tribunal était-elle requise préalablement à l’introduction du recours contre la demanderesse en conformité avec l’art. 215  de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité , L.R.C. 1985, ch. B-3 ? - Le syndic pouvait-il être poursuivi personnellement?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

CORAM:   McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ. /

Les juges McLachlin, Iacobucci et Major

Rui Wen Pan

v.  (27424)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Sections 7  and 11( d )  of the Charter  - Trial - Juries - Jury secrecy - Sections 649  and 653(2)  of the Criminal Code , R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46  - Mistrial - Abuse of process - Whether s. 649 of the Criminal Code  violates the rights guaranteed by ss. 7  and 11( d )  of the Charter  - Whether the common law jury secrecy rules violate the rights guaranteed by ss. 7  and 11( d )  of the Charter  - Whether s. 653(2) of the Criminal Code  violates the rights guaranteed by ss. 7  and 11( d )  of the Charter  - Whether a decision to declare a mistrial is subject to review on the basis of abuse of process or breach of ss. 7  or 11( d )  of the Charter  - Whether juror misconduct causing a mistrial, is subject to review on the basis of abuse of process or breach of ss. 7  or 11( d )  of the Charter  - Whether the right of the accused to make full answer and defence extends to the right to adduce necessary and relevant evidence in support of an application for a stay of proceedings - Whether a ruling on a motion for a stay of proceedings may be reviewed on appeal from a resulting conviction - Whether the trial judge erred in failing to direct a stay of proceedings on the basis of abuse of process and/or breach of ss. 7  or 11( d )  of the Charter  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to admit as fresh evidence the audio-taped interviews and statements of the jurors at the Applicant's second trial, which related to alleged juror misconduct - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal and in failing to order a stay of proceedings?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Dr. Phillip Godfrey Ashmore

v.  (27171)

Melanie Ann Van Mol,

Phillip Frederick C. Van Mol and

Sandra Lynn Van Mol (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence ‑ Medical malpractice ‑ Causation - Whether a doctor has a legal duty to obtain the informed consent of an infant plaintiff to the surgical procedure - Whether the informed consent of the infant’s parents would provide the doctor with the required informed consent for the surgical procedure - Whether the Applicant surgeon was required to disclose and discuss with the Respondent patient comparative assessment of alternative surgical techniques in order to obtain her informed consent to the surgical procedure - Whether the British Columbia Court of Appeal erred in law in applying a new and broader scope of appellate review by concluding that a “palpable and overriding error” by the trial judge is an error which “may well have altered the result”.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Pardee Equipment Ltd.

v.  (27165)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation -  Income tax - Deductions - Inventory allowances - Dealer Agreements - Proprietary interest - Title of goods held by another company but many incidents of ownership vested in the Applicant taxpayer, the dealer - Whether the Applicant is entitled to claim inventory allowances and investment credits in respect of consigned goods - What proprietary interest is required before goods held for sale by a taxpayer may properly be considered its “inventory”? - Appropriate standard of review - Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, ss. 20(1)(gg) and 127.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:   Major, Binnie and Arbour JJ. /

Les juges Major, Binnie et Arbour

Kim Phuong Chung and Hy Minh Chung

v.  (27508)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - Sections 7  and 11(d)  of the Charter  - Constitutional law - Constitutional validity of s. 9 of the Court of Appeal Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. 28 - Composition of panel of judges - Whether the Applicants’ rights protected under ss. 7  and 11(d)  of the Charter  were infringed by the Alberta Court of Appeal policy which empanels every sentence appeal panel to comprise two members of the Court of Queen’s Bench and one member of the Court of Appeal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Her Majesty The Queen

v.  (27338)

Marcus Rulli (Crim.)(Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Admissibility of similar fact evidence - Probative Value - Credibility - Stayed Charges -  The Crown sought to adduce similar fact evidence solely in relation to credibility of the adult complainant - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in creating a higher standard of admissibility for the similar fact evidence of adult complainants than for child complainants - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in prohibiting the use of similar fact evidence in circumstances where the allegations underlying the proposed evidence have been the subject of a judicial stay - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to amend the indictment and uphold the conviction for the included offence of assault on count one.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

April 7, 1995

Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)

(Locke J.)

Applicant found guilty on three of five counts and fined $750 for the included offence of assault, sentenced to seven months in custody for obstruction of justice, and sentenced to one year consecutive for harassment

April 9, 1999

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Brooke, Finlayson and O'Connor JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed, conviction quashed and new trial ordered restricted to the counts upon which the Respondent was convicted

June 8, 1999

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

Michel Bareau

v.  (27330)

The Governors of the University of Alberta (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Colleges and universities - Arbitration - Tenured university professor dismissed on the grounds of insubordination, professional irresponsibility and teaching irresponsibly - Arbitration board upholding dismissal - Whether university provided Applicant with proper notice and outlined substance of case against him - Whether duty of procedural fairness and principle of fundamental justice were breached.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

DECEMBER 16, 1999 / LE 16 DÉCEMBRE 1999

27512                    PEDRO CARDOSO - c. - SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE (Qué.)(Crim.)

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

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit fiscal - Législation - Interprétation - Alinéa 239(1) d) Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu , L.R.C. (1985), ch. 1 (5 ^e  suppl .) - Éluder ou tenter d’éluder le paiement d’un impôt - Le demandeur a permis à des investisseurs de réclamer des déductions pour frais d’exploration auxquelles ils n’avaient pas droit - Une personne peut-elle être condamnée d’avoir éludé ou tenté d’éluder le paiement d’un impôt dû par un tiers de bonne foi?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

27275                    RUSSELL MARTEL - v. - BRIAN DAVIDSON (Ont.)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Bills of exchange - Promissory note - Respondent bringing action to recover amount owed on promissory note - Applicant alleging contemporaneous collateral agreement between parties that affected date of payment - Trial judge granting judgment on promissory note - Whether courts below erred in accepting Respondent’s version of events - Whether trial judge erred in awarding interest payable on promissory note.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27147                    DENIS Y. LAFLAMME - c. - MAURICE G. VÉZINA et JACQUES FORTIER (Qué.)

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

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Code civil - Procédure - Reddition de compte - Preuve - Administration de la preuve - Intérêts - Interprétation - Les règles d'administration de la preuve contenues dans le Code de procédure civile exigeant qu'un témoin soit entendu devant la cour en présence de la partie adverse qui doit avoir la possibilité de le contre-interroger, d'où la prohibition du témoignage écrit et du ouï-dire, s'appliquent-elles dans le cas d'une action pro-socio ou en reddition de compte? - Les règles ordinaires de l’article 1077 C.c.B.-C.  sur le paiement d'un intérêt dans le cas d'un retard à exécuter une obligation s’appliquent-elles dans le cas d'un compte produit dans le cadre d’une action en reddition de compte? - Les règles ordinaires de l'article 1078.1 du C.c.B.-C.  sur le paiement d'une indemnité additionnelle s’appliquent-elles dans le cas d'un compte produit dans le cadre d’une action en reddition de compte?       

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

27187                    DEREK ALCHIMOWICZ - v. - ROBERT SCHRAM, MONICA ADE, DANIEL PAGLIARELLA, MONIQUE TOUSIGNANT, LUCA VISENTIN, JOSE PERLA, MARIA BLANCA LEONE also known as MARIA BLANCA VARELA, MICHAEL MACINTYRE, THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WINDSOR, MICHAEL KENNY, FRANK TEDESCO and TEDESCO RESTAURANTS LTD., operating as FRANCO’S RESTAURANT (Ont.)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence - Applicant becoming grossly intoxicated while drinking at party - Applicant taken by friends and co-workers to a beach where he dove off the railing of a dock into shallow water - Applicant became a quadriplegic - Duty and standard of care owed by a social host to an intoxicated guest - Duty and standard of care owed by a designated driver to an intoxicated person - Duty and standard of care owed by a gratuitous driver to an intoxicated person - Magnitude of risk to be guarded against when establishing standard of care.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27280                    MICHAEL R. GUILLEMETTE - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (F.C.A.)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Income tax - Progressive rate system - Provincial taxation and spending power - Whether progressive income tax rate system infringes Applicant’s rights as set out in s. 15  of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Whether transfer of a portion of federal income taxes levied to provinces encroaches on province’s exclusive taxing and spending power under the Constitution Act, 1867  - Whether certain provisions in Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act constitute delegation of province’s exclusive taxation power to federal government.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27485                    KEMAL BILMEZ - v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Ont.)(Crim.)

CORAM:               Major, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

The application for extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Jury charges - Identification evidence - Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial judge’s charge in regard to the identification of the Applicant was adequate - Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Applicant’s case was not a traditional identification case and therefore did not raise concerns about the identification charge - Appropriate charges on frailties of identification evidence - Whether a charge on frailties of identification evidence must be given when there is other evidence capable of proving the Crown’s case.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27474                    MARILYN SHARP - v. - CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY and CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY (Ont.)

CORAM:               Major, Binnie and Arbour 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

Statutes - Interpretation - Applications to Canadian Transportation Agency for approval to construct lines of railway - Whether the Agency is required or permitted to assess the need for a proposed rail line in considering an application - Once the Agency exercises its discretion to consider need  and alternatives to a proposed construction in the context of an environmental assessment, is it entitled  to base its decision on need and alternatives on what it is told by the proponents of the project or must it exercise its discretionary power for itself - Interpretations of s. 98  of the Canada Transportation Act , S.C. 1996, c.10  and s. 16  of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act , S.C. 1992, c.37 .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

8.12.1999

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to November 26, 1999.

9.12.1999

Before / Devant:   BASTARACHE J.

Motion for directions

Camco Inc., et al.

    v.  (27208)

Whirlpool Corporation, et al.  (F.C.A.)

Requête pour obtenir des directives

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   This appeal together with appeal (27209) be heard as one appeal.   The time for argument by the appellants and respondents is fixed at 1 hour and 15 minutes each, the time for reply shall be 5 minutes.

9.12.1999

Before / Devant:   BASTARACHE J.

Motion for directions

Maytag Corporation, et al.

    v.  (27209)

Whirlpool Corporation, et al.  (F.C.A.)

Requête pour obtenir des directives

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   This appeal together with appeal (27208) be heard as one appeal.   The time for argument by the appellants and respondents is fixed at 1 hour and 15 minutes each, the time for reply shall be 5 minutes.

13.12.1999

Before / Devant:   ARBOUR J.

Motion to adduce new evidence

Arthur David Gabriel, et al.

    v.  (27161)

Her Majesty the Queen, et al.  (Crim.)(Man.)

Requête visant à produire de nouveaux éléments de preuve

ADJOURNED TO THE PANEL HEARING THE APPEAL / RENVOYÉE À LA FORMATION QUI ENTENDRA L’APPEL   

This motion pursuant to Section 683(1)  of the Criminal Code  and Sections 45 and 62(3) of the Supreme Court Act and Rule 23.1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada is hereby adjourned to the panel hearing the appeal.

13.12.1999

Before / Devant:   ARBOUR J.

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file a notice of intervention

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Nova Scotia

IN/DANS:              Her Majesty the Queen

                                                v.  (27376)

Joh Robin Sharpe (Crim.)(B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer l’avis d’intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

Motion to extend the time to serve and file a notice of intervention pursuant to Rule 32 on behalf of the Attorney General of Nova Scotia is granted.   In light of the status of this appeal, the factum must be served and filed before January 7, 2000.

7.12.1999

Before / Devant:   GONTHIER J.

Application for review of taxation of costs

Apotex Inc. 

   v.  (26979)

Bayer Aktiengesellschaft and Miles Canada Inc.  (Ont.)

Requête en révision de la taxation des dépens

This is a motion pursuant to Rule 62 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, SOR/83-74, as am.  (“the Rules”), for a review of a taxation of a bill of costs ordered by the Registrar on August 25, 1999.  The central question in this motion is whether expenses incurred by a party to retain the services of experts are “disbursements” which are payable by the unsuccessful party on an application for leave to appeal.  For the reasons I set out below, it is my opinion that such expenses are not specifically authorized by the Rules, and can only be authorized as extraordinary expenses pursuant to Rule 58.

In the application for leave to appeal, the applicant, Apotex Inc., sought to demonstrate that the appeal had sufficient national importance to warrant leave by introducing affidavits by three experts.  The respondent, Bayer Atkiengesellschaft (“Bayer”) countered with their own affidavits, deposed by two other experts.  The applicant was unsuccessful in its application for leave, which was dismissed by a panel of this Court with costs, on April 1, 1999.  

Bayer sought to include the costs of the expert evidence in their bill of costs.   The cost of the “expert evidence” was listed at $6,844.40; the cost of travel expenses to meet with the experts was listed as $550.00 (the latter type of expense has been disallowed in other courts: Apotex Inc. v. Wellcome Foundations Ltd. (1998), 84 C.P.R. (3d) 303 (Fed. T.D.)).  Both of these items were listed under “Disbursements”.  Apotex objected to the bill of costs, claiming that they were impermissible expenditures, unauthorized by the Rules, and unreasonably high in any event.

The Registrar held that these are not the types of expenses which are covered by Part II of Schedule B of the Rules.  Upon further objection by Apotex, the Registrar confirmed her decision on October 8, 1999.  Pursuant to Rule 62 of the Rules, Apotex asks for a review of the Registrar’s decision.

The Registrar’s decision is entitled to a degree of deference.  In Bhatnager v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1991] 3 S.C.R. 317, Sopinka J. explained that this Court “should not generally interfere with the decision of the Registrar simply on the basis of a difference of opinion as to the proper amount to be allowed. Rather, there must be an error in principle or the Registrar must be shown to be clearly wrong in the amount allowed.”  The Registrar is entitled to this deference because of her expertise in the area, and the nature of the questions raised in this motion.

The Registrar reviewed Rule 58 of the Rules, which states that “Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, costs in appeals or applications for leave or motions shall be taxed party and party pursuant to the tariff of fees contained in Schedule B.”  Schedule B contains a list of fees in Part I, including the counsels’ fees, and a list of disbursements payable in Part II.  The relevant sections are as follows:

The following will be allowed by the Registrar for disbursements:

1.             Fees paid to the Registrar under Schedule A.

2.             A reasonable amount for reproducing documents required to be filed with the Court, including application books, motion books, case on appeal, factums and books of authorities.

3.             Reasonable amounts for other disbursements necessarily incurred in proceedings before the Court, including travel expenses.

The Registrar held that expert evidence does not constitute a “reasonable amount for other disbursements necessarily incurred in proceedings before the Court.” She drew a distinction between those types of expenses which are related to “counsel’s preparation of arguments” and those expenses which related to “preparation of the application.”  Whether this distinction is borne out by the governing regulations or not, in my view these expenses cannot be claimed in a bill of costs for a leave application before this Court.

In other courts, rules of court expressly provide that such expenditures may form part of a bill of costs, so long as they were reasonable: see, e.g., Federal Court Rules 1998, SOR/98-106, Tariff A, s. 3(2); Tariff B, s. 1(3); Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, Tariff A, item 28; Tarif des honoraires judiciaires des avocats, L.R.Q., c. B-1, r. 13, art. 12.  The notable absence from the Rules of this Court simply reflects the fact that this Court infrequently receives new evidence of this kind, either in the conduct of appeals or on applications for leave.  It also reflects the fact that this Court does not normally issue reasons on applications for leave to appeal, and the Registrar would therefore be ill-equipped to determine whether expert evidence was actually “reasonably necessary” for deciding the application.

As there is no specific provision contained in the Rules granting jurisdiction to the Registrar to award costs for expert evidence, it is necessary to look to the residual category.  In my view, the words “other disbursements” must be read in their entire context.  This provision in the Rules dictates that the disbursements be “necessarily incurred” in the proceeding.  The preceding section refers to disbursements relating to photocopying charges.  In my view, read in its context, the words “other disbursements” do not suggest that fees for expert evidence can be included in Part II of a bill of costs.  Rather, the types of expenses permitted by this section are those expenses which are demonstrably necessary in order to present written and oral submissions to the Court. 

This approach to allowable expenses has been consistently applied.  The Registrar has, in the past, been vigilant to allow only those expenses absolutely necessary to conduct the proceeding in this Court.  For example, when parties file excessive material in an application record which are not subsequently referred to, they cannot claim those excess photocopying costs: Coopérative de Commerce “Des Mille-Iles” v. Société des Alcools du Quebec (File No. 25703, October 27 1997).  See also Jaremko v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corp. No. 875 (File No. 26714, June 8, 1999).  Where the actual expenditure cannot be demonstrated to the Registrar that it is necessary for the presentation of the case, it cannot be claimed in a bill of costs.

In my view, because of the special nature of new evidence before this Court, expenses relating to this type of evidence cannot be approved by the Registrar unless expressly authorized.  For this type of expenditure to be approved as a disbursement in a bill of costs, they must be authorized by the Court under Rule 58 pursuant to a request for costs.  Such expenditures may be appropriate in certain circumstances, such as where the issues are particularly complex and the information provided by the experts requires particularized skill and knowledge and is important for the Court’s decision.

For these reasons, it is my view that the Registrar was neither clearly wrong, nor did she make any error in principle, when she ruled that in this case the evidence relating to experts could not be included in the disbursements section of a bill of costs under the Tariff of Fees and Disbursements, Schedule B. 

Accordingly, the motion for a review of a taxation of a bill of costs ordered by the Registrar on August 25, 1999 and confirmed by her on October 8, 1999 is dismissed with costs.   

___________________

Il s’agit d’une requête fondée sur l’art. 62 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada, DORS/83-74, et ses modifications («les Règles»), en vue de la révision de la taxation d’un mémoire de frais établie par le registraire le 25 août 1999.  La question au coeur de la présente requête est de savoir si les dépenses engagées par une partie pour retenir les services d’experts constituent des «débours» qui sont payables par la partie qui échoue lors d’une demande d’autorisation d’appel.  Pour les motifs exposés plus bas, je suis d’avis que de telles dépenses ne sont pas expressément autorisées par les Règles, et qu’elles ne peuvent être autorisées qu’à titre de dépenses extraordinaires conformément à l’art. 58 des Règles.

Dans la demande d’autorisation d’appel, la requérante, Apotex Inc., a tenté de démontrer, au moyen des affidavits de trois experts, que l’appel revêtait une importance nationale suffisante pour en justifier l’autorisation.  L’intimée, Bayer Atkiengesellschaft («Bayer»), a répondu en déposant ses propres affidavits signés par deux autres experts.  Le 1^er avril 1999, une formation de notre Cour a rejeté, avec dépens, la demande d’autorisation d’appel de la requérante.

Bayer a cherché à inclure les coûts de la preuve d’expert dans son mémoire de frais.  Elle a inscrit au titre de la «preuve d’expert» le montant de 6 844,40 $, et au titre des frais de déplacement engagés pour rencontrer les experts, le montant de 550 $ (ce dernier type de dépense a été refusé par d’autres tribunaux: Apotex Inc.  c. Wellcome Foundations Ltd. (1998), 84 C.P.R. (3d) 303 (C.F. 1^re inst.)).  Ces deux postes figuraient sous la rubrique «Débours».  Apotex s’est opposée au mémoire de frais en faisant valoir qu’il s’agissait de dépenses inacceptables qui n’étaient pas autorisées par les Règles et qui, de toute façon, étaient déraisonnablement élevées.

Le registraire a conclu qu’elles ne correspondaient pas aux types de dépense visés par la partie II de l’annexe B des Règles.  À la suite d’une objection d’Apotex, le registraire a confirmé sa décision le 8 octobre 1999.  Conformément à l’art. 62 des Règles, Apotex demande la révision de la décision du registraire.

La décision du registraire mérite de faire l’objet d’une certaine retenue.  Dans l’arrêt Bhatnager c. Canada (Ministre de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration), [1991] 3 R.C.S. 317, à la p. 318, le juge Sopinka  a expliqué que notre Cour «ne devrait pas en général intervenir dans la décision du registraire uniquement en raison d’une divergence d’opinions quant au montant exact à accorder.  Il doit y avoir une erreur de principe ou l’on doit prouver que le registraire s’est manifestement trompée au sujet du montant accordé.»   Le registraire a droit a cette retenue en raison de sa compétence en la matière et de la nature des questions soulevées dans la présente requête. 

Le registraire a examiné l’art. 58 des Règles qui prévoit qu’«[à] moins d’une ordonnance contraire de la Cour, les dépens des appels, des demandes d’autorisation ou des autres requêtes sont taxés entre parties conformément au tarif des honoraires établi à l’annexe B.»  On trouve une liste d’honoraires, dont ceux du procureur, et une liste de débours payables dans les parties I et II, respectivement, de l’annexe B.  Les dispositions pertinentes sont les suivantes:

Le registraire accorde les débours suivants :

1.             Honoraires versés au registraire en application de l’annexe A.

2.             Somme raisonnable pour la reproduction de documents qui doivent être déposés à la Cour, dont les demandes d’autorisation d’appel, les requêtes, les dossiers, les mémoires et les recueils de jurisprudence et de doctrine. 

3.             Somme raisonnable pour autres débours nécessairement engagés aux  fins de l’instance devant la Cour, dont les frais de déplacement.

Le registraire a conclu que la preuve d’expert ne constitue pas une «[s]omme raisonnable pour autres débours nécessairement engagés aux fins de l’instance devant la Cour».  Elle a établi une distinction entre les dépenses liées à la «rédaction de l’argumentation du procureur» et celles liées à la «rédaction de la demande».  Que cette distinction soit confirmée ou non par la réglementation applicable, j’estime que ces dépenses ne peuvent pas être réclamées dans un mémoire de frais relatif à une demande d’autorisation d’appel devant notre Cour.

Les règles de pratique d’autres tribunaux prévoient expressément que ces dépenses peuvent faire partie d’un mémoire de frais, pourvu qu’elles soient raisonnables: voir, par exemple, les Règles de la Cour fédérale (1998), DORS/98-106, tarif A, par. 3(2); tarif B, par. 1(3); les Règles de procédure civile de l’Ontario, R.R.O. 1990, règl. 194, tarif A, poste 28; le Tarif des honoraires judiciaires des avocats, L.R.Q., c. B-1, r. 13, art. 12.  L’absence remarquable de dispositions semblables dans les Règles de notre Cour reflète simplement le fait que notre Cour reçoit rarement de nouveaux éléments de preuve de cette nature, que ce soit pendant l’audition d’un appel ou pendant celle d’une demande d’autorisation.  Elle traduit aussi le fait que notre Cour ne motive pas normalement sa décision relative à une demande d’autorisation d’appel, de sorte que le registraire ne serait pas en mesure de déterminer si la preuve d’expert était effectivement «raisonnablement nécessaire» pour trancher la demande en cause.

Puisque les Règles ne comportent aucune disposition expresse qui habilite le registraire à accorder des dépens pour une preuve d’expert, il faut se reporter à la catégorie résiduelle.  À mon avis, les mots «autres débours» doivent être interprétés dans leur contexte global.  Cette disposition des Règles prévoit qu’il doit s’agit de débours «nécessairement engagés» aux  fins de l’instance.  La disposition précédente parle de débours relatifs à des frais de photocopie.  À mon avis, si on les interprète dans leur contexte, les mots «autres débours» ne laissent pas entendre qu’il est possible d’inclure des honoraires pour une preuve d’expert dans la partie II d’un mémoire de frais.  Les dépenses autorisées par cette disposition sont plutôt celles qui sont manifestement nécessaires à la présentation d’une argumentation écrite et orale à la Cour. 

Cette façon d’aborder les dépenses admissibles a été appliquée de façon uniforme.  Le registraire a, dans le passé, pris soin de n’admettre que les dépenses absolument nécessaires au déroulement de l’instance devant notre Cour.  Par exemple, lorsque des parties déposent trop de documents dans un dossier relatif à une demande, sans s’y référer par la suite, elles ne peuvent pas réclamer ces frais de photocopie excédentaires:  Coopérative de commerce «Des Mille-Iles» c. Société des alcools du Québec (n^o du greffe 25703, 27 octobre 1997).  Voir également Jaremko c. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corp. No. 875 (n^o du greffe 26714, 8 juin 1999).  Lorsqu’on ne peut pas démontrer au registraire que la dépense engagée était nécessaire à la présentation de la cause, cette dépense ne peut pas être réclamée dans un mémoire de frais.

À mon avis, en raison de la nature particulière de la nouvelle preuve dont est saisie notre Cour, les dépenses liées à ce genre de preuve ne sauraient être approuvées par le registraire que si elles ont été expressément autorisées.  Pour que ce type de dépense puisse être approuvé à titre de débours dans un mémoire de frais, il doit être autorisé par la Cour conformément à l’art. 58 des Règles à la suite d’une demande en ce sens.  Ces dépenses peuvent être appropriées dans certains cas, comme celui où les questions en litige sont particulièrement complexes et où les renseignements fournis par les experts exigent des compétences et des connaissances particulières et sont importants aux fins de la décision de la Cour.

Pour ces motifs, j’estime que le registraire ne s’est pas trompée de façon manifeste et qu’elle n’a commis aucune erreur de principe en concluant qu’en l’espèce la preuve d’expert ne pouvait pas figurer dans la section des débours d’un mémoire de frais, selon le tarif d’honoraires et de débours établi à l’annexe B. 

Par conséquent, la requête en révision de la taxation d’un mémoire de frais que le registraire a établie le 25 août 1999 et confirmée le 8 octobre 1999 est rejetée avec dépens.

7.12.1999

CORAM:               L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Arbour JJ.           

Robert Lovelace, on his own behalf and on behalf of the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation and Allies, et al.

     v.  (26165)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, et al.  (Ont.)

Robert MacRae and Michael O’Neill, for the appellants Be-Wab-Bon Metis and Non-Status Indian Association, et al.

Christopher M.  Reid, for the appellants Robert Lovelace, et al.

Marc LeClair and Joseph Magnet, for the intervener Congress of Aboriginal People.

Mary Eberts and Lucy McSweeney, for the intervener Native Women’s Association of Canada.

No one appearing for the intervener Métis National Council of Women.  (Written submission only (Kathleen A.  Lahey))

No one appearing for the intervener Charter Committee on Poverty Issues.  (Written submission only (Cynthia Petersen))

David Baker, for the intervener Council of Canadian with Disabilities.  (Written submission only)

Michael Sherry, for the respondents Chiefs of Ontario.

Lori R.  Sterling and Sarah Kraicer, for the respondent Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario.

Urszula Kaczmarczyk and Michael Morris, for the intervener A.G. of Canada.

Isabelle Harnois and Pierre-Christian Labeau, pour l’intervenante la procureure générale du Québec.

Kurt Sandstrom and Marilyn Poitras, for the intervener the A.G. of Saskatchewan.

M.  Philip Tunley and Jane Langford, for the intervener the Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Constitutional law - Canadian Charter  - Civil - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Section 15 - Indians - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the agreement between Ontario and Ontario’s Indian Bands registered pursuant to the Indian Act to develop the Casino Rama project does not discriminate against the Appellants who were excluded from negotiations and participation in the project - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that Ontario’s decision not to include the Appellants in the Casino Rama project does not violate s.91(24)  of the Constitution Act, 1867 .

Nature de la cause:

Droit constitutionnel - Charte canadienne  - Civil - Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Article 15 - Indiens - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en décidant que l’accord entre l’Ontario et les bandes indiennes de l’Ontario inscrites en application de la Loi sur les Indiens, en vue de mettre au point le projet Casino Rama, ne fait pas de discrimination contre les appelants qui ont été exclus des négociations et n’ont pas pu participer au projet? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que la décision de l’Ontario de ne pas inclure les appelants dans le projet Casino Rama ne viole pas le par. 91(24)  de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 ?

8.12.1999

CORAM:               Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie et Arbour.

Sylvie Renaud

    c.  (26677)

Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec, et al. (Qué.)

Jérôme Choquette, c.r. et Camille Bolte, pour l’appelante.

Manon Touchette, pour l’intimée Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec.

Luce Therrien, pour l’intimé Tribunal administratif du Québec.

LE JUGE BASTARACHE (oralement):

Nous sommes d’avis que l’ensemble de la preuve au dossier ne permet d’arriver à aucune autre conclusion que l’appelante répond aux exigences de la définition de “conjoint” à l’art. 1(7)b) de la Loi sur l’assurance automobile du Québec.  L’appel est donc accueilli au motif que les décisions de la Commission des affaires sociales des 16 février 1993 et 14 février 1996 sont manifestement déraisonnables.

[translation]  BASTARACHE J.  (orally): 

We are of the view that the evidence in the record as a whole makes it impossible to arrive at any other conclusion than that the appellant meets the requirements of the definition of “spouse” in s. 1(7)(b) of the Quebec Automobile Insurance Act.  The appeal is therefore allowed on the ground that the decisions of the Commission des affaires sociales of February 16, 1993 and February 14, 1996 are patently unreasonable.

Par conséquent, la décision de la Cour d’appel du Québec est infirmée et les décisions de la Commission des affaires sociales ci-devant sont cassées.

Consequently, the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal is set aside and the above-mentioned decisions of the Commission des affaires sociales are quashed.

Vu les circonstances exceptionnelles de cette cause, la Cour rend la décision qui aurait dû être rendue par la Commission des affaires sociales et ordonne à la Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec de payer les indemnités prévues à la Loi sur l’assurance automobile et les indemnités additionnelles prévues à l’art. 1078.1 du Code civil du Bas Canada, avec intérêts à compter du 22 juillet 1989, le tout avec dépens contre les intimés.

In view of the exceptional circumstances of this case, the Court is rendering the decision that should have been rendered by the Commission des affaires sociales and orders the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec to pay the compensation provided for in the Automobile Insurance Act and the additional indemnity provided for in art. 1078.1 of the Civil Code of Lower Canada, with interest from July 22, 1989, the whole with costs against the respondents.

8.12.1999

CORAM:               Les juges Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Bastarache et Binnie.

Alain Beauchamp

    c.  (27075)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

Robert Delorme et Alexandre Boucher, pour l’appelant.

Stella Gabbino et Carole Lebeuf, pour l’intimée.

REJETÉE - Motifs à suivre / DISMISSED - Reasons to follow

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel - Preuve - Norme de preuve - Preuve hors de tout doute raisonnable - Adresse du juge au jury - Les directives au jury du juge de  première instance étaient-elles susceptibles d’induire les jurés en erreur quant à la norme applicable de la preuve hors de tout doute raisonnable telle que citée dans l’arrêt R. c. Lifchus [1997] 3 R.C.S. 320?

Nature of the case:

Criminal law—Evidence—Standard of proof—Proof beyond reasonable doubt—Judge’s address to jury—Whether trial judge’s instructions to jury might have misled jurors on applicable standard of proof, proof beyond reasonable doubt, as stated in R. v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320.

9.12.1999

CORAM:               Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

Marty Lorraine Morrisey

     v.  (26703)

Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(N.S.)

Malcolm S.  Jeffcock, for the appellant.

Denise C.  Smith and Kenneth W.F. Fiske, Q.C., for the respondent.

Graham R.  Garton, Q.C. and Theodore K.  Tax, for the intervener the A.G. of Canada.

David Finley, for the intervener the A.G. for Ontario.

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

Geoffrey R.  Gaul, for the intervener the A.G. of British Columbia.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Sentencing - Cruel and unusual punishment or treatment - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the mandatory minimum sentence in s. 220(a) (criminal negligence causing death) did not violate s. 12  of the Charter .

Nature de la cause:

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit criminel - Détermination de la peine - Peine ou traitement cruel et inusité - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que la peine minimum obligatoire fixée à l’al. 220a) (négligence criminelle ayant causé la mort) ne portait pas atteinte à l’art. 12  de la Charte ?

10.12.1999

CORAM:               Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie et Arbour.

Sa Majesté la Reine

     c.  (26830)

J.-L.  J.  (Crim.)(Qué.)

Carole Lebeuf et Stella Gabbino, pour l’appelante.

Pauline Bouchard et Sharon Sandiford, pour l’intimé.

EN DÉLIBÉRÉ / RESERVED

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel - Preuve - Admissibilité du témoignage d’expert - Exception limitée à l’interdiction de la preuve de moralité - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en jugeant recevable la preuve du Docteur Edouard Beltrami relativement aux résultats du pléthysmographe administré à l’intimé, s’écartant ainsi des principes émis par la Cour Suprême dans La Reine c. Mohan (1994) 2 R.C.S. 9 et suivis par la Cour d’appel d’Ontario dans R. c. B. (S.C.) (1997) 119 C.C.C. (3d) 530?

Nature of the case:

Criminal Law - Evidence - Admissibility of expert evidence - Limited exception to the prohibition of character evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in declaring admissible the evidence of Dr Édouard Beltrami with respect to the results of the plethysmography administered to the Respondent, thus departing from the principles in R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9, as followed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. B. (S.C.) (1997), 119 C.C.C. (3d) 530.

13.12.1999

CORAM:               Les juges McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache et Arbour.

Thérèse Blais Pelletier

    c.  (26928)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

Robert La Haye et Josée Ferrari, pour l’appelante.

Robert Rouleau et Randall Richmond, pour l’intimée.

LE JUGE ARBOUR (oralement):

Bien que n’ayant pas eu le bénéfice des arrêts R. c. Mara, [1997] 2 R.C.S. 630, et R. c. Tremblay, [1993] 2 R.C.S. 932, le juge de première instance a examiné attentivement tous les facteurs pertinents à l’analyse du standard de tolérance, qu’il a bien apprécié.  Plus particulièrement, il s’est préoccupé de la nature et du caractère des attouchements qui ont eu lieu entre les danseuses et les policiers, et des circonstances qui prévalaient dans l’isoloir. 

[translation]  ARBOUR J. (orally):

Although he did not have the benefit of R. v. Mara, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 630, and R. v. Tremblay, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 932, the trial judge carefully considered all relevant factors in analyzing the standard of tolerance, which he properly assessed.  More particularly, he was concerned with the nature and character of the touching that took place between the dancers and the police, and with the circumstances prevailing in the cubicle.

Dans ce cas d’espèce, il n’apparaît pas que le juge ait commis une erreur de droit dans son appréciation du standard de tolérance élaboré par la suite par la Cour suprême.

Dans les circonstances, le pourvoi est accueilli et l’acquittement est rétabli.  Les juges Iacobucci et Bastarache sont dissidents.

In the present case it does not appear that the judge committed an error of law in his assessment of the standard of tolerance subsequently developed by the Supreme Court.

In the circumstances the appeal is allowed and the acquittal is restored, Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ. dissenting.

LE JUGE IACOBUCCI (oralement):

En examinant toutes les circonstances dans l’espèce à la lumière des critères de  R. c. Mara, [1997] 2 R.C.S. 630, et R. c. Tremblay, [1993] 2 R.C.S. 932, nous trouvons le comportement indécent et conséquemment contraire à l’article 210(1)  du Code criminel  particulièrement en raison du contact sexuel entre la danseuse et son client et le fait que les actes n’avaient pas un caractère privé.

IACOBUCCI J. (orally):

On examining all the circumstances of this case in light of the tests in R. v. Mara, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 630, and R. v. Tremblay, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 932, we find the behaviour indecent and consequently contrary to s. 210(1)  of the Criminal Code  particularly on account of the sexual contact between dancer and patron and the fact that the acts were not private in nature.

Pour ces motifs, cet appel de plein droit devrait être rejeté.

For these reasons this appeal as of right should be dismissed.

14.12.1999

CORAM:               Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache et Binnie.

Free World Trust

    c.  (26406)

Électro Santé Inc., et al.  (Qué.)

Louis Masson et Nathalie Vaillant, pour l’appelante.

Aucune représentation par les intimés.

Bruce W.  Stratton and Dino P.  Clarizio, for the intervener Procter & Gamble Inc.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

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 - Appelante alléguant absence de règles uniformes et cohérentes - Quelle méthode d’interprétation doit être utilisée par les tribunaux chargés d’interpréter un brevet d’invention en cas d’allégations de contrefaçon? - Quel est le fardeau de preuve de l’inventeur? - 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.

Nature of the case:

Property law - Patents - Infringement - Electromagnetic system for therapeutic use - Lack of definition of “infringement” in Patent Act, R.S.C., c. P‑4 - Definition of “infringement” in Canadian law - Appellant arguing lack of uniform and consistent rules - Method of construction when construing patent where infringement alleged - Inventor’s burden of proof - Test and scope of method adopted by Federal Court of Appeal in O’Hara Manufacturing Ltd. v. Eli Lilly & Co., (1990) 26 C.P.R. (3d) 1.

14.12.1999

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

Camco Inc., et al.

    v.  (27208)

Whirlpool Corporation, et al.  (F.C.A.)

    and between

Maytag Corporation, et al.

    v.  (27209)

Whirlpool Corporation, et al.  (F.C.A.)

James D.  Kokonis, Q.C., Dennis S.K. Leung, Stephen M.  Lane and Ronald E.  Dimock, for the appellants.

Christopher J.  Kvas and Peter R.  Everitt, for the respondents.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Property law - Patents - Construction - Validity - Double patenting - Obviousness - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that the trial judge failed to properly construe the patents in issue - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred by failing to correctly enunciate and apply the principles governing claim construction - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law by importing the term “rigid” into the claims of Canadian Patents No. 1,049,803 and1,045,401 to modify the term “vanes” - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law by failing to correctly enunciate and apply the principles governing the doctrine of double patenting - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in concluding that the claims of Canadian Patent No. 1,049,803 were not double patented by the claims of Canadian Patent No. 1,095,734 - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in concluding that Canadian Patent No. 1,095,734 was valid.

Nature de la cause:

Droit des biens - Brevets - Interprétation - Validité - Double brevet - Évidence - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle commis une erreur en omettant de conclure que le juge de première instance n’avait pas correctement interprété les brevets en question? - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle commis une erreur en omettant d’énoncer et d’appliquer correctement les principes régissant l’interprétation des revendications? - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en incorporant le terme «fixes» au terme «ailettes» lors de l’interprétation des revendications relatives aux brevets canadiens n^o 1049803 et 1045401? - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en omettant d’énoncer et d’appliquer correctement les principes régissant la doctrine du double brevet? - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en concluant que les revendications du brevet canadien n^o 1049803 ne faisaient pas l’objet d’un double brevet à la lumière des revendications du brevet canadien n^o 1095734? - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle commis une erreur en droit en concluant que le brevet canadien n^o 1095734 était valide?

16.12.1999

CORAM:               Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

John Carlos Terceira

    v.  (26546)

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

Russell Silverstein and David Tanovich, for the appellant.

Shawn Potter, for the respondent.

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

GONTHIER J.:  

Mr. Porter, it will not be necessary to hear from you.  Mr. Justice Iacobucci will give the judgment on behalf of the Court.

[TRADUCTION]

LE JUGE GONTHIER: 

Il ne sera pas nécessaire de vous entendre M^e Porter. Le juge Iacobucci va rendre jugement au nom de la Cour.

IACOBUCCI J. (orally for the Court):

We find no error in the careful approach taken by Campbell J. in dealing with the DNA evidence in this case.  In our view, his conduct of the voir dire and his charge to the jury were particularly fair and balanced.  We also agree substantially with the reasons of Finlayson J.A. in the  Ontario Court of Appeal.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

LE JUGE IACOBUCCI (oralement au nom de la Cour):

Nous estimons que le juge Campbell n’a commis aucune erreur dans la façon consciencieuse dont il a abordé la preuve d’ADN en l’espèce.  À notre avis, le voir-dire qu’il a tenu et son exposé au jury étaient particulièrement justes et équilibrés.  Nous souscrivons également, pour l’essentiel, aux motifs du juge Finlayson de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario.

En conséquence, le présent pourvoi est rejeté.

DECEMBER 16, 1999 / LE 16 DÉCEMBRE 1999

26481                    TERRY GRISMER (ESTATE) v. BRITISH COLUMBIA COUNCIL OF HUMAN RIGHTS (Member Designate Tom Patch) - and - BRITISH COLUMBIA SUPERINTENDENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ONTARIO, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NEW BRUNSWICK, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ALBERTA, BRITISH COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, COUNCIL OF CANADIANS WITH DISABILITIES (B.C.)

CORAM:               L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin,

Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.

The appeal is allowed and the decision of the British Columbia Council of Human Rights is restored.  Costs are awarded to the appellant, to be paid by the respondents the British Columbia Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and the Attorney General of British Columbia. 

Le pourvoi est accueilli et la décision du British Columbia Council of Human Rights est rétablie.  L’appelante a droit à ses dépens qui devront être payés par les intimés le Superintendent of Motor Vehicles de la Colombie-Britannique et le procureur général de la Colombie-Britannique.

Terry Grismer (Estate) v. British Columbia Council of Human Rights (Member Designate Tom Patch), British Columbia Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and the Attorney General of British Columbia.(B.C.)(26481)

Indexed as:  British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights)

Répertorié:  Colombie-Britannique (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) c. Colombie-Britannique (Council of Human Rights)

Judgment rendered December 16, 1999 / Jugement rendu le 16 décembre 1999

Present:  L’Heureux‑Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.

Civil rights -- Discrimination -- Bona fide and reasonable justification --Physical disability -- Superintendent of Motor Vehicles refusing to issue driver’s  licences to persons with homonymous hemianopia --No individual assessments carried out -- Whether blanket refusal without possibility of individual assessment constituted discrimination --Application of Meiorin test to public service provider -- Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210, s. 8.

The claimant suffered from a condition called homonymous hemianopia (H.H.) which eliminated most of his left-side peripheral vision in both eyes.   The B.C. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles cancelled his driver’s licence on the ground that his vision no longer met the standard of a minimum field of vision of 120 degrees.  While exceptions to this standard were permitted in other cases, people with H.H. are not  permitted to hold a driver’s licence in B.C.   After repeatedly being denied a licence despite passing the requisite tests, the claimant  filed a complaint with the B.C. Council of Human Rights. The Council found that the standard was prima facie direct discrimination  and that the Superintendent had failed to show that applying the visual field standards inflexibly, without individual assessments, was reasonably necessary.   The Superintendent was ordered to assess the claimant and to place restrictions on his licence if necessary.   A  judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the Superintendent’s petition for judicial review but the Court of Appeal set aside that decision.   Since the Court of Appeal’s judgment,  this Court has set out a modified test for discrimination under the B.C. Human Rights Code -- the Meiorin test.

Held:  The appeal should be allowed.

The Meiorin test applies to all claims for discrimination under the B.C. Human Rights Code.   It requires those governed by human rights legislation to accommodate the characteristics of affected groups within their standards.   Once a plaintiff establishes that the standard is prima facie discriminatory, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove on a balance of probabilities that the discriminatory standard is a bona fide occupational requirement or has a bona fide and reasonable justification.   The defendant must prove that:  (1) it adopted the standard for a purpose or goal rationally connected to the function being performed; (2) it adopted the standard in good faith, in the belief that it is necessary for the fulfilment of the purpose or goal; and (3) the standard is reasonably necessary to accomplish its purpose or goal, because the defendant cannot accommodate persons with the characteristics of the claimant without incurring undue hardship,  whether that hardship takes the form of impossibility, serious risk or excessive cost.   Accommodation ensures that each person is assessed according to his or her own personal abilities rather than presumed group characteristics.  Failure to accommodate may be shown by evidence that the standard was set arbitrarily, or that individual  assessment  was unreasonably refused, or in some other way.  If the policy or practice is reasonably necessary to an appropriate purpose or goal, and accommodation short of undue hardship is incorporated into the standard, the fact that the standard excludes some people does not amount to discrimination.

 The claimant established prima facie discrimination by showing that he was denied a licence on the basis of his physical disability.  The Superintendent was then required to prove on a balance of probabilities that the discriminatory standard had a bona fide reasonable justification.  The Superintendent’s goal was reasonable highway safety, balancing the need for people to be licensed and the need for public safety.   While  this goal was legitimate and rationally connected to the general function of issuing driver’s licences, and  the standard of a minimum field of vision of 120 degrees  was adopted in good faith, the standard was not reasonably necessary to accomplish the goal.   First,  the Superintendent did not show that no one with this condition could ever achieve reasonable highway safety.   The evidence indicated that the Superintendent’s aim was not absolute safety, but rather reasonable safety.   People with less than full peripheral vision can drive safely and the claimant compensated for his disability.  Second, the Superintendent did not show that the risk or cost associated with  providing individual assessment constituted undue hardship.   The evidence revealed that at least two tests for road safety of people with H.H. had been developed,  and that laboratory testing  might also assist.   While  simulating the emergency situations which are the focus of concern for people with H.H. may be dangerous, many driving tests involve danger and ways are found to reduce it.  With respect to the cost of assessing people with H.H., the Superintendent offered no precise figures.   Excessive cost may justify a refusal to accommodate those with disabilities, but one must be wary of putting too low a value on accommodating the disabled.   Impressionistic evidence of increased expense will not generally suffice, and there may be ways to reduce costs.  Since the Superintendent failed  to prove that incorporating aspects of individual accommodation within the standard was impossible short of undue hardship,  he was obliged to give the claimant an opportunity to prove whether or not he could drive safely, through  individual assessment.

 The discrimination in this case lies not in the refusal to issue a licence, but in the refusal  to give the claimant a chance to prove through an individual assessment that he could be licensed  without jeopardizing the goal of reasonable road safety.   The Superintendent fell into error because he abandoned his reasonable approach to licensing and adopted an absolute standard which was not supported by the evidence.    Those who provide services subject to the Human Rights Code must adopt standards that accommodate people with disabilities where this can be done without sacrificing their legitimate objectives and without incurring undue hardship.   This  does not suggest that [44] safety standards must be lowered.   Nor should this decision be taken as predetermining the result in other cases.

APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (1997), 44 B.C.L.R. (3d) 301, 100 B.C.A.C. 129, 163 W.A.C. 129, 155 D.L.R. (4th) 137, 5 Admin. L.R. (3d) 145, 30 C.H.R.R. D/446, allowing an appeal from a decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court (1996), 25 C.H.R.R. D/309, dismissing a petition for judicial review of a decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Council (1994), 25 C.H.R.R. D/296.  Appeal allowed.

Frances M. Kelly, for the appellant.

Deborah K. Lovett, Q.C., and J. Douglas Eastwood, for the respondents the British Columbia Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and the Attorney General of British Columbia.

Hart Schwartz and David Milner, for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario.

Cameron Gunn and Bruce Judah, Q.C., for the intervener the Attorney General for New Brunswick.

Roderick Wiltshire, for the intervener the Attorney General for Alberta.

Deirdre A. Rice, for the intervener the British Columbia Human Rights Commission.

David Baker, for the intervener the Council of Canadians with Disabilities.

Solicitor for the appellant:  The Community Legal Assistance Society, Vancouver.

Solicitors for the respondents the British Columbia Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and the Attorney General of British Columbia:  Lovett Westmacott, Victoria.

Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario:  The Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto.

Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General for New Brunswick:  The Department of Justice, Fredericton.

Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General for Alberta:  Alberta Justice, Edmonton.

Solicitor for the intervener the British Columbia Human Rights Commission:  The British Columbia Human Rights Commission, Victoria.

Solicitor for the intervener the Council of Canadians with Disabilities:  The Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, Toronto.

Présents:  Les juges L’Heureux‑Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache et Binnie.

Libertés publiques -- Discrimination -- Justification réelle et raisonnable – Déficience physique -- Refus du Surintendant des véhicules automobiles de délivrer un permis de conduire aux personnes atteintes d’hémianopsie homonyme – Absence d’évaluation individuelle -- Le refus général sans possibilité d’évaluation individuelle constitue-t-il de la discrimination? -- Application du critère de l’arrêt Meiorin à un fournisseur de services publics -- Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, ch. 210, art. 8.

Le demandeur souffrait d’un trouble connu sous le nom d’hémianopsie homonyme (H.H.) caractérisée par une perte de presque toute sa vision périphérique du côté gauche des deux yeux.  Le Superintendent of Motor Vehicles de la Colombie‑Britannique («Surintendant») a annulé son permis de conduire pour le motif que sa vision ne respectait plus la norme du champ visuel minimal de 120 degrés.  Bien que des exceptions à cette norme soient permises dans d’autres cas, les gens atteints de H.H. ne sont pas autorisés à détenir un permis de conduire en Colombie‑Britannique.  Après s’être vu refuser un permis à maintes reprises même s’il avait réussi les tests requis, le demandeur a porté plainte devant le British Columbia Council of Human Rights, qui a conclu que la norme constituait de la discrimination directe à première vue et que le Surintendant n’avait pas démontré que l’application rigide des normes de champ visuel, en l’absence de toute évaluation individuelle, était raisonnablement nécessaire.  Le Surintendant a reçu l’ordre d’évaluer le demandeur et d’assujettir son permis à des restrictions, si nécessaire.  Un juge de la Cour suprême de la Colombie-Britannique a rejeté la requête du Surintendant visant à obtenir un contrôle judiciaire, mais la Cour d’appel a annulé cette décision.  Depuis que cet arrêt de la Cour d’appel a été rendu, notre Cour a modifié, dans l’arrêt Meiorin, le critère applicable en matière de discrimination, selon le Human Rights Code de la Colombie‑Britannique.

Arrêt:  Le pourvoi est accueilli.

Le critère de l’arrêt Meiorin s’applique à toutes les demandes fondées sur le Human Rights Code de la Colombie‑Britannique, dans lesquelles l’existence de discrimination est alléguée.  Il oblige les personnes régies par une loi concernant les droits de la personne à tenir compte, dans leurs normes, des caractéristiques des groupes touchés.  Dès qu’un demandeur établit que la norme est discriminatoire à première vue, il incombe alors au défendeur de prouver, selon la prépondérance des probabilités, que cette norme discriminatoire est une exigence professionnelle justifiée ou a une justification réelle et raisonnable.  Le défendeur doit prouver, premièrement, qu’il a adopté la norme dans un but ou objectif rationnellement lié aux fonctions exercées, deuxièmement, qu’il a adopté la norme de bonne foi, en croyant qu’elle était nécessaire pour réaliser ce but ou cet objectif, et troisièmement, que la norme est raisonnablement nécessaire à la réalisation de son but ou objectif, du fait que le défendeur ne peut pas composer avec les personnes qui ont les mêmes caractéristiques que le demandeur sans que cela lui impose une contrainte excessive, que cette contrainte revête la forme d’une impossibilité, d’un risque grave ou d’un coût exorbitant.  L’accommodement assure que chaque personne est évaluée selon ses propres capacités personnelles plutôt qu’en fonction de présumées caractéristiques de groupe.  L’omission d’accommoder peut être démontrée en prouvant notamment que la norme a été fixée arbitrairement ou que l’évaluation individuelle a été refusée de manière déraisonnable.  Le fait que la norme imposée exclue certaines personnes ne constitue pas de la discrimination si la politique ou la pratique en cause est raisonnablement nécessaire à la réalisation d’un but ou objectif approprié et si l’accommodement sans qu’il en résulte une contrainte excessive est incorporé dans la norme.

Le demandeur a établi l’existence de discrimination à première vue en démontrant qu’on lui a refusé un permis en raison de la déficience physique dont il est atteint.  Le Surintendant devait alors prouver, selon la prépondérance des probabilités, que la norme discriminatoire avait une justification réelle et raisonnable.  L’objectif du Surintendant était d’assurer une sécurité routière raisonnable, en établissant un équilibre entre le besoin des gens d’obtenir un permis et la nécessité d’assurer la sécurité du public.  Bien que cet objectif fût légitime et rationnellement lié aux fonctions générales consistant à délivrer des permis de conduire, et que la norme du champ visuel minimal de 120 degrés ait été adoptée de bonne foi, cette norme n’était pas raisonnablement nécessaire à la réalisation de l’objectif visé.  En premier lieu, le Surintendant n’a pas démontré qu’il était absolument impossible à une personne atteinte de la déficience en cause de répondre à l’objectif de sécurité routière raisonnable.  La preuve indiquait que le Surintendant visait non pas la sécurité absolue, mais plutôt une sécurité raisonnable.  Les gens qui n’ont qu’une vision périphérique partielle peuvent conduire de façon sécuritaire et le demandeur surmontait sa déficience.  En deuxième lieu, le Surintendant n’a pas démontré que le risque ou le coût qui se rattachait à l’évaluation individuelle constituait une contrainte excessive.  La preuve a révélé qu’au moins deux tests de sécurité routière avaient été conçus pour les personnes atteintes de H.H. et que des tests en laboratoire pourraient également être utiles.  Quoiqu’il puisse être dangereux de simuler les situations d’urgence qui sont au coeur des préoccupations relatives aux personnes atteintes de H.H., on trouve des moyens de réduire les dangers que comportent de nombreux tests de conduite automobile.  Le Surintendant n’a pas donné de chiffres précis au sujet du coût lié à l’évaluation des personnes atteintes de H.H.  Le coût excessif peut justifier le refus de composer avec les personnes atteintes de déficiences, mais il faut se garder de ne pas accorder suffisamment d’importance à l’accommodement de la personne handicapée.  La preuve, constituée d’impressions, d’une augmentation des dépenses ne suffit pas généralement et il peut y avoir des moyens de réduire les coûts. Étant donné que le Surintendant n’a pas prouvé qu’il était impossible d’incorporer dans la norme des aspects d’accommodement individuel sans qu’il en résulte une contrainte excessive, il  était tenu de donner au demandeur la possibilité de prouver, au moyen d’une évaluation individuelle, qu’il pouvait conduire de façon sécuritaire.

La discrimination en l’espèce découle non pas du refus de délivrer un permis, mais du refus d’offrir au demandeur la possibilité de prouver, au moyen d’une évaluation individuelle, qu’il était en mesure d’obtenir un permis sans compromettre l’objectif de sécurité routière raisonnable.  L’erreur du Surintendant résulte du fait qu’il a abandonné sa démarche raisonnable en matière de délivrance de permis pour adopter une norme absolue qui n’était pas étayée par la preuve.  Ceux qui fournissent des services visés par le Human Rights Code doivent adopter des normes qui tiennent compte de la situation des personnes atteintes de déficiences lorsque cela peut être fait sans sacrifier leurs objectifs légitimes et sans qu’il en résulte pour eux une contrainte excessive.  Cela ne signifie pas que les normes de sécurité doivent êtres abaissées.  Le présent arrêt ne doit pas non plus être interprété comme prédéterminant l’issue d’autres affaires.

POURVOI contre un arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie-Britannique (1997), 44 B.C.L.R. (3d) 301, 100 B.C.A.C. 129, 163 W.A.C. 129, 155 D.L.R. (4th) 137, 5 Admin. L.R. (3d) 145, 30 C.H.R.R. D/446, qui a accueilli l’appel d’une décision de la Cour suprême de la Colombie-Britannique (1996), 25 C.H.R.R. D/309, qui avait rejeté une requête visant à obtenir le contrôle judiciaire d’une décision du British Columbia Human Rights Council (1994), 25 C.H.R.R. D/296.  Pourvoi accueilli.

Frances M. Kelly, pour l’appelante.

Deborah K. Lovett, c.r., et J. Douglas Eastwood, pour les intimés le Superintendent of Motor Vehicles de la Colombie-Britannique et le procureur général de la Colombie-Britannique.

Hart Schwartz et David Milner, pour l’intervenant le procureur général de l’Ontario.

Cameron Gunn et Bruce Judah, c.r., pour l’intervenant le procureur général du Nouveau-Brunswick.

Roderick Wiltshire, pour l’intervenant le procureur général de l’Alberta.

Deirdre A. Rice, pour l’intervenante la British Columbia Human Rights Commission.

David Baker, pour l’intervenant le Conseil des Canadiens avec déficiences.

Procureur de l’appelante:  La Community Legal Assistance Society, Vancouver.

Procureurs des intimés le Superintendent of Motor Vehicles de la Colombie‑Britannique et le procureur général de la Colombie-Britannique:  Lovett Westmacott, Victoria.

Procureur de l’intervenant le procureur général de l’Ontario: Le ministère du Procureur général, Toronto.

Procureur de l’intervenant le procureur général du Nouveau-Brunswick:  Le ministère de la Justice, Fredericton.

Procureur de l’intervenant le procureur général de l’Alberta:  Justice Alberta, Edmonton.

Procureur de l’intervenante la British Columbia Human Rights Commission:  La British Columbia Human Rights Commission, Victoria.

Procureur de l’intervenant le Conseil des Canadiens avec déficiences:  L’Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, Toronto.

The next session of the Supreme Court of Canada commences on January 17th, 2000.

La prochaine session de la Cour suprême du Canada débute le 17 janvier 2000.

The next bulletin of proceedings will be published on January 14, 2000.

Le prochain bulletin des procédures sera publié le 14 janvier 2000.

                                                                                   JOYEUX NOËL!

                            MERRY CHRISTMAS!

CUMULATIVE INDEX -                                                                                                         INDEX CUMULATIF - REQUÊTES

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO                                                                                   EN AUTORISATION DE POURVOI

APPEAL

This index includes applications for leave to appeal standing for judgment at the beginning of 1999 and all the applications for leave to appeal filed or heard in 1999 up to now.

Cet index comprend les requêtes en autorisation de pourvoi en délibéré au début de 1999 et toutes celles produites ou entendues en 1999 jusqu'à maintenant.

*01            Refused/Refusée

*02            Refused with costs/Refusée avec dépens

*03            Granted/Accordée

*04            Granted with costs/Accordée avec dépens

*05            Discontinuance filed/Désistement produit

*A             Applications for leave to appeal filed/Requêtes en autorisation de pourvoi produites

*B             Submitted to the Court/Soumises à la Cour

*C             Oral Hearing/Audience

*D             Reserved/En délibéré

Status/                     Disposition/

CASE/AFFAIRE                                                                                                                          Statut                       Résultat                                                                       Page                                                                                      

1858-0894 Québec Inc. c. Compagnie d’assurance Standard Life (Qué.), 27302, *B    1752(99)

2849-6180 Québec Inc. c. 3099-2325 Québec Inc. (Qué.), 27557, *A                              1815(99)

2858-0702 Québec Inc. c. Lac D’Amiante du Québec Ltée (Qué.), 27324, *A                 980(99)

2859-8803 Québec Inc. c. Jean Fortin & Associés Inc. (Qué.), 27368, *A                       1075(99)

9004-6673 Québec Inc. c. Roxboro Excavation Inc. (Qué.), 26815, *02 4.3.99                236(99)                             386(99)

135596 Canada Inc. c. Comité paritaire des boueurs de la région de Montréal

   (Qué.), 26923, *01 6.5.99                                                                                                          612(99)                             717(99)

156036 Canada Inc. c. Les Pétroles Therrien Inc. (Qué.), 27158, *A                               458(99)

539938 Ontario Ltd. v. Derksen (Ont.), 27524, *A                                                               1519(99)

610990 Ontario Inc. v. Business Development Bank of Canada (Ont.), 27479, *A        1319(99)

656203 Ontario Inc. v. Soloway, Wright (Ont.), 27525, *A                                                 1519(99)

872899 Ontario Inc. v. Iacovoni (Ont.), 26891, *02 11.2.99                                                 92(99)                               256(99)

913719 Ontario Ltd. v. Corporation of the City of Mississauga (Ont.), 26905,

   *02 11.2.99                                                                                                                                 93(99)                               257(99)

928412 Ontario Ltd. v. M.N.R. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 27146, *01 2.12.99                                      1653(99)                           1920(99)

2897041 Canada Inc. c. Immobilière Natgen Inc. (Qué.), 26936, *02 20.5.99                  670(99)                             791(99)

A.-K. (S.) v. C. (A.) (Alta), 27038, *01 31.5.99                                                                         756(99)                             902(99)

A.S. Transport Inc. c. Sous-poste de camionnage en vrac Laprairie-Napierville

   Inc. (Qué.), 26819, *02 6.5.99                                                                                                   613(99)                             718(99)

Abel v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 27271, *01 14.10.99                                                            1222(99)                           1550(99)

Abbott Laboratories, Ltd. v. Nu-Pharm Inc. (F.C.A.), 27051, *B                                        787(99)

Accent Architectural c. Comité conjoint des matériaux de construction (Qué.),

   26941, *02 25.3.99                                                                                                                     416(99)                             490(99)

Advance Cutting & Coring Ltd. c. La Reine (Qué.), 26664, *03 19.4.99                            242(99)                             625(99)

Afzal v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27119, *02 21.10.99                                                                    1447(99)                           1601(99)

Agioritis v. Maroudis (Sask.), 26873, *02 21.1.99                                                                   1938(98)                           107(99)

Agricore Cooperative Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27347, *A                                             1044(99)

Ahluwalia v. College of Physician and Surgeons of Manitoba (Man.), 27382, *A        1146(99)

Albert Fisher Canada Ltd. v. Win Sun Produce Co. (B.C.), 26940, *01 16.9.99                1167(99)                           1337(99)

Alchimowicz v. Schram (Ont.), 27187, *02 16.12.99                                                               1818(99)                           2019(99)

Alex Couture Inc. c. Municipalité de la ville de Charny (Qué.), 26678, *02

   21.1.99                                                                                                                                         1938(98)                           107(99)

Ali c. Compagnie d’Assurance Guardian du Canada (Qué.), 27458, *A                         1319(99)

Allen v. McLean, Budden Ltd. (Ont.), 26910, *02 11.3.99                                                      343(99)                             427(99)

Alpha Laboratories Inc. v. The Queen in Right of Ontario (Ont.), 27419, *A                  1202(99)

Al Sagban v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.), 27111, *03

   14.10.99  1056(99)                                                                                                                      1552(99)

American Home Assurance Co. v. Marine Industries Ltd.(Qué.), 27126, *02 16.9.99      1212(99)                           1334(99)

Andritsopoulous v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26866, *01

   21.1.99                                                                                                                                         1936(98)                           106(99)

Andrushko v. Canada Safeway Ltd. (B.C.), 26896, *02 28.1.99                                            83(99)                               156(99)

Antippa c. Dulude (Qué.), 26849, *01 6.5.99                                                                           551(99)                             715(99)

Antonius c. Hydro-Québec (Qué.), 27123, *02 23.9.99                                                           1179(99)                           1353(99)

Apotex Inc. v. Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (Ont.), 26979, *02 1.4.99                                       420(99)                             565(99)

Araujo v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26904, *03 22.4.99                                                           243(99)                             618(99)

Arcand c. Denharco Inc. (Qué.), 27372, *A                                                                            1145(99)

Arditi c. Nolan (Qué.), 25557, *A                                                                                             1789(96)

Ardley v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26964, *01 1.4.99                                                             376(99)                             557(99)

Ashmore v. Van Mol (B.C.), 27171, *B                                                                                     2013(99)

Askey v The Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia (B.C.), 27607, *A      2010(99)

Association des entrepreneurs en intercommunication du Québec c. Gaul (Qué.),

   26995, *02 2.9.99                                                                                                                       1079(99)                           1234(99)

Association des radiologistes du Québec c. Rochon (Qué.), 27313, *B                            1968(99)

Atlas Industries v. Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (Sask.), 27402, *A              1150(99)

Attorney General of Alberta v. Public School Boards’ Association of Alberta (Alta.),

   26701 (the application for leave to cross-appeal is dismissed with costs/la

   demande d’autorisation d’appel incident est rejetée avec dépens)                                 1049(99)                           1093(99)

Attorney General of British Columbia v. Pacific Press, A Division of Southam Inc.

   (B.C.), 27045, *02 21.5.99                                                                                                         781(99)                             860(99)

Attorney General of Canada v. Matthews (F.C.A.), 27456, *A                                           1322(99)

Attorney Genral of Ontario v. Ontaio Public School Boards’ Association (Ont.),

   27490, *01 4.11.99                                                                                                                     1500(99)                           1730(99)

Austie v. Aksnowicz (Alta.), 27248, *A                                                                                    705(99)

Ayre v. Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society (N.S.), 26783, *02 21.1.99                                     1975(98)                           111(99)

B. (A.L.) v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26879, *01 28.1.99                                                        10(99)                               151(99)

B. (A.R.) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26918, *01 17.6.99                                                        749(99)                             985(99)

B. (J.B.) v. Director of Child Welfare for the Province of Newfoundland (Nfld.),

   26931, *01 7.1.99                                                                                                                       1879(98)                           27(99)

B.-C. (T.) c. F. (D.) (Qué.), 27044, *02 18.2.99                                                                         148(99)                             300(99)

B. G. Schickedanz Investments Ltd. v. Szasz (Ont.), 27557, *A                                           1718(99)

Backman v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27561, *A                                                                            1961(99)

Bacon v. Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation (Sask.), 27469, *A                       1490(99)

Bailey c. The Queen in Right of Canada (F.C.A.), 27427, *A                                             1317(99)

Baker v. Boy Scouts of Canada (Ont.), 27233, *02 16.9.99                                                   1160(99)                           1335(99)

Banque nationale du Canada v. Sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec (Qué.),

   26988, *B                                                                                                                                    1153(99)

Banque nationale du Canada v. Sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec (Qué.),

   27000, *02 14.10.99                                                                                                                   1152(99)                           1537(99)

Bareau v. Governors of the University of Alberta (Alta.), 27330, *B                                 2015(99)

Barreau de Montréal c. Association professionnelle des sténographes officiels du

   Québec (Qué.), 27472, *A                                                                                                       1319(99)

Barreau du Québec c. Fortin (Qué.), 27152, *03 14.10.99                                                    1213(99)                           1540(99)

Bassi v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (Ont.), 26890, *02 4.3.99                         236(99)                             386(99)

Battye v. Tirano (Ont.), 26917, *01 11.2.99                                                                              79(99)                               253(99)

Bayer Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.), 27436, *A                                          1318(99)

BDO Dunwoody Ltd. v. Superintendant of Bankruptcy (Man.), 27501, *A                      1516(99)

Beaver Lumber Co. v. Epoch (Ont.), 27193, *B                                                                      1912(99)

Beckett v. Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26958,

   *01 4.3.99                                                                                                                                   237(99)                             388(99)

Begetikong Anishnabe v. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

   (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 27002, *02 25.3.99                                                                                           378(99)                             488(99)

Béliard c. Husbands (Qué.), 27241, *A                                                                                   704(99)

Bell Canada v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada

   (F.C.A.)(Que.), 27063, *02 8.7.99                                                                                            942(99)                             1086(99)

Bellavance c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 27282, *01 23.9.99                                                     1157(99)                           1347(99)

Belships (Far East) Shipping (Pte.) Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Forest Products Ltd

   (F.C.A.), 27471, *A                                                                                                                   1323(99)

Benard v. The Queen (Man.), 27175, *A                                                                                 1815(99)

Benge c. Hôpital général de Toronto (Ont.), 27010, *01 17.6.99                                         892(99)                             991(99)

Ben-Hafsia c. City of Vancouver (B.C.), 27337, *A                                                               980(99)

Bennett (Charles Murray) v. Bennett (Ont.), 27493, *02 2.12.99                                         1724(99)                           1916(99)

Bennett (John) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26590, *01 29.4.99                                            547(99)                             681(99)

Bennett (Russell James) v. Superintendent of Brokers (B.C.), 27031, *02 17.6.99           754(99)                             987(99)

Bennett Jones Verchere v. Western Canadian Sopping Centres Inc. (Ont.), 27138,

    *03 6.12.99                                                                                                                                1721(99)                           1977(99)

Benoît c. Landry (Qué.), 27203, *02 18.11.99                                                                          1593(99)                           1798(99)

Berendsen v. The Queen in right of Ontario (Ont.), 27312, *A                                           937(99)

Bernier c. Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec (Qué.), 27416, *A                  1204(99)

Bertrix Corp. c. Valeurs mobilières Desjardins Inc. (Qué.), 27401, *A                             1150(99)

Bérubé c. La Reine (Qué.), 27530, *B                                                                                       1966(99)

Bhaduria (Jag) v. City-TV - A Division of CHUM Television Group (Ont.), 27100,

   *02 25.6.99                                                                                                                                 893(99)                             1058(99)

Bhaduria (Jag D.) v. Toronto Board of Education (Ont.), 27259, *02 2.12.99                 1725(99)                           1923(99)

Bhandar v. Bains (B.C.), 27199, *A                                                                                          745(99)

Bighetty v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 27333, *01 16.9.99                                                      1175(99)                           1332(99)

Bilmez v. The Queen (Ont.), 27485, *01 16.12.99                                                                     1819(99)                           2020(99)

Biron c. Arthur Andersen Inc. (Qué.), 27426, *02 14.10.99                                                   1444(99)                           1533(99)

Biron c. Arthur Andersen Inc. (Qué.), 27251, *01 25.8.99                                                     1207(99)                           1231(99)

Biron c. Côté (Qué.), 27230, *02 23.9.99                                                                                  1205(99)                           1348(99)

Biron c. Tribunal des professions (Qué.), 27099, *02 7.10.99                                               1205(99)                           1502(99)

Black v. Ernst & Young Inc. (N.S.), 24792, *A                                                                       1188(95)

Blackburn-Moreault c. Moreault (Qué.), 25776, *A                                                            281(97)

Bluebird Footwear Inc. c. General Motors Acceptance Corporation

   of Canada (Qué.), 24386, *A                                                                                                  1764(94)

Bloom v. Meditrust Healthcare Inc. (Ont.), 27571, *A                                                         1789(99)

Board of Police Commissioners of the City of Regina v. Regina Police

   Association Inc. (Sask.), 26871, *03 18.2.99                                                                         203(99)                             293(99)

Bonamy v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27185, *02 6.5.99                                                           612(99)                             717(99)

Bot Construction Ltd. v. The Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario (Ont.),

   26758, *02 4.3.99                                                                                                                       233(99)                             383(99)

Boucher c. Galarneau (Crim.)(Qué.), 26969, *01 23.9.99                                                       1224(99)                           1350(99)

Bourgeois c. Ville de St-Jérome (Qué.), 27316, *02 2.12.99                                                  1751(99)                           1919(99)

Braintech Inc. v. Kostiuk (B.C.), 27296, *A                                                                            778(99)

Breese v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 27207, *03 17.6.99                                                         706(99)                             983(99)

Brault & Bisaillon (1986) Inc. c. Éditions Le Canada Français Ltée (Qué.), 27409,

   *A                                                                                                                                               1200(99)

Brignolio v. Desmarais (Ont.), 25403, *A                                                                               1202(96)

Bri-Mel Developments Ltd. v. McLaren (Ont.), 27411, *A                                                   1200(99)

British Aviation Insurance Group (Canada) Ltd. v. West Central Air Ltd. (Sask.),

   27590, *A                                                                                                                                   1790(99)

British Columbia College of Teachers v. Trinity Western University (B.C.), 27168,

   *03 6.12.99                                                                                                                                 1791(99)                           1975(99)

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority v. Tenneco Canada Inc. (B.C.),

   27507, *A                                                                                                                                   1517(99)

British Columbia Securities Commission v. Global Securities Corp. (B.C.),

   26887, *03 18.2.99 (The application for leave to cross-appeal is dismissed/la

   demande d’autorisation d’appel incident est rejetée)                                                         203(99)                             301(99)

Brown (Ian) v. Synchronics Inc. (F.C.A.), 27405, *A                                                            1318(99)

Brown (Paul E.) v. Cole (B.C.), 27046, *02 8.7.99                                                                  1048(99)                           1092(99)

Brown (Lorne) v. Regional Municipality of Durham Police Service Board (Ont.),

   27150, *03 6.12.99                                                                                                                     1660(99)                           1983(99)

Bruce Agra Foods Inc. v. Trilwood Investments Ltd (Ont.), 27260, *A                             775(99)

Bryan v. The Queen (Man.), 27222, *A                                                                                    702(99)

Buhlers v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles for the Province of British Columbia

   (B.C.), 27268, *A                                                                                                                       776(99)

Burnhamthorpe Square Inc. v. Goodyear Canada Inc. (Ont.), 27056, *02 8.7.99            946(99)                             1090(99)

Busse Farms Ltd. v. Federal Business Developmet Bank (Sask.), 27116, *02

   14.10.99  1443(99)                                                                                                                      1532(99)

Butcher v. Government of St. Lucia (Ont.), 27375, *A                                                          1145(99)

Byer v. Reyes (Qué.), 26539, *02 26.5.99                                                                                   780(99)                             860(99)

Byer (Stephen M.) v. Royal Insurance Company of Canada (Qué.), 27224, *01

   10.11.99  1591(99)                                                                                                                      1758(99)

C. (J.) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27109, *03 22.4.99                                                            544(99)                             623(99)

CSL Group Inc. v. The Queen in right of Canada (F.C.A.)(Que.), 26828, *02

   11.2.99                                                                                                                                         78(99)                               250(99)

Cadillac Fairview Corp. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 27214, *A                                      746(99)

Cadillac Fairview Corp. v. Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (Sask.),

   27537, *A                                                                                                                                   1716(99)

Caisse populaire de Saint-Boniface Ltée v. Hongkong Bank of Canada (Man.),

   26847, *02 28.1.99                                                                                                                     73(99)                               153(99)

Camco Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp. (F.C.A.), 27208, *03 17.5.99                                                748(99)                             788(99)

Cameron v. Attorney-General of Nova Scotia (N.S.), 27584, *A                                        1790(99)

Campbell v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27342, *01 14.10.99                                                   1229(99)                           1545(99)

Canada Life Assurance Co. v. Ryan (Nfld.), 27603, *A                                                        1961(99)

Canada Post Corp. v. Canadian Postmasters and Assistants Association (F.C.A.),

   27377, *A                                                                                                                                   1146(99)

Canada Safeway Ltd. v. Retail Merchants’ Association of British Columbia

   (B.C.), 27082, The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to Retail

   Merchants’ Association of British Columbia and Southland Canada Inc./ La demande

   d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens à  Retail Merchants’ Association of

   British Columbia et Southland Canada Inc.                                                                          1174(99)                           1340(99)

Canada Square Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mancha Consultants Ltd.

   (Ont.), 26806, *02 21.1.99                                                                                                         1972(98)                           101(99)

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.W.T.), 27091, *01

   29.4.99                                                                                                                                         540(99)                             675(99)

Canadian Media Guild, Local 30213 of the Newspaper Guild v. Canadian Broad-

   casting Corp. (Nfld.), 27378, *A                                                                                            1146(99)

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A), 27163, This case is remanded to the

   Federal Court of Appeal to be dealt with in accordance with the decision of this

   Court in Shell Canada Ltd. v. Canada (26596)/L’affaire est renvoyée à la Cour

   fédérale du Canada pour qu’elle soit tranchée conformément à l’arrêt de notre

   Court ShellCanada Ltée c. Canada (26596).                                                                       1326(99)                           1768(99)

Canadian Red Cross Society v. Mangione (Ont.), 27285, *03 14.10.99                             1051(99)                           1526(99)

Canadian Red Cross Society v. Osborne (Ont.), 27285, *03 14.10.99                                 1051(99)                           1526(99)

Canadian Red Cross Society v. Walker (Ont.), 27284, *03 14.10.99                                   1050(99)                           1525(99)

Can-Air Manufacturing (1990) Inc. v. Belsey Technical Services Ltd. (Ont.),

   26877, *05 5.3.99                                                                                                                       434(99)                             434(99)

Cardoso c. La Reine (Qué.), 27512, *02 16.12.99                                                                    1792(99)                           2017(99)

Carpenter Fishing Corp. v. The Queen in right of Canada (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26484,

   *02 14.10.99                                                                                                                               1222(99)                           1551(99)

Caswell v. The Queen (Ont.), 27538, *A                                                                                  1716(99)

Celix v. U.S.F. & G. Insurance Co. of Canada (Ont.), 26563, *B                                        1375(98)

Centra Gas Manitoba v. Bohemier (Man.), 27197, *B                                                          1967(99)

Century Services Inc. v. Zi Corporation (Alta.), 26983, *02 4.3.99                                     234(99)                             385(99)

Cernato Holdings Inc. c. 147 197 Canada Inc (Qué.), 27057, *01 23.9.99                        1208(99)                           1354(99)

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s v. Shama Textiles Inc. (Que.), 26799, *02 11.2.99        77(99)                               249(99)

Chabot c. Gauthier (Qué.), 26973, *02 23.9.99                                                                       1076(99)                           1345(99)

Chan v. Chiasson (Ont.), 27498, *A                                                                                         1492(99)

Chantiam v. Packall Packaging Inc. (Ont.), 26776, *02 21.1.99                                         1868(98)                           98(99)

Charbel c. Tzintzis (Qué.), 27155, *02 23.9.99                                                                         1178(99)                           1352(99)

Chciuk v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27076, *01 31.5.99                                                          613(99)                             896(99)

Cherryhill Rehabilitation Clinic v. Salo (Ont.), 27077, *01 25.6.99                                   890(99)                             1059(99)

Chieu v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.), 27107, *03 14.10.99             1055(99)                           1551(99)

Chipitsyn c. États-Unis d’Amérique (Crim.)(Qué.), 27399, *01 25.11.99                             1493(99)                           1822(99)

Chipitsyn c. Ministre de la Justice du Canada (Crim.)(Qué.), 27399, *01 25.11.99          1493(99)                           1822(99)

Chisan v. 478370 Alberta Inc. (Alta.), 26888, *02 25.6.99                                                    889(99)                             1060(99)

Chung v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 27508, *B                                                                        2014(99)

City of Charlottetown v. Government of Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.), 27144, *02

   2.12.99                                                                                                                                         1658(99)                           1913(99)

City of Edmonton v. Protection Mutual Insurance Co. (Alta.), 27186, *02 2.12.99         1727(99)                           1923(99)

Clapp v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27381, *01 10.11.99                                                          1590(99)                           1757(99)

Claveau c. Durand (Qué.), 27349, *A                                                                                      1045(99)

Clement v. Attorney General for Ontario (Crim.)(Ont.), 27078, *01 31.5.99                       756(99)                             902(99)

Clearview Dairy Farm (1989) Inc. v. British Columbia Milk Marketing Board

   (B.C.), 26975, *05 24.8.99                                                                                                         379(99)                             1260(99)

Coady v. Boyle (Ont.), 27265, *02 14.10.99                                                                              1223(99)                           1526(99)

Coca-Cola Ltd. v. Pardhan (F.C.A.), 27392, *A                                                                    1148(99)

Comité de discipline de la sûreté du Québec c. Bouchard (Qué.), 26957, *02 9.9.99      1167(99)                           1241(99)

Committee for the Equal Treatment of Asbestos Minority Shareholders v. La Reine

   (Ont.), 27252, *B                                                                                                                       1964(99)

Coffrage Roca Inc. v. The Queen (Qué.), 26747 *05 19.2.99                                                 359(99)                             359(99)

Colas c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26269, *B                                                                             273(98)

Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail c. Société canadienne des postes

   (Qué.), 27311, *A                                                                                                                      936(99)

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse c. Autobus

   Legault Inc. (Qué.), 27073, *01 10.11.99                                                                                1172(99)                           1761(99)

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse c. Compagnie

   minière Québec Cartier (Qué.), 27128, *01 10.11.99                                                           1500(99)                           1762(99)

Commission des lésions professionnelles c. Société canadienne des postes (Qué.),

   27311, *A                                                                                                                                   936(99)

Commission scolaire de Rivière-du-Loup c. Syndicat de l’enseignement du

   Grand-Portage (Qué.), 27003, *03 14.10.99                                                                          1220(99)                           1540(99)

Commission scolaire d’Iberville c. Syndicat de l’enseignement du Haut-Richelieu

   (Qué.), 27369, *A                                                                                                                      1075(99)

Commonwealth Insurance Co. c. Hôtel Le Chantecler (1985) Inc. (Qué.),

   26721, *01 18.2.99                                                                                                                     84(99)                               295(99)

Communauté urbaine de Montréal c. Lapointe (Qué.), 27140, *02 30.9.99                      1215(99)                           1451(99)

Communauté urbaine de Montréal c. Ville de Westmount (Qué.), 26938, *02 8.7.99      1047(99)                           1088(99)

Communauté urbaine de Québec c. Galeries de la Capitale Inc. (Qué.), 26863,

   *01 17.6.99                                                                                                                                 784(99)                             990(99)

Comsa v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26850, *01 11.3.99                                                          337(99)                             421(99)

Conrad v. Imperial Oil Ltd. (N.S.), 27270, *A                                                                        776(99)

Conroy v. Friesen (B.C.), 27200, *A                                                                                         746(99)

Conway v. The Queen in Right of Ontario (Ont.), 27519, *A                                              1519(99)

Continentale Compagnie d’Assurance du Canada v. Club de Golf Oka Inc (Qué.),

   27379, *A                                                                                                                                   1146(99)

Coopérative Fédérée du Québec c. Banque de commerce canadienne impériale

   (Qué.), 26926, *02 8.7.99                                                                                                          943(99)                             1087(99)

Co-pac Ltd. v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (Ont.), 27551, *A                                                  1717(99)

Coronation Insurance Co. c. Bouchard (Qué.), 26842, *02 25.3.99                                    415(99)                             489(99)

Coronation Insurance Co. c. Gagnon (Qué.), 26840, *02 25.3.99                                       415(99)                             489(99)

Coronation Insurance Co. c. Pelletier (Qué.), 26841, *02 25.3.99                                      415(99)                             489(99)

Corporation of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association v. Attorney General of

   Canada (Ont.), 26897, *01 11.3.99                                                                                         338(99)                             422(99)

Corporation of the City of Kelowna v. Labour Relations Board of British Columbia

   (B.C.), 27315, *A                                                                                                                       979(99)

Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay v. 1037618 Ontario Inc. (Ont.), 27549, *A     1717(99)

Corporation of the Town of Ajax v. National Automobile, Aerospace and

   Agricultural Implement Workers Union of Canada (CAW - Canada) (Ont.),

   26994, *03 25.3.99                                                                                                                     418(99)                             497(99)

Corsano v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27319, *A                                                                             937(99)

Coughlin v. Comery (Ont.), 27027, *02 20.5.99                                                                       670(99)                             792(99)

Coulombe c. Office municipal d’habitation de Pointe-Claire (Qué.), 27536, *A           1790(99)

Couture (François) c. Ferme La Champignière Inc. (Qué.), 27301, *A                            1320(99)

Couture (Paul) c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.) 27530, *B                                                             1966(99)                          

Crawford v. The Queen (Sask.), 27195, *A                                                                             1789(99)

Credit Lyonnais Canada v. National Bank of Canada (Ont.), 26942, *02 11.3.99          240(99)                             425(99)

Crestwood Lake Ltd. v. Pizzey (Ont.), 27462, *A                                                                   1322(99)

Cridge v. Pierce (B.C.), 26838, *01 28.1.99                                                                              75(99)                               154(99)

Cruise Canada Inc. c. Clermont (Qué.), 26730, *02 18.2.99                                                 85(99)                               296(99)

Cruz v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26901, *01 4.2.99                                                                 88(99)                               209(99)

Cudd Pressure Control Inc. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 27029, *02 31.5.99                   785(99)                             905(99)

D. (G.) c. C. (J.) (Qué.), 27246, *02 17.6.99                                                                              892(99)                             991(99)

Dadar v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.B.), 26833, *01 12.8.99                                                           1055(99)                           1185(99)

Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. (Ont.), 27118, *03 4.11.99                                   1496(99)                           1732(99)

Daum v. Schroeder (Sask.), 26004, *A                                                                                     1095(97)

Davies v. The Queen (Crim.)(Yuk.), 26870, *01 11.2.99                                                          87(99)                               255(99)

Dawes v. Jajcaj (B.C.), 27403, *A                                                                                             1150(99)

Day v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27348, *01 10.11.99                                                              1648(99)                           1759(99)

De-Jai Holdings Inc. v. Corporation of the City of Guelph (Ont.), 27364, *A                 1075(99)

Deroy v. Holt Cargo Systems Inc. (F.C.A.), 27290, *03 6.12.99                                            1754(99)                           1985(99)

Derry v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask), 26523, *01 4.2.99                                                              73(99)                               209(99)

Descoteaux c. Barreau du Québec (Qué.), 26023, *02 30.9.99                                             1214(99)                           1450(99)

Descoteaux c. Barreau du Québec (Qué.), 26024, *02 30.9.99                                             1214(99)                           1449(99)

Deslauriers c. Labelle (Qué.), 26993, *02 2.9.99                                                                     1153(99)                           1234(99)

Devgan v. The Queen in Right of Ontario (Ont.), 27567, *A                                               1787(99)

Dickhoff v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 26878, *01 18.3.99                                                      345(99)                             464(99)

Distinction service d’entretien inc. c. Travailleurs unis de l’alimentation et du

   commerce, section 500 (Qué.), 27121, *03 14.10.99                                                            1227(99)                           1542(99)

Dionne v. Kuhlmann (Ont.), 27009, *02 29.4.99                                                                      548(99)                             681(99)

Direk v. Dixon (Ont.), 26836, *02 11.2.99                                                                                 17(99)                               252(99)

Dobie v. Boushey (Ont.), 27468, *B                                                                                          1817(99)

Doman v. Superintendent of Brokers (B.C.), 27026, *02 17.6.99                                          754(99)                             986(99)

Dominion Bridge Inc. v. The Queen (Sask.), 27355, *A                                                        1074(99)

Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. v. Marchand (Ont.), 27244, *A                 704(99)

Don Bodkin Leasing Ltd. v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (Ont.), 26791, *02 18.2.99

   (The application for leave to cross-appeal is dismissed/La demande d’autorisation

   d’appel incident est rejetée)                                                                                                    16(99)                               303(99)

Donohue v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26867, *01 25.3.99                    239(99)                             495(99)

Doody v. Professional Training Committee of the Barreau du Québec (Qué.),

   27334, *A                                                                                                                                   981(99)

Dow v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27299, *01 23.9.99                                                               1219(99)                           1349(99)

Dryborough v. Board of School Trustees of School District No. 43 (Coquitlam)

    (B.C.), 27254, *05 10.6.99                                                                                                        774(99)                             954(99)

Duca Community Credit Union Ltd. v. Sugarman (Ont.), 27417, *A                                 1201(99)

Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board v. Branch Affiliates (Ontario

   English Catholic Teachers Association) (Ont.), 27384, *02 21.10.99                              1499(99)                           1597(99)

Dufour c. Centre hospitalier St-Joseph-de-la-Malbaie (Qué.), 26986, *02 14.10.99       1054(99)                           1536(99)

Dular v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.)(Man.), 26992,

   *02  9.9.99                                                                                                                                  1161(99)                           1238(99)

Dulude c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 27105, *01 17.6.99                                                            610(99)                             983(99)

Dunmore v. Attorney General for Ontario (Ont.), 27216, *A                                              747(99)

Dupont c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26853, *01 21.1.99                                                            1973(98)                           109(99)

Dwomoh v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Ont.), 27534, *A                           1716(99)

Dynamex Canada Inc. v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers (F.C.A.), 27300, *02

   2.12.99                                                                                                                                         1653(99)                           1919(99)

E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. v. United Tire & Rubber Co. (Ont.),

   25545, *A                                                                                                                                   2143(96)

Eastern Power Ltd. v. Azienda Comunale Energia & Ambiente (Ont), 27595, *A         1815(99)

Edmonton Journal, a division of Southam Inc. v. Attorney General of Alberta

   (Alta.), 27036, *01 15.4.99                                                                                                        463(99)                             568(99)

Ebco Industries Ltd. v. Discovery Enterprises Inc. (B.C.), 27089, *02 14.10.99                 1217(99)                           1549(99)

Ebco Industries Ltd. v. Discovery Enterprises Inc. (B.C.), 26817, *02 4.3.99                     207(99)                             391(99)

Eholor v. The Queen (Ont.), 27504, *B                                                                                    1963(99)

Elder v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27219, *B                                                                           752(99)

Ellipse Fiction/Ellipse programme c. Cinévidéo Plus Inc. (Qué.), 26258, *A                 1869(97)

Ellipse Fiction/Ellipse programme c. International Image Services Inc. (Qué.),

   26446, *A                                                                                                                                   179(98)

Ellis-Don Ltd. v. Naylor Group Inc. (Ont.), 27321, *A                                                         979(99)

Ellis-Don Ltd. v. Ontario Labour Relations Board (Ont.), 26709, *03 21.1.99                 1764(98)                           114(99)

Elm Ridge Country Club Inc. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Qué.), 27083, *02 9.9.99                  1159(99)                           1237(99)

Emballage Graham du Canada Ltée c. Commission des droits de la personne et

   des droits de la jeunesse (Qué.), 27336, *A                                                                         981(99)

Entreprises Ludco Ltée v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27320, *A                                                   938(99)

Entreprises Raymond Denis inc. c. Ville de Val-Bélair (Qué.), 26756, *02 18.2.99          91(99)                               298(99)

Epstein v. Salvation Army Scarborough Grace General Hospital (Ont.), 27608, *A     2010(99)

Equizi v. Algoma Steel Inc. (Ont.), 26907, *02 11.2.99                                                           16(99)                               252(99)

Erin Dancer Holding Corp.  v. Corporation of the Town of Richmond Hill

   (Ont.), 26788, *02 7.1.99                                                                                                           1875(98)                           19(99)

Estate of Yuan Vercingetorix Woo v. Privacy Commissioner of Canada (F.C.A.)

   27497, *A                                                                                                                                   1492(99)

Éthier c. Entreprises P. F. St-Laurent (Qué.), 27413, *A                                                     1201(99)

Exarhos v. Bank of Nova Scotia (Que.), 24608, *01 27.5.99                                                 708(99)                             861(99)

F. (L.) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27343, *01 10.11.99                                                          1521(99)                           1756(99)

Fafard c. Commission d’enquête chargée de faire enquête sur la Sûreté

   du Québec (Qué.), 26856, *02 27.5.99                                                                                    708(99)                             862(99)

Farhat c. Ordre des opticiens d’ordonnances du Québec (Qué.), 27103, *02

   14.10.99  1154(99)                                                                                                                      1538(99)

Favreau c. Productions Avanti Cinévidéo Inc. (Qué.), 27527, *A                                     1519(99)

Flamand c. La Reine (Qué.), 27589, *A                                                                                   1790(99)

Flaska v. Hindson (Ont.), 27032, *02 29.4.99                                                                          544(99)                             677(99)

Fédération des infirmières et infirmiers du Québec (FIIQ) c. Procureur général

   du Québec (Qué.), 27007, *02 9.9.99                                                                                      1158(99)                           1235(99)

Ferguson v. The Queen in right of the Province of British Columbia (B.C.), 26998,

   *01 25.3.99                                                                                                                                 376(99)                             487(99)

Ferrel v. Attorney General of Ontario (Ont.), 27127, *01 6.12.99                                        1595(99)                           1982(99)

Fevang v. Meditrust Healthcare Inc. (Ont.), 27571, *A                                                       1789(99)

Filzmaier v. Laurentian Bank of Canada (Ont.), 25372, *A                                               1154(96)

Flexi-Coil Ltd. v. Bourgault Industries Ltd. (F.C.A.), 27273, *A                                        776(99)

Folkes v. Greensleeves Publishing Ltd. (Ont.), 26974, *02 1.4.99                                       381(99)                             564(99)

Fonds d’indemnisation en assurance de personnes c. Bazile (Qué.), 27095, *03

   14.10.99  1209(99)                                                                                                                      1539(99)

Foote v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26895, *01 11.2.99                                                             13(99)                               246(99)

Fortin c. Fonds d’assurance responsabilité professionnelle dela chambre des

   notaires du Québec (Qué.), 27400, *A                                                                                  1149(99)

Franks v. Attorney General of British Columbia (B.C.), 27414, *A                                   1201(99)

Francis v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Ont.), 27615, *A                             2010(99)

Fraternité des policiers et policières de Longueuil Inc. c. Ville de Longueil (Qué.),

   27005, *02 23.9.99                                                                                                                     1077(99)                           1344(99)

Fraternité des préposés à l’entretien des voies c. Canadien Pacifique Ltée (Qué.),

   27434, *A                                                                                                                                   1317(99)

French (Doug) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26529, *01 22.4.99                                            482(99)                             621(99)

French (Doug) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24748, *01 22.4.99                                            482(99)                             621(99)

Friedmann Equity Developments Inc. v. Final Note Ltd. (Ont.), 26971, *03 25.3.99       381(99)                             496(99)

Fulford v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26981, *01 18.3.99                                                          346(99)                             465(99)

Future Électronique Inc. c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 27388, *01 10.11.99                           1649(99)                           1759(99)

Gabriel v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 27161, *03 17.6.99                                                       751(99)                             984(99)

Gagné c. Lacelle (Qué.), 25267, *A                                                                                          627(96)

Gagné (Michel) c. Commission municipale du Québec (Qué.), 27012, *01 9.9.99           1164(99)                           1239(99)

Gagné (Yves) c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 27064, *01 29.4.99                                                 548(99)                             677(99)

Galantai c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 27288, *01 16.9.99                                                         1163(99)                           1330(99)

Gallant v. Gallant (Man.), 27502, *01 6.12.99                                                                        1793(99)                           1979(99)

Galuego v. Canadian Human Rights Commission (F.C.A.), 27553, *A                            1718(99)

Gariépy v.The Queen in right of Canada (F.C.A.)(Que.), 26794, *02 11.2.99                    78(99)                               250(99)

Gassyt v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26947, *01 19.8.99                                                           1155(99)                           1230(99)

Gaudet v. Barrett (N.S.), 26921, *02 1.4.99                                                                              380(99)                             563(99)

Gauthier & Associates v. 482511 Ontario Ltd. (Ont.), 26844, *02 3.6.99                          707(99)                             907(99)

Gauthier c. Gauthier (Qué.), 27592, *A                                                                                  1790(99)

Gemex Developments Corp. v. Assessor of Area #12 - Coquitlam (B.C.), 27019,

   *02 25.3.99                                                                                                                                 377(99)                             487(99)

General Manager, Liquor Control v. Ocean Port Hotel Ltd. (B.C.), 27371, *A              1145(99)

General Motors Corporation v. Baljian (Ont.), 26864, *02 11.2.99                                    80(99)                               254(99)

General Refractories Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Venturedyne Ltd. (Ont.), 27310, *A            936(99)

Gestion immibilière Louvon Inc. c. Ville de Laval (Qué.), 27227, *02 10.11.99                1650(99)                           1765(99)

Gibb v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 26962, *01 8.4.99                                                              460(99)                             565(99)

Gill v. Gill (B.C.), 27025, *A                                                                                                      935(99)

Girocredit Bank Aktiengesellschaft Der Sparkassen v. Bader (B.C.), 26869, *02

   11.2.99                                                                                                                                         90(99)                               244(99)

Glass v. Musqueam Indian Band (F.C.A.), 27154, *03 6.12.99                                             1726(99)                           1984(99)

Glaxo Group Ltd. v. Novopharm Ltd. (F.C.A.), 27457, *A                                                   1318(99)

Glengarry Bingo Association v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27166, *A                                        773(99)

Godbout c. Municipalité de la paroisse de St-Pie (Qué.), 27428, *A                                1203(99)

Golden v. The Queen (Ont.), 27547, *A                                                                                   1717(99)

Gorenko v. The Queen (Qué.), 27266, *B                                                                                1965(99)

Gordon v. Winnipeg Canoe Club (Man.), 27358, *A                                                            1074(99)

Gosselin (Fernand) c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 27178, *01 17.6.99                                      782(99)                             989(99)

Gosselin (Louise) c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.), 27418, *A                             1201(99)

Graham v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27393, *01 18.11.99                                                       1655(99)                           1796(99)

Gramaglia v. Alberta Family and Social Services (Alta.), 27308, *01 16.9.99                 1210(99)                           1342(99)

Grande Caledon Developments Inc. v. Toronto Dominion Bank (Ont.), 27522, *A       1519(99)

Grandmaison v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26898, *03 22.4.99                                               243(99)                             617(99)

Grant v. The Queen (Ont.), 27243, *B                                                                                      1151(99)

Grant (Russell) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 27476, *01 6.12.99                                          1729(99)                           1972(99)

Great Lakes Power Ltd. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 31

   (Ont.), 27532, *A                                                                                                                       1520(99)

Grimmer v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.B.), 27217, *01 8.7.99                                                         945(99)                             1089(99)

Groleau-Roberge c. Paradis (Qué.), 27591, *A                                                                     1790(99)

Guardian Insurance Co. v. Ontario Tree Fruits Ltd. (Ont.), 26773, *02 7.1.99                 1872(98)                           29(99)

Guillemette v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27280, *02 16.12.99                                                        1819(99)                           2019(99)

Guilbault v. Investors Group Trust Co. (Ont.), 27613, *A                                                   2010(99)

H. (R.) c. C. (J.) (Qué.), 27264, *02 2.9.99                                                                                1078(99)                           1233(99)

Hall v. Puchniak (Man.), 27070, *02 16.9.99                                                                           1168(99)                           1338(99)

Hammell v. Friesen (B.C.), 27200, *A                                                                                      745(99)

Hammond v. Town Council of the Town of Wabana (Nfld.), 27157, *02 2.12.99               1660(99)                           1921(99)

Harel c. Montambault (Qué.), 27517, *A                                                                                1518(99)

Headway Property Investment 78-1 Inc. v. Edgecombe Properties Ltd. (Ont.),

   26857, *02 11.2.99                                                                                                                     88(99)                               256(99)

Henderson v. Henderson (Alta.), 27101, *02 25.3.99                                                              378(99)                             488(99)

Henri c. Henri (Qué.), 27245, *05 14.5.99                                                                                 704(99)                             799(99)

Hewlin v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 27317, *01 16.9.99                                                          1212(99)                           1333(99)

Hill v. McMillan (Man.), 26724, *01 21.1.99                                                                           1939(98)                           109(99)

Hines v. Ontario Human Rights Commission (Ont.), 26506, *02 1.4.99                              379(99)                             562(99)

Hirsch v. Meditrust Healthcare Inc. (Ont.), 27571, *A                                                         1789(99)

Horne v. Bombardier Inc. (Ont.), 27021, *02 31.5.99                                                             614(99)                             897(99)

Horrod v. Wang (B.C.), 26768, *01 28.1.99                                                                               82(99)                               155(99)

Houle v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 27161, *03 17.6.99                                                          751(99)                             984(99)

Huard c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 27530, *B                                                                            1966(99)

Hudson’s Bay Co. v. Piko (Ont.), 27087, *01 16.9.99                                                             1211(99)                           1343(99)

Hulme v. Cadillac Fairview Corporation Ltd. (Ont.), 26915, *02 28.1.99                         11(99)                               152(99)

Human Life International in Canada Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue

   (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26661, *01 21.1.99                                                                                           1374(98)                           102(99)

Hussmann Canada Inc. v. Leonetti (Ont.), 26759, *01 7.1.99                                               1879(98)                           26(99)

Hurford v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 27008, *01 29.4.99                                                         485(99)                             679(99)

Hynes v. The Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.), 27443, *B                                                                         1816(99)

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v. Bevacqua (B.C.), 27614, *A                   2010(99)

Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Guardian Insurance Company of

   Canada (Ont.), 27431, *A                                                                                                       1317(99)

Interport Sufferance Warehouse Ltd. v. Roadway Express (Canada) Inc. (Ont.),

   27071, *02 8.7.99                                                                                                                       944(99)                             1088(99)

Irons v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26968, *03 22.4.99                                                              243(99)                             619(99)

Isert v. Santos (B.C.), 27190,*A                                                                                                 539(99)

Ivanhoe inc. c. Travailleurs et travailleuses unis de l’alimentation et du commerce,

   section 500 (Qué.), 27121, *03 14.10.99                                                                                1227(99)                           1542(99)

Jacob v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26885, *01 28.1.99                                                            10(99)                               151(99)

Jazairi v. Ontario Human Rights Commission (Ont.), 27500, *A                                       1492(99)

Jenkins v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26899, *03 22.4.99                                                         243(99)                             618(99)

Jensen v. Chretien (B.C.), 27149, *05 12.4.99                                                                          335(99)                             582(99)

Jevco Insurance Co. v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. (Ont.), 27129, *02

   31.5.99                                                                                                                                         673(99)                             899(99)

Jeyarajah v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 27167, *01 21.10.99                                                 1446(99)                           1601(99)

John v. The Queen (B.C.), 26932, *01 11.3.99                                                                          338(99)                             423(99)

Johnson v. Attorney General of Nova Scotia (N.S.), 27162, *01 6.12.99                            1748(99)                           1973(99)

Jones v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27239, *02 14.10.99                                                           1228(99)                           1545(99)

Jordan v. Salgado de Leon (Sask.), 27404, *A                                                                      1150(99)

Jorgensen c. Crédit M.P. Ltée (Qué.), 27560, *A                                                                   1719(99)

Joshi c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26953, *01 1.4.99                                                                  414(99)                             558(99)

K. (A.) c. S. (H.) (Qué.), 26790, *02 21.1.99                                                                              9(99)                                 115(99)

K.M.E. v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27173,*01 13.5.99                                                            610(99)                             759(99)

Kadziolka v. Royal Bank of Canada (Sask.), 27220, *A                                                      747(99)

Kainth v. The Queen (F.C.A.) (Ont.), 26832, *02 11.2.99                                                       15(99)                               251(99)

Kakfwi v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27577, *A                                                                                1788(99)

Kalin v. City of Calgary (Alta.), 24418, *A                                                                            1799(94)

Kamloops Indian Band v. Canadian National Railway Co. (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26882,

   *02 25.3.99                                                                                                                                 149(99)                             494(99)

Kaushal v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26622, *01 7.1.99                                                          1940(98)                           21(99)

Kebe c. Agbor (Qué.), 27612, *A                                                                                              2010(99)

Ken Toby Ltd. v. British Columbia Buildings Corp. (B.C.), 27326, *A                             938(99)

Khan (Fouzia Saeed) v. Timakis (Ont.), 26839, *01 21.1.99                                                 1878(98)                           105(99)

Khan (Mohamed Ameerulla) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 26765 (application

   for leave to appeal is quashed for want of jurisdiction/demande d’autorisation

   d’appel annulée pour cause d’absence de compétence) 21.1.99                                      1971(98)                           100(99)

Khan (Mohamed Ameerulla) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 27395, *03 6.12.99                 1746(99)                           1978(99)

Khan (Pamela) v. Harnick, Attorney General for Ontario (Ont.), 26965, *01

   11.3.99                                                                                                                                         241(99)                             425(99)

Khanna v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26754, *01 7.1.99                                                          1874(98)                           19(99)

Khuu v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 27068, *01 29.4.99                                                            540(99)                             675(99)

Kiloh v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27511, *A                                                                                  1518(99)

Klevering v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27480, *01 2.12.99                                                     1754(99)                           1925(99)

Kibale c. La Reine du chef de l’Ontario (Ont.), 27001, *02 18.3.99                                    347(99)                             466(99)

Kieling v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool (Sask.), 27322, *A                                                    980(99)

Kilkanis v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada (Ont.), 27309, *A                             936(99)

King v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26056, *01 28.1.99                                                            1967(97)                           157(99)

Kloepfer v. The Queen (N.S.), 27453, *A                                                                                 1322(99)

Knight v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 26859, *01 11.2.99                                                         12(99)                               245(99)

Knoblauch v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 27238, *03 14.10.99                                                939(99)                             1524(99)

Kochylema v. Fulton (Sask.), 27492, *02 25.11.99                                                                  1720(99)                           1823(99)

Kopij v. Corporation of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (Ont.), 27074,

   *02 26.8.99                                                                                                                                 1079(99)                           1232(99)

Kosikar v. The Queen (Ont.), 27604, *A                                                                                  1961(99)

KPMG Inc. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (Ont.), 27080, *02 19.8.99            1155(99)                           1230(99)

Krishantharajah v. The Queen (Ont.), 27192, *05 29.4.99                                                    723(99)                             723(99)

Krist v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26970, *01 31.5.99                                                              614(99)                             896(99)

Krofchak-Smillie v. Smillie (Ont.), 26984, *01 15.4.99                                                          414(99)                             566(99)

Ku v. The Queen (B.C.), 27466, *A                                                                                           1323(99)

Kubanowski v. Primerica Life Insurance Co. of Canada (Sask.), 26952, *02

   11.3.99                                                                                                                                         343(99)                             426(99)

Kwok v. United States of America (Crim.)(Ont.), 26919, *03 18.2.99                                   147(99)                             292(99)

L. (D.) v. Director of Children and Families (B.C.), 27276, *01 8.7.99                               1047(99)                           1085(99)

L. (F.). c. Garneau-Fournier (Qué.), 27104, *01 16.9.99                                                       1221(99)                           1337(99)

Laberge c. Caisse de dépôt et de placement du Québec (Qué.), 26889, *02 6.5.99          552(99)                             716(99)

Laboratoires Abbott Ltée c. Bourque (Qué.), 26803, *02 6.5.99                                          550(99)                             714(99)

Lackowiak v. Maple Engineering & Construction Canada (Ont.), 27562, *A               1719(99)

Lacroix c. La Reine (Qué.), 27394, *05                                                                                    1995(99)                           1995(99)

Laflamme c. Vézina (Qué.), 27147, *02 16.12.99                                                                      1817(99)                           2018(99)

Lafrentz v. Michel (Alta.), 27234, *A                                                                                       703(99)

Lal v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27094, *01 29.4.99                                                                 553(99)                             683(99)

Lalonde v. The Queen (Ont.), 26261, *05 14.1.99                                                                    128(99)                             128(99)

Lamy c. Société canadienne des postes (Qué.), 27311, *A                                                  936(99)

Landry c. Société de l’Assurance automobile du Québec (Qué.), 27203, *02

   18.11.99  1593(99)                                                                                                                      1798(99)

Langlois c. La Reine (Qué.), 27430, *A                                                                                   1203(99)

Lanteigne c. La Reine (N.-B.), 27528, *A                                                                                1519(99)

Lapointe v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26578, *B                                                                    1134(98)

Lathangue v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26943, *03 22.4.99                                                    243(99)                             620(99)

Latimer v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 26980, *03 6.5.99                                                         549(99)                             711(99)

Laurendeau c. La Reine (Qué.), 27563, *B                                                                              2011(99)

Lavigne c. Human Resources Development (F.C.A.)(Qué.), 27011, *02 17.6.99                783(99)                             989(99)

Lavoie v. The Queen in Right of Canada (F.C.A.), 27427, *A                                             1317(99)

Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat (B.C.), 27108, *03 10.11.99                           1445(99)                           1762(99)

Lebeuf c. Groupe Snc-Lavalin Inc. (Qué.), 27236, *02 2.12.99                                             1723(99)                           1915(99)

Lee v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26978, *01 1.4.99                                                                   349(99)                             560(99)

Lenhardt v. The Queen (B.C.), 27396, *A                                                                                1149(99)

Leroux c. Centre Hospitalier Ste-Jeanne D’Arc (Qué.), 26650, *05 22.1.99                      859(98)                             264(99)

Lessard v. Société québécoise d’assainissement des eaux (Qué.), 27028, *02 9.9.99      1166(99)                           1240(99)

Leu v. Health One Inc. (Ont.), 27037, *02 31.5.99                                                                   710(99)                             901(99)

Lévesque c. Commission des lésions professionnelles (Qué.), 27535, *A                         1520(99)

Lévesque Beaubien Geoffrion Inc. c. 2625-0985 Québec Inc. (Qué.), 27059, *02

   16.9.99                                                                                                                                         1208(99)                           1333(99)

Lévesque Beaubien Geoffrion Inc. c. Les Immeubles Jacques Robitaille Inc.

   (Qué.), 27059, *02 16.9.99                                                                                                        1208(99)                           1333(99)

Lewis v. The Queen (P.E.I.), 26603, *05 8.10.99                                                                       701(99)                             1560(99)

Lewis Energy Management Inc. v. MacKinnon (Ont.), 27294, *A                                     778(99)

L’Heureux c. Fortin (Qué), 27350, *A                                                                                     1074(99)

Lin v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (Ont.), 26827, *02 11.2.99                                                   14(99)                               247(99)

Lineal Group Inc. v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (Ont.), 27040, *01 14.10.99                       940(99)                             1524(99)

Lindsay (David) v. Provincial Government of Manitoba (Man.), 27181, *01 16.9.99     1180(99)                           1341(99)

Lindsay (Robert) v. Workers’ Compensation Board (Sask.), 26954, *03 25.3.99             344(99)                             495(99)

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Minister of Justice (B.C.), 26858, *03

   18.2.99                                                                                                                                         81(99)                               303(99)

Lloyd’s of London v. Norris (N.B.), 26977, *01 14.10.99                                                        1328(99)                           1553(99)

Lo v. Mackenzie, Gervais S.E.N.C. (Qué.), 27255, *02 2.12.99                                             1658(99)                           1914(99)

Locke c. City of Calgary (Alta.), 27385, *A                                                                            1147(99)

Loignon c. Collège (CÉGEP) Montmorency (Qué.), 27201, *02 2.12.99                           1723(99)                           1916(99)

Lord v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27131, *01 29.4.99                                                               554(99)                             683(99)

Lore v. The Queen (Crim.)(Qué.), 26683, *01 22.4.99                                                              1248(98)                           623(99)

Lortie c. Commission d’appel en matière de lésions professionnelles (Qué.), 27331,

   *A                                                                                                                                               980(99)

Lowe v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. (N.S.), 27533, *A                                                                  1520(99)

Lughas v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. (Man.), 27014, *02 1.4.99                            462(99)                             560(99)

Luk v. Municipal District of Cypress (Alta.), 27194, *01 4.11.99                                         1522(99)                           1730(99)

Luscar Ltd. v. Smoky River Coal Ltd. (Alta.), 27432, *A                                                      1317(99)

Lutzer v. Sonnenburg (Ont.), 26831, *02 21.1.99                                                                    1972(98)                           100(99)

M. (F.) c. B. (P.) (Qué.), 26813, *02 11.2.99                                                                             1937(98)                           244(99)

Manoussakis v. The Queen (Crim.)(Qué.), 27215, *01 8.7.99                                                942(99)                             1085(99)

MacDonald v. ADGA Systems International Ltd. (Ont.), 27202, *02 8.7.99                       948(99)                             1091(99)

MacDonald v. Coopers &Lybrand Ltd. (Ont.), 27145, *02 25.11.99                                   1594(99)                           1825(99)

MacDonald v. Confederation Life Insurance Co. (Ont.), 27145, *02 25.11.99                  1594(99)                           1825(99)

MacKenzie v. MacKenzie (N.S.), 26824, *02 21.1.99                                                              1976(98)                           113(99)

MacKay v. The Queen in right of the Province of Manitoba (Man.), 26997, *02

   25.3.99                                                                                                                                         416(99)                             490(99)

MacPherson v. Adga Systems International Inc. (Ont.), 27184, *A                                   538(99)

Madsen v. The Queen (F.C.A.) 27473, *A                                                                               1324(99)

Mafi v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27090, *01 6.5.99                                                                 546(99)                             713(99)

Magda v. St. Catharines Standard, a division of Southam Inc. (Ont.), 27420, *A          1202(99)

Magnan-Tardif c. Langevin (Qué.), 27137, *02 16.9.99                                                         1220(99)                           1336(99)

Mailloux c. Beltrami (Qué.), 27182, *02 10.11.99                                                                   1591(99)                           1764(99)

Malach v. Haider (Sask.), 27433, *02 28.10.99                                                                        1522(99)                           1662(99)

Malhotra v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 27034, *02 31.5.99                   757(99)                             904(99)

Mallon v. Meditrust Healthcare Inc. (Ont.), 27571, *A                                                        1789(99)

Manac Inc. Corp. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Que.), 26744, *02 7.1.99                                      1874(98)                           20(99)

Marcellus v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.B.), 27397, *01 6.12.99                                                     1791(99)                           1975(99)

Marchand c. Marina de la Chaudière (Qué.), 26880, *02 30.6.99                                      669(99)                             1082(99)

Marché central métropolitain Inc. c. Les Sœurs du Bon Pasteur de Québec (Qué.),

   27117, *02 28.10.99                                                                                                                   1494(99)                           1662(99)

Marcoux v. Bouchard (Qué.), 27554, *A                                                                                 1718(99)

Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. v. Union of Nova Scotia

   Indians (F.C.A.), 27262, *A                                                                                                    775(99)

Martel v. Davidson (Ont.), 27275, *02 16.12.99                                                                      1793(99)                           2017(99)

Marth Realties Ltd. v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.) (Qué.), 27231, *02

   2.12.99                                                                                                                                         1661(99)                           1921(99)

Matheson v. The Queen (Ont.), 27267, *05 1.10.99                                                                 1144(99)                           1512(99)

Martin (Dale) v. Rural Municipality of St. Andrews (Man.), 26946, *02 4.3.99               341(99)                             389(99)

Martin (Jocelyn) v. Municipalité de la paroisse de St-Hubert (Qué.), 27568, *A          1787(99)

Martin (Robert E.) v. Goldfarb (Ont.), 26916, *02 18.2.99                                                    204(99)                             302(99)

Martin (Russell) v. Pasanen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27440, *01 2.12.99                                             1753(99)                           1925(99)

Martineau c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 27306, *01 16.9.99                                                      1162(99)                           1330(99)

Mathers c. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (B.C.), 27387, *A                            1148(99)

Matsqui Indian Band v. Canadian National Railway Co. (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26881,

   *02 25.3.99                                                                                                                                 149(99)                             493(99)

Mattel Canada Inc. v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27174, *A                                                         609(99)

Matthiessen v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 27170, *01 31.5.99                                                671(99)                             898(99)

Mayer Diamond c. Surintendant des faillites (Qué.), 27460, *A                                        1442(99)

Maytag Corp. v. Whirlpool Corp. (F.C.A.), 27209, *03 17.5.99                                           749(99)                             788(99)

McCauley v. Fitzsimmons (Ont.), 26972, *02 1.4.99                                                               350(99)                             562(99)

McColl v. Corporation of the Town of Gravenhurst (Ont.), 26845, *02 7.1.99                 1943(98)                           25(99)

McCullough v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27088, *01 20.5.99                                                668(99)                             790(99)

McDonald v. Lesage (Ont.), 27365, *A                                                                                    1075(99)

McHayle v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27035, *01 1.4.99                                                         375(99)                             556(99)

McIndoe v. O’Connell (B.C.), 26999, *02 25.3.99                                                                   419(99)                             498(99)

McKinley v. B.C. Tel (B.C.), 27410, *A                                                                                    1200(99)

McMaster v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24569, *A                                                                 328(95)

McMaster (Peter Owen) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26851, *01 6.5.99                             541(99)                             711(99)

Mennes v. Attorney-General of Canada (F.C.A.), 27588, *A                                              1790(99)

Mensink v. Dale (Ont.), 27135, *02 31.5.99                                                                              672(99)                             899(99)

Merck Frosst Canada Inc. v. Minister of Health (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26903, *02 11.3.99        239(99)                             424(99)

Merck Frosst Canada Inc. v. Minister of National Health and Welfare (F.C.A.),

   27370, *A                                                                                                                                   1075(99)

Metzner v. Metzner (B.C.), 27529, *B                                                                                       1910(99)

Mid Canada Millwork Ltd. v. Delano Building Products Ltd. (Man.), 26809,

   *02 7.1.99                                                                                                                                   1765(98)                           31(99)

Midland Mortgage Corp. v. Jawl & Bundon (B.C.), 27520, *A                                         1519(99)

Miller v. Miller (Ont.), 27496, *02 10.11.99                                                                             1654(99)                           1767(99)

Millette (Régent) c. Individual Investment Corp.(Qué.), 27585, *A                                  1790(99)

Millette (Régent) c. La Reine (C.A.F.), 27605, *A                                                                 1962(99)

Minister of National Revenue v. Mitchell (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 27066, *03 14.10.99                 1080(99)                           1547(99)

Ministère des affaires municipales c. Communauté urbaine de Québec (Qué.),

   27455, *A                                                                                                                                   1318(99)

Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux c. Centre hospitalier Mont-Sinaï

   (Qué.), 27022, *03 10.11.99                                                                                                      1170(99)                           1760(99)

Ministry of Finance v. Higgins (Ont.), 27191, *B                                                                  1969(99)

Minors v. Toronto Sun Publishing Corp. (Ont.), 27518, *A                                                1518(99)

Mondesir v. Manitoba Association of Optometrists (Man.), 26816, *02 7.1.99                1942(98)                           23(99)

Monenco Ltd. v. Commonwealth Insurance Co. (B.C.), 27258, *A                                    774(99)

Monfette c. Hôtel-Dieu de Saint-Jérôme (Qué.), 26697, *02 21.1.99                                   1974(98)                           111(99)

Monit International Inc. c. Miller (Qué.), 27307, *03 14.10.99                                            1176(99)                           1530(99)

Morris v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.), 27354, *A                                                1074(99)

Morrow v. Constantini (B.C.), 27332, *A                                                                                981(99)

Morrow (Valerie) v. Acedemy Mechanical Services Ltd. (Alta.), 27531, *A                    1589(99)

Morrow (Valerie) v. The Queen (Alta.), 27441,*B                                                                 1911(99)

Morton v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. (Ont.), 27130, *02 31.5.99        673(99)                             900(99)

Moxham v. The Queen in right of Canada (F.C.A.), 27180, *02 6.12.99                             1795(99)                           1981(99)

Muise v. Workers’ Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (N.S.), 26804, *01 7.1.99          1880(98)                           27(99)

Municipalité de St-Lin c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.), 27016, *01 9.9.99        1165(99)                           1239(99)

Murray-Audain v. Corporation of the Town of Newcastle (Ont.), 26913, *02 4.3.99       207(99)                             391(99)

N. (F.G.) v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26951, *01 11.3.99                                                       342(99)                             426(99)

Nadeau c. Nadeau (Qué.), 27225, *02 28.10.99                                                                       1495(99)                           1663(99)

Nadeau (Pierre John) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 27478, *B                                            1820(99)

Naima c. Sears Canada Inc. (Qué.), 26874, *02 1.4.99                                                          461(99)                             559(99)

Nalley’s Canada Ltd. v. Deputy Minister of Revenue Canada (F.C.A.), 27058, *02

   8.7.99                                                                                                                                           947(99)                             1090(99)

National Bank of Canada v. Gagliano (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26848, *02 18.2.99                        86(99)                               297(99)

Nelson (Doris Merrill) v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26684, *02 11.3.99                            238(99)                             423(99)

Nelson (Terrance) v. The Queen (Man.), 27594, *A                                                             1815(99)

Nelson (Vena) v. Lodin (Ont.), 27437, *A                                                                               1204(99)

Nespolon v. Alford (Ont.), 26862, *02 21.1.99                                                                         1977(98)                           113(99)

Niderost v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26960, *01 1.4.99                                                       350(99)                             561(99)

Noël c. Société d’énergie de la Baie James (SEGJ) (Qué.), 26914, *03 14.10.99             945(99)                             1535(99)

Northwood Pulp and Timber Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 27033, *02 31.5.99         757(99)                             903(99)

Noskey v. The Queen (Alta.), 26022, *A                                                                                  1121(97)

Nourcy c. Compagnie d’Assurance-vie Transamerica du Canada (Qué.), 27335,

   *A                                                                                                                                               981(99)

Nourhaghighi v. Toronto Hospital (Ont.), 27425, *A                                                          1317(99)

Novic v. Metropolitan Toronto Civic Employees’ Union, Local 43 (Ont.), 27097,

   *02 8.7.99                                                                                                                                   947(99)                             1091(99)

Oerlikon Aérospatiale Inc. c. La Reine (C.A.F.), 27352, *A                                                1045(99)

O’Grady v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.) 27278, *B                                                                       1816(99)

O’Neill c. Sirois (Qué.) 27464, *A                                                                                            1322(99)

Olympia Interiors Ltd. v. Her Majesty The Queen (F.C.A.), 27550, *B                               1969(99)

Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association v. Attorney General for Ontario

   (Ont.), 27363, *03 14.10.99                                                                                                       1498(99)                           1534(99)

Ontario Nurses’ Association v. Orillia Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital (Ont.), 27176,

   *02 6.12.99                                                                                                                                 1794(99)                           1980(99)

Ontario Power Generation Inc. v. Minister of Revenue (Ont.), 27435, *A                       1203(99)

Ontario Public School Boards’ Association v. Attorney General for Ontario (Ont.),

   27363, *03 14.10.99                                                                                                                   1498(99)                           1534(99)

Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, District 9 v. Barton (Ont.),

   26911, *02 4.3.99                                                                                                                       234(99)                             384(99)

Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, District 9 v. Barton (Ont.),

   27085, *01 14.10.99                                                                                                                   1216(99)                           1547(99)

Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation v. Attorney General of Ontario

   (Ont.), 27374, *02 21.10.99                                                                                                       1497(99)                           1597(99)

Orlov v. Metro Toronto Police (O.P.P.) (Ont.), 26825, *01 7.1.99                                       1871(98)                           29(99)

O’Shanter Development Co. v. Minott (Ont.), 27179, *05 14.5.99                                       537(99)                             799(99)

Osoyoos Indian Band v. Town of Oliver (B.C.), 27408, *A                                                  1200(99)

Osuitok v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.W.T.), 27102, *01 29.4.99                                                   549(99)                             678(99)

P. (E.) v. T. (A.H.) (Alta.), 27391, *02 14.10.99                                                                        1325(99)                           1546(99)

P. (G.) v. B. (S.) (Qué.), 27583, *A                                                                                            1908(99)

P. (M.E.) c. O. (K.R.) (Qué.), 27602, *A                                                                                   1962(99)

P. (U.) c. S. (F.) (Qué.), 27067, *01 18.3.99                                                                              349(99)                             468(99)

P. (Y.) c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 27380, *01 7.10.99                                                              1325(99)                           1503(99)

Pacific National Investments Ltd. v. Corporation of the City of Victoria (B.C.),

   27006,*03 22.4.99                                                                                                                      460(99)                             620(99)

Pack M.J. Inc. c. La Reine (C.A.F.), 27069, *02 23.9.99                                                         1177(99)                           1351(99)

Paddon Hughes Development Co. v. Pancontinental Oil Ltd. (Alta.), 27030, *02

   17.6.99                                                                                                                                         755(99)                             988(99)

Pagé v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27339, *01 14.10.11                                                            1443(99)                           1532(99)

Palmer v. The Queen (Sask.), 27574, *A                                                                                  1788(99)

Pan v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27424, *B                                                                              2012(99)

Pardee Equipment Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Alta.), 27165, *B                                        2013(99)

Parsons v. Guymer (Ont.), 27143, *02 25.11.99                                                                       1594(99)                           1825(99)

Paquet c. Les Banquets Fine-Gueule Inc. (Qué.), 27569, *A                                               1787(99)

Patel v. Department of National Health and Welfare (F.C.A.), 25997, *01 10.11.99        1592(99)                           1764(99)

Paterson v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27133, *01 20.5.99                                                       669(99)                             790(99)

Paul D’Aoust Construction Ltd. v. Markel Insurance Company of Canada (Ont.),

   27438, *A                                                                                                                                   1318(99)

Pawar v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27578, *A                                                                                 1788(99)

Pearl c. Gentra Canada Investments Inc. (Qué.), 26807, *02 18.2.99                                 86(99)                               297(99)

Pearlman (David) v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 27096, *02 25.6.99                                    894(99)                             1057(99)

Pearlman (Esther) v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 27096, *02 25.6.99                                   894(99)                             1057(99)

Pearson c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 27261, *01 12.8.99                                                           1050(99)                           1184(99)

Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department

   Store Union Local 558 (Sask.), 27060, *03 21.10.99                                                           205(99)                             1598(99)

Perks v. The Queen (Ont.), 27153, *01 2.12.99                                                                        1659(99)                           1920(99)

Perez v. Governing Council of the Salvation Army in Canada (Ont.), 27136, *05

   11.6.99                                                                                                                                         331(99)                             1001(99)

Peters v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27263, *01 23.9.99                                                            1076(99)                           1344(99)