Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

October 29, 1999  1648 - 1715 (INDEX)                                               le 29 octobre 1999

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

OCTOBER 18, 1999 / LE 18 OCTOBRE 1999

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

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges McLachlin et Iacobucci

Russell Grant

v. (27476)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law (Non Charter) - Evidence - Admissibility of evidence - Documentary evidence excluded - Accused acquitted - Whether exclusion of evidence was an error of law.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

April 7, 1998

Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta

(Murray J.)

Charges of violation of ss.  7(1) and 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act dismissed;

Applicant acquitted

Robert Day

v. (27348)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Impaired driving causing bodily harm - Aboriginal law - Sentencing - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the Applicant’s submission that the actus reus necessary for a conviction had not been proven at trial - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the requisite element of causation necessary for a conviction had been proven - Whether the Court of Appeal erred regarding reviewing the voir dire which was conducted regarding the issuing of the search warrant - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the sentencing appeal, and in rejecting the Applicant’s request for a conditional sentence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Future Electronique Inc.

et Robert G. Miller

c. (27388)

Sa Majesté la Reine,

Le Procureur général du Canada,

Le Procureur général du Québec,

 Pierre‑Yves Carrier, Gérard Bossé

et James S. Kendall

- et -

Société Radio-Canada, et

The Gazette, une division de Southam Inc. (Crim.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Charte Canadienne  - Droit criminel - Législation - Interprétation - Mandat de perquisition - Ordonnance d’interdiction d’accès  - Art. 7 , 8  et 24  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Art. 487.3  du Code criminel , L.R.C. (1985), ch. C-46  - Un justiciable dont les droits sont affectés par une fouille, perquisition et saisie a-t-il en vertu des articles 7 , 8  et 24  de la Charte , ou en vertu de l'article 487.3  du Code criminel , le droit d'être protégé contre la divulgation des renseignements ayant donné lieu à ces fouilles, perquisitions et saisies tant et aussi longtemps que des accusations n'ont pas été portées ou la légalité des fouilles, perquisitions et saisies, finalement décidée? - L'article 487.3  du Code criminel  crée-t-il un nouveau droit aux termes duquel un justiciable a le droit à une ordonnance interdisant l'accès à l'information relative au mandat dans des cas spécifiques énumérés par le législateur qui sont réputés par la loi être d'une importance telle à l'emporter sur le droit d’accès et de communication?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache

Vigi Santé Ltée

c. (27227)

Ville de Montréal

- et -

 Communauté urbaine de Montréal (Qué.)

ET ENTRE

Gestion immobilière Louvon Inc.

- et -

 Hôpital St‑Jude‑de‑Laval Ltée

c. (27227)

Ville de Laval (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit municipal - Évaluation foncière - Droit administratif - Compétence - Appel - Législation - Interprétation de l’art. 236 (13^o) et 244.11 de la Loi sur la fiscalité municipale, L.R.Q., c. F-2.1 (ci-après «L.F.M.») - Centre d’hébergement pour soins de longue durée - Compétence spécialisée du Bureau de révision de l’évaluation foncière (ci-après le BREF) - Norme de contrôle applicable.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 1er avril 1999

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée

Ville de Saint‑Romuald

c. (27210)

Claudette Olivier,

Louise Bolduc,

Roger Bolduc

tous trois faisant affaires sous la raison sociale “Les

Immeubles Jancloroc Enr.”,

9010‑4407 Québec Inc. (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit municipal - Aménagement et Urbanisme - Zonage - Droits acquis - Usage dérogatoire -    Changement d’usage - Restaurant ou bar avec spectacles érotiques.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

André St‑Jacques

c. (27232)

Romain Bourdon, Jacques Poissant (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

 Droit municipal - Droit administratif - Législation - Interprétation - Municipalités - Brefs de prérogative - Bref de quo warranto - Peut-on, par quo warranto, obtenir les conclusions de l’action en déclaration d’inhabilité prévue à l’article 308 de la Loi sur les élections et les référendums dans les municipalités, L.R.Q., ch.  E-2.2? - La Cour supérieure a-t-elle erré dans son interprétation de l’exception prévue au second alinéa de l’article 362 L.E.R.M. ainsi que dans son interprétation de l’article 304 L.E.R.M.? - Quelle est la portée de la bonne ou mauvaise foi dans l’analyse des motifs à un recours en quo warranto? - Quelle est la portée des mots «l’intérêt» et «indirect» (304 L.E.R.M.) dans un cadre systémique d’octroi de contrats au plus bas soumissionnaire, et donc sans possibilité d’influence sur le conseil (935(7) et 936 C.M.) qui n’a, en vertu de la loi, aucune latitude?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 6 avril 1999

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

Dr. Bruno Riendeau Ph.D.

c. (27226)

La Ville de Québec (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit municipal - Interprétation - Textes réglementaires - Droits acquis - Exploitation d’un terrain de stationnement - Existe-t-il des droits acquis en faveur des lots 4437-115 et 4437-116? - L’art. 4.1.4.8 du règlement de zonage 2474 et les art. 43, 56 et 123 du règlement de zonage VQZ-1 sont-ils compréhensibles par le citoyen ordinaire? - Validité du libellé de l’accusation - Les jugements des trois cours inférieures sont-ils manifestement déraisonnables?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

CORAM:   Major, Binnie and Arbour JJ. /

Les juges Major, Binnie et Arbour

Dynamex Canada Inc.

v. (27300)

Canadian Union of Postal Workers (F.C.A.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Certification - Jurisdiction - Statutes - Interpretation - Whether s. 31(3) of the Canada Labour Relations Board Regulations, 1992, SOR/91-622 is intra vires the Canada Labour Relations Board.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

928412 Ontario Limited

v. (27146)

The Minister of National Revenue (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law ‑ Limitation of actions - Customs and excise - Corporation seeking to appeal Minister of National Revenue’s decision - Statement of claim sent by registered mail within limitation period but received by Federal Court registry after limitation period had expired - Whether statement of claim effectively “filed” on date it was sent by registered mail - Whether notice of Minister’s decision was effective only when it was actually received because it was not properly addressed to corporation.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

February 11, 1999

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

OCTOBER 21, 1999 / LE 21 OCTOBRE 1999

CORAM:   Major, Binnie and Arbour JJ. /

Les juges Major, Binnie et Arbour

William Miller

v. (27496)

Doris Miller (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family law - Custody and access - Child abduction - Conflicting custody orders issued out of New York State and Ontario - Children resident with mother in Ontario pursuant to custody order - Father abducting children to North Carolina in violation of both custody orders - Whether Court of Appeal erred in awarding custody of children to the mother.        

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

July 5, 1995

New York State Family Court

(Koshian J.)

Joint custody of one child awarded to parties; Access to Respondent four nights per week in Canada

December 22, 1995

New York State Family Court

(Koshian J.)

Interim custody of child awarded to Respondent

February 12, 1997

Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)

(Forestell J.)

Interim custody of children awarded to Respondent

October 3, 1997

Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)

(Forestell J.)

Final order of custody to Respondent

March 10, 1998

New York State Family Court

(Crapsi J.)

Custody of both children awarded to Applicant

September 1, 1998

Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)

(Fleury J.)

Application for recognition of the order of  by Crapsi J. granted; Order of Forestell J. set aside.

June 18, 1999

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Carthy, Doherty, and Austin JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed; Custody order of Forestell J. restored awarding custody to Respondent

September 16, 1999

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

OCTOBER 25, 1999 / LE 25 OCTOBRE 1999

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

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges McLachlin et Iacobucci

Brock Joseph William Graham

v. (27393)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Offences - Murder - Mens rea - Trial - Change of venue - Applicant convicted of second degree murder by judge sitting alone - Trial judge rejecting Applicant’s argument that he lacked the requisite intent owing to his consumption of alcohol and life stresses - Court of Appeal upholding conviction - Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding that trial by judge alone was what Applicant wanted throughout, thus depriving him of right to trial by judge and jury - Whether trial judge erred in refusing motion for change of venue.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

David Bernard Silverquill

v. (27406)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Trial - Presumption of innocence - Fresh evidence -  Was there a miscarriage of justice when the prosecutor, in summing up to the jury, said that the defendant had a motive to lie because he was charged with a serious offence - Did trial judge err in failing to correct this comment? - Whether Respondent wrongfully convicted due to lack of disclosures at trial - Displacing the presumption of innocence - Rule for admissibility of fresh evidence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Arthur Kennedy Ross

v. (27286)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Trial - Charge to the jury - Sexual assault against two females under the age of 14 - Whether the trial judge failed to instruct the jury regarding the meaning of the words “beyond a reasonable doubt” in accordance with R. v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320 - Whether the Applicant’s right to a fair trial was denied because of the failure of the trial judge to charge the jury on the dangers of convicting on the unconfirmed and unsworn testimony of a child - Whether the Applicant’s right to a fair trial was denied because of the failure of the trial judge to instruct the jury that the principle of reasonable doubt applied to credibility.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Constantin Teodorescu

c. (27257)

Richard Barbeau (Qué)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Responsabilité civile - Dommages-intérêts - Responsabilité professionnelle - L’intimé, par le biais de ses fautes professionnelles, a-t-il été la cause des dommages subis par le demandeur à la suite du désistement de son recours devant la Cour fédérale? - La Cour supérieure et la Cour d’appel ont-elles erré?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache

Sherry Lynn Wilson

v. (27148)

Geoff Schierbeck and Schierbeck Printing

and Publishing Ltd. (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural Law - Civil Procedure - Jury Verdicts - Appearance of justice - Jury foreperson states a finding of no to gross misconduct in response to a question put to the jury to determine whether the Respondent was grossly negligent - Court clerk enters verdict as no to gross negligence and jury polled - Whether jury foreperson misspoke - Whether the verdict indicates that the jury misunderstood the question - Whether a jury must be seen to understand the question put to it - Whether the decision of the jury contradicts law.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

City of Charlottetown

v. (27144)

Government of Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Charter of Rights  and Freedoms - Civil - Civil rights - Right to vote - Electoral Boundaries - Voter Variance - Section 3  of the Charter  - Whether there is uncertainty in the law as to the proper application of s. 3  of the Charter  - Whether the Reference re Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158 (the “Carter” case) effectively subsumed the s. 1 analysis into the s. 3  Charter  analysis - Upon whom does the ultimate burden of proof lie to justify material deviations from the constitutional principles of “relative voter parity” and “effective representation” - What is the appropriate standard of review/ level of deference for a Court engaged in a ss. 1 , 3  Charter  review of an electoral map - Has the Carter decision been properly interpreted and applied by the appellate courts.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Thomas Lo

v. (27255)

MacKenzie, Gervais, S.E.N.C.

-and-

Metro Power Corporation, Mervin L. Kotler, Charles Wong, Helen Law, Yvon Fayolle (Qué.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial Law - Contracts - Did the Applicant, Thomas Lo, mandate the law firm of Mackenzie, Gervais to act on his behalf or on behalf of Metro Power Corporation? - Did the Applicant, Thomas Lo, guarantee by way of any suretyship to Mackenzie, Gervais the debt of Metro Power Corporation towards the said law firm of Mackenzie, Gervais? - Is the Applicant, Thomas Lo, a partner, shareholder, director, administrator, officer or even an employee of Metro Power Corporation? - Did the Court of Appeal err in law in dismissing the Applicant’s appeal based on the fact that the questions in his appeal are purely and mainly questions which relate to the credibility of the witnesses and there are no questions of law to be determined by the said Court of Appeal, without having before them the complete proof and the Applicant’s Factum in support of allegations indicated in his inscription in appeal?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:    Major, Binnie and Arbour JJ. /

Les juges Major, Binnie et Arbour

Gordon Perks

v. (27153)

Her Majesty the Queen, The Attorney General for Ontario,

Justice of the Peace Donna Philips and Coca‑Cola Beverages Ltd. (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Procedural law - Pre-trial procedure - Private prosecution - Intervention by Attorney General - Charge withdrawn by Attorney General - Whether the reviewing judge and the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that there is a threshold requirement to show impropriety before an evidentiary hearing may be held - Whether it constitutes an abuse of process for the executive branch of government to suspend the application of particular laws.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Benedict Hammond and Eileen Hammond

v. (27157)

The Town Council of the Town of Wabana (Nfld.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Municipal law - Torts - Negligence - Liability of municipalities - Standard of care - Fire protection - Causality -What is the appropriate standard of care to be observed by a volunteer fire department when carrying out its duties? - Did the courts below err in holding that the standard of care was equivalent to that laid down in the “Good Samaritan” cases; i.e. that there is not negligence unless the volunteer fire department does something that actually worsens the situation and is also contrary to the basic principles of firefighting.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Lorne Brown, Donald Petersen, Tero Rampanen,

and 689571 Ontario Limited, operating as

Sovereign Property Corporation

v. (27150)

Regional Municipality of Durham Police Service Board (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Detention - Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 ‑ Applicants members of known motorcycle gang subjected to roadside police checks en route to large biker gatherings - Whether routine checks performed by police on selected motorists constituted a violation of rights under s. 9  of the Charter .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Marth Realties Ltd.

v. (27231)

The Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation ‑ Income tax - Deduction of farming losses - Chief source of income - Farming as actual and potential source of income - Respondent applied section 31 and limited the deductions - Moldowan v. The Queen, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 480 - Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in finding that farming and other source of income were not the Applicant chief source of income -  Income Tax Act , R.S.C., 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 1, s. 31 .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

OCTOBER 28, 1999 / LE 28 OCTOBRE 1999

27433                    RODERICK MALACH - v. - ANNETTE HAIDER (Sask.)

CORAM:               L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Bastarache

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family law - Custody - Child of unmarried parents - Parents in volatile relationship separating in 1995 when child was six years old - De facto custody of child with the mother - Father exercising regular access - Problems associated with access arrangements - Report of social worker recommending custody to father - Father awarded custody at trial - Court of Appeal reversing trial decision and awarding custody to mother - Whether Court of Appeal applied proper standard of review - Whether Court of Appeal erred in overturning trial judgment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27117                    MARCHÉ CENTRAL MÉTROPOLITAIN INC. - c. -  LES SOEURS DU BON PASTEUR DE QUÉBEC - et - RICHTER ET ASSOCIÉS INC., ÈS QUALITÉS DE SÉQUESTRE INTÉRIMAIRE (Qué.)

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

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Faillite ‑ Pétition en vue d’une ordonnance de séquestre en vertu de l’art. 43  de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité , L.R.C. (1985), ch. B-3  - Conditions requises - Qualité pour agir - Faute d’avoir fourni une estimation de la valeur de toutes ses garanties, l’intimée peut-elle prétendre détenir une créance lui donnant qualité de créancière pétitionnaire au sens de l’art. 43(2) L.F.I.? - La renonciation partielle à ses garanties jusqu’à concurrence de 1 000$ donne-t-elle qualité à l’intimée pour présenter une requête en vue d’une ordonnance de séquestre selon l’art. 43(2) L.F.I.? - Le paiement sous protêt fait par l’intimée lui donne-t-elle qualité pour présenter une requête en vue d’une ordonnance de séquestre selon l’art. 43(1) L.F.I.? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en rejetant la requête de la demanderesse pour présenter une nouvelle preuve?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

27225                    GABRIELLE CAUX NADEAU, COLETTE NADEAU, ROLLANDE NADEAU, NOËLLA NADEAU, MURIELLE NADEAU, JEAN-GUY NADEAU, BENOÎT NADEAU - c. - ROSE NADEAU, JEANNE NADEAU, GINETTE NADEAU, ALAIN NADEAU (Qué.)

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

La demande d’autorisation d’appel ainsi que la requête pour amendement sont rejetées avec dépens.

The application for leave to appeal and the motion for amendment are dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Code civil - Prescription - Prescription du droit d’action - Action en reddition de compte - Délai de prescription applicable - Point de départ de la prescription - Impossibilité d’agir - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en appliquant le délai de trois ans de l’art. 2925 C.C.Q.? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en ne distinguant pas la prescription du droit des demandeurs à la reddition de compte et celle applicable à leur droit d’action en vue d’obtenir une telle reddition de compte? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en déterminant que le point de départ de la prescription était la date de la fin de l’administration de la succession, soit 1975? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que les demandeurs n’étaient pas dans l’impossibilité d’agir relativement à l’action en reddition de compte?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

27360                    EDMUND R. SAUNDERS v. THE ESTATE OF DOROTHY BELLE CROUSE (N.S.)

CORAM:               Major, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

The motion for stay of execution is dismissed.  The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs on a solicitor-client basis.

La requête visant à obtenir un sursis d’exécution est rejetée.  La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens sur la base procureur-client.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Estates - Executors and administrators - Whether executor is “wasting the estate” within the meaning of s. 31 (1) of the Probate Act, R.S.N.S., c. 359 - Whether the judge of the Probate Court had to find the Applicant guilty of the offence of theft before he concluded that the Applicant was “wasting the estate” - Whether the judge of the Probate Court was required to make an express finding that the Applicant was “wasting the estate” - Whether the judge of the Probate Court had jurisdiction to find the Applicant guilty of the offence of theft - Whether the judge of the Probate Court had jurisdiction to pass or reject the Executor’s account on final settlement of the estate.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

March 18, 1999

Court of Probate of Nova Scotia

(Carver J.)

Applicant ordered to provide security by paying $130,000.00 in cash or $250,000.00 in bonds to the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

May 31, 1999

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

(Glube C.J.N.S., Pugsley and Chipman JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

June 18, 1999

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

(Flinn, J.A., in chambers)

Application to stay the execution of the order dismissed

June 16, 1999

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

8.10.1999

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

19.10.1999

Before / Devant:   ARBOUR J.

Motion for a stay of execution

Xeme Inc.

     v. (27513)

Attorney General for Ontario (Ont.)

Requête en vue de surseoir à l’exécution

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

The mere fact that the appeal may be moot, or without an object, if the order under appeal is executed before the disposition of the Application for Leave to Appeal is an important, but not the sole and dispositive factor in a motion for a stay of execution of that order.

Having considered the merit of the Application for Leave to Appeal, together with the consequences for both parties if the order is executed, I am not persuaded that this is a proper case for a stay of execution.

Motion denied.

21.10.1999

Before / Devant:    THE REGISTRAR

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

BY/PAR:                The Ontario Securities Commission

IN/DANS:              British Columbia Securities Commission

v. (26887)

Global Securities Corporation (B.C.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to November 22, 1999.

21.10.1999

Before / Devant:   ARBOUR J.

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file an application for leave

Joseph Benard

     v. (27175)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la demande d’autorisation

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to October 29, 1999.

26.10.1999

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Her Majesty the Queen

     v. (27390)

Gerald Robert Wilson (Crim.)(Man.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to September 23, 1999.

26.10.1999

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Jack Joseph Locke

     v. (27385)

The City of Calgary (Alta.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to September 29 1999, nunc pro tunc.

26.10.1999

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondent Attorney General of Saskatchewan’s response

Wayne Bacon, et al.

     v. (27469)

Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation, et al. (Sask.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la réponse de l’intimé le procureur général de la Saskatchewan

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to October 13, 1999.

26.10.1999

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

H.A.R.

     v. (27189)

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

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to September 27, 1999.

26.10.1999

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file  the intervener Attorney General of British Columbia’s factum

British Columbia Human Rights Commission, et al.

     v. (26789)

Robin Blencoe, et al. (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire de l’intervenant le procureur général de la Colombie-Britannique

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to October 8, 1999.

26.10.1999

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Arthur Avetysan, et al.

     v. (27279)

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

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to September 27, 1999.

26.10.1999

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Adele Rosemary Breese (nee Gruenke)

     v. (27207)

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

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to December 23, 1999.

26.10.1999

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file  the intervener Attorney General for Ontario’s  factum and book of authorities

Lance William Wust

     v. (26732)

Her Majesty the Queen  (Crim.)(B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire et le recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’intervenant le procureur général de l’Ontario

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to October 15, 1999.

26.10.1999

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file  the intervener Attorney General for Ontario’s  factum and book of authorities

Kelly Neil Arthurs

     v. (26800)

Her Majesty the Queen  (Crim.)(B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire et le recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’intervenant le procureur général de l’Ontario

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to October 15, 1999.

26.10.1999

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file  the intervener Attorney General for Ontario’s  factum and book of authorities

Christopher Ronald Arrance

     v. (26802)

Her Majesty the Queen  (Crim.)(B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire et le recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’intervenant le procureur général de l’Ontario

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to October 15, 1999.

26.10.1999

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Hemchand Ramlall, B.A., M.D., DOHS

     v. (27444)

The Ontario International Medical Graduate Program, et al. (Ont.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to October 6, 1999.

26.10.1999

Before / Devant:   LE JUGE ARBOUR

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer une demande d’autorisation d’appel

Réal Bérubé, et al.

     c. (27530)

Sa Majesté la Reine, et al. (Qué.)

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the application for leave to appeal

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Délai prorogé au 30 septembre 1999.

26.10.1999

Before / Devant:    THE REGISTRAR

Motion to dispense with printing

Adele Rosemary Breese (nee Gruenke)

     v. (27207)

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

Requête en dispense d’impresssion

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Motion to dispense with printing by permitting the appellant to file 12 copies of volumes I to IX and 24 copies of vol. X of the record and exempting them from marginal numbering and headlines granted, no order as to costs.

OCTOBER 25, 1999 / LE 25 OCTOBRE 1999

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE - v. - GLEN SEBASTIAN BURNS AND ATIF AHMAD RAFAY - and - AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR CRIMINAL LAW & HUMAN RIGHTS, AND CRIMINAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

(B.C.) (26129)

CORAM:                          The Chief Justice and L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory*,

McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.  

A re-hearing is ordered.

Une nouvelle audition est ordonnée.

* Cory J. took no part in the judgment.

* Le juge Cory n’a pas pris part au jugement.

AGENDA for the week of November 8, 1999.

ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine du 8 novembre 1999.

Date of Hearing/                           Case Number and Name/    

Date d'audition                             Numéro et nom de la cause

1999/11/08                                                Ville de Boisbriand, et al. c. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, et al. (Qué.) (Civile) (Autorisation) (26583)

1999/11/09                                                Lance William Wust v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Criminal) (By Leave) (26732)

1999/11/09                                                Kelly Neil Arthurs v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Criminal) (By Leave) (26800)

1999/11/09                                                Christopher Ronald Arrance v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Criminal) (By Leave) (26802)

1999/11/10                                                Allan Granovsky v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (FC) (Civil) (By Leave) (26615)

1999/11/10                                                Will‑Kare Paving & Contracting Limited v. Her Majesty the Queen (FC) (Civil) (By Leave) (26601)

1999/11/11                                                Holiday - Congé

1999/11/12                                                Board of Police Commissioners of the City of Regina v. Regina Police Association Inc., et al. (Sask.) (Civil) (By Leave) (26871)

1999/11/12                                                Richard Timm c. Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.) (Criminelle) (De plein droit) (27023)

NOTE: 

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

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

26583      City of Boisbriand and Communauté urbaine de Montréal v. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse - AND - City of Montréal and Communauté urbaine de Montréal v. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse

Civil rights -- Labour law -- Statutes -- Interpretation -- S. 10 of Charter of human rights and freedoms, R.S.Q., c. C‑12 -- Discrimination -- Notion of “handicap” -- Asymptomatic disorders without functional limitations -- Subjective perception of existence of handicap -- Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that protection against discrimination based on handicap applied in case of asymptomatic disorder causing no functional disability -- Whether state of health included in notion of handicap -- Whether Court of Appeal construed notion of handicap far too broadly.

The City of Boisbriand dismissed Palmerino Troilo because he had a recurring disease, Crohn’s disease, despite medical reports certifying that he could adequately perform the duties of a police officer in the short and medium term since he was asymptomatic. The City of Montréal refused to hire Réjeanne Mercier as a gardener because of slight thoracolumbar scoliosis (which caused no symptoms or limitation of activity) discovered during a pre-employment medical examination. The individuals complained to the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, alleging that they were victims of discrimination based on handicap within the meaning of s. 10 of the Quebec Charter.

Both cases then formed the subject of an application by the Commission to the Tribunal des droits de la personne, which found that complainants Troilo and Mercier were not handicapped because, although they were carriers of a disorder, neither one suffered from a disability or impairment liable to cause a functional limitation.

The Commission appealed in both cases, and the Communauté urbaine de Montréal obtained leave to intervene because it had challenged another decision of the Tribunal des droits de la personne that ran counter to the instant decisions (Commission des droits de la personne v. Communauté urbaine de Montréal, (1996) 26 C.H.R.R. D/466). The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the interventions and allowed the Commission’s appeals, holding in both cases that the employer had violated the complainants’ right to equality protected by s. 10  of the Charter. The Court of Appeal referred the cases back to the Tribunal des droits de la personne for a decision on the occupational requirement defence (s. 20  of the Charter) or, if appropriate, for determination of the proper remedy.

Origin of the case:                                                Quebec

File No.:                                                 26583

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     February 13, 1998

Counsel:                                                                Guy Lemay for the City of Boisbriand, Diane Lafond for the City of Montréal, Pierre-Yves Boisvert for the Communauté urbaine de Montréal

Béatrice Vizkelety for the Respondent

26583      Ville de Boisbriand et Communauté urbaine de Montréal c. La Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse - ET - Ville de Montréal et Communauté urbaine de Montréal c. La Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse

Libertés publiques - Droit du travail - Législation - Interprétation - Art. 10 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., ch. C-12 - Discrimination - Notion de “handicap” - Anomalies asymptomatiques et sans limitation fonctionnelle - Perception subjective de l’existence d’un handicap - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que la protection contre la discrimination fondée sur le handicap s’appliquait dans le cas d’une anomalie asymptomatique et n’occasionnant aucune incapacité fonctionnelle? - L’état de santé est-il inclus dans la notion de handicap? - La Cour d’appel donne-t-elle une portée beaucoup trop large à la notion de handicap?

La Ville de Boisbriand congédie Palmerino Troilo parce qu’il est atteint d’une maladie récidivante, la maladie de Crohn, et ce malgré des rapports médicaux attestant de son aptitude à remplir de façon normale son poste de policier à court et moyen termes puisqu’il est asymptomatique.  Pour sa part la Ville de Montréal refuse d’embaucher Réjeanne Mercier à un poste de jardinière en raison d’une légère scoliose dorso-lombaire (qui ne cause ni symptôme ni limitation d’activité) découverte lors d’un examen médical de préembauche.  Ceux-ci portent plainte auprès de la Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, alléguant qu’ils ont été victimes de discrimination fondée sur un handicap au sens de l’art. 10 de la Charte québécoise.

Les deux dossiers font ensuite l’objet d’une demande par la Commission devant le Tribunal des droits de la personne, lequel conclut que les plaignants Troilo et Mercier ne sont pas handicapés puisque, bien que porteurs d’une anomalie, aucun ne souffre d’un désavantage ou d’une déficience de nature à produire une limitation fonctionnelle.

La Commission interjette appel dans les deux dossiers et la Communauté urbaine de Montréal obtient la permission d’intervenir puisqu’elle a contesté une autre décision du Tribunal des droits de la personne qui va dans le sens contraire des présentes (Commission des droits de la personne c. Communauté urbaine de Montréal, (1996) 26 C.H.R.R. D/466).  La Cour d’appel, à l’unanimité, rejette les interventions et accueille les pourvois de la Commission.  Elle conclut dans les deux cas que l’employeur a violé le droit à l’égalité des plaignants protégé par l’art. 10  de la Charte.  Elle retourne donc les dossiers au Tribunal des droits de la personne pour décision quant à la défense d’exigence professionnelle (art. 20  de la Charte) ou, le cas échéant, pour détermination de la mesure de réparation appropriée.

Origine:                                                  Qué.

N^o du greffe:                                          26583

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel:                    Le 13 février 1998

Avocats:                                                Me Guy Lemay pour la Ville de Boisbriand, Me Diane Lafond pour la Ville de Montréal, Me Pierre-Yves Boisvert pour la Communauté urbaine de Montréal

Me Béatrice Vizkelety pour l’intimée

26732      Lance William Wust v. Her Majesty The Queen

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

On July 5, 1996, at about 4:20 AM, the Appellant and two accomplices robbed a gas station.  The Appellant and one accomplice were armed.  All had their faces covered with bandanas.  The Appellant pointed a loaded 9 mm. semiautomatic pistol into the cashier’s face, showed him that the gun was loaded and demanded that the cashier give him money.  The cashier handed over about $780, and the Appellant then struck the cashier several times on the side of his head and threatened to kill him if he gave the police his description.  The Appellant was arrested a few minutes later at gunpoint and charged with both robbery and possession of a restricted weapon. 

The Appellant was 22 years old at the time of the offence, and had an extensive criminal record in both youth and adult courts, with 30 convictions dating back to July 1990.  He had previously been convicted of violent offences, and a prohibition against possessing firearms was in force at the time of this robbery. 

The trial judge found that the appropriate sentence for this offence was four and one half years together with a further one year concurrent sentence on the charge of possession of a restricted weapon.  He found, however, that the Appellant was entitled to credit of one year for time served before sentencing, thus reducing the sentence on the robbery count to three and one half years, with one year for possession of the automatic pistol to be served concurrently, and a lifetime ban on the possession of firearms.   The trial judge also concluded that the mandatory minimum sentence required by s. 344(a) breached s. 12  of the Charter.  The remedy he fashioned was to apply s. 719(3) to the robbery count so that the Appellant got credit for pre-disposition time served.  The Crown’s appeal from sentence was allowed and the term of imprisonment was increased to four years.

Origin of the case:                                                British Columbia

File No.:                                                 26732

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     May 7, 1998

Counsel:                                                                Harry G. Stevenson for the Appellant

Peter U.W. Ewart Q.C. for the Respondent

26732      Lance William Wust c. Sa Majesté la Reine

Droit criminel - Détermination de la peine - Peines minimales obligatoires - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que les dispositions des art. 719(1) et (3) ne peuvent s’appliquer pour tenir compte du temps passé sous garde en attentant une décision sur les accusations, de façon à réduire une peine à moins du minimum de quatre ans requis par l’art. 344  du Code criminel  ?

Le 5 juillet 1996, vers 4 h 20 du matin, l’appelant et deux complices ont commis un vol dans une station-service.  L’appelant et un complice étaient armés. Tous les trois avaient le visage couvert d’un mouchoir. L’appelant a pointé un pistolet semi-automatique 9mm chargé dans la figure du caissier, lui a montré que l’arme était chargée et a exigé qu’il lui donne l’argent. Le caissier lui a remis environ 780 $. L’appelant l’a alors frappé plusieurs fois sur le côté de la tête et a menacé de le tuer s’il donnait sa description à la police.  L’appelant a été arrêté quelques minutes plus tard sous la menace d’une arme à feu, et il a été accusé à la fois de vol qualifié et de possession d’une arme à autorisation restreinte.

L’appelant avait 22 ans au moment de l’infraction et il avait un dossier criminel chargé, tant devant les tribunaux pour jeunes contrevenants que pour adultes, comptant 30 déclarations culpabilité depuis juillet 1990.  Il a déjà été reconnu coupable de crimes violents et il lui était interdit de posséder une arme à feu au moment de la commission du vol qualifié.

Le juge du procès a conclu que la peine appropriée pour cette infraction était quatre ans et demi de prison, assortie d’une peine concurrente d’un an de prison sur l’accusation de possession d’une arme à autorisation restreinte. Il a cependant conclu que l’appelant avait droit à un crédit d’un an pour le temps passé en prison avant l’imposition de la sentence, ce qui réduisait la peine relative au chef de vol qualifié à trois ans et demi, avec un an pour possession du pistolet automatique, à être purgée concurremment, et une interdiction à vie de possession d’arme à feu.  Le juge du procès a également conclu que la peine minimale obligatoire requise par l’al. 344a) contrevenait à l’art. 12  de la Charte.  Le redressement qu’il a conçu consistait à appliquer le par. 719(3) au chef de vol qualifié de façon à ce que l’appelant bénéficie d’un crédit pour le temps purgé avant la décision sur la peine.

L’appel de la sentence fut accueilli et la peine d’emprisonnement fut établie à 4 ans.

Origine:                                                  Colombie-Britannique

N^o du greffe:                                          26732

Arrêt de la Cour d'appel:                     Le 7 mai 1998

Avocats:                                                Harry G. Stevenson pour l'appelant

Peter U.W. Ewart, c.r., pour l'intimée

26800      Kelly Neil Arthurs v. Her Majesty The Queen

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

On March 19, 1996, at 4:55 PM, the Appellant robbed a store.  He was carrying an unloaded sawed-off shotgun concealed in his coat, and he had wrapped a shirt around his face as a disguise.  He pointed the gun at the clerk and demanded money.  The clerk complied and handed over about $500, and the Appellant fled.  On March 25, 1996, at about 9:25 AM, again carrying the sawed-off shotgun, the Appellant entered a food market, and reached for the till.  The proprietor struggled with him and the Appellant struck the owner knocking him down and hitting him four times with the gun.  The Appellant was apprehended a short time later.

The Appellant was 28 years old and was said to be a near suicidal drug user.  He had no previous record although he had received a conditional discharge in June of 1994 for possession of a non-functioning switch blade knife.  These robberies were said to be out of character for the Appellant.  The Appellant served about four months of pre-disposition time. 

The Appellant was charged with robbery and attempted robbery.  The trial judge imposed the minimum sentence of four years for the robbery without any deduction for time served, as well as a sentence of three years concurrent for the attempted robbery, and a 10 year prohibition against possession of firearms on each count.  The trial judge commented that the sentence in this case represented somewhat of an anomaly as she considered each offence to be equally serious, but she attributed this to the fact that a mandatory sentence at the high end of the scale for robbery is not unconstitutional  The Appellant appealed against the mandatory minimum sentence and the refusal of the trial judge to make a deduction for time served.  The appeal was dismissed.

Origin of the case:                                                British Columbia

File No.:                                                 26800

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     May 7, 1998

Counsel:                                                                James E. Turner for the Appellant

Peter W. Ewert for the Respondent

26800 Kelly Neil Arthurs c. Sa Majesté la Reine

Droit criminel - Détermination de la peine  - Peines minimales obligatoires - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en décidant que l’on ne peut appliquer les art. 719(1) et 719(3) pour tenir compte du temps passé en détention en attente de jugement afin de réduire la peine en‑deçà de la peine minimale de quatre ans d’emprisonnement prévue par l’art. 344(a) du Code criminel ?

Le 19 mars 1996, à 16 h 55, l’appelant a commis un vol qualifié dans un magasin. Il était en possession d’un fusil de chasse à canon tronçonné non-chargé, dissimulé dans son manteau, et il avait enroulé une chemise autour de son visage afin de ne pas être reconnu. Il a braqué le fusil sur le préposé et a demandé de l’argent. Le préposé a obtempéré et lui a remis environ 500 dollars, puis l’appelant a pris la fuite. Le 25 mars 1996, vers 9 h 25, toujours en possession du fusil de chasse à canon tronçonné, l’appelant a pénétré dans un marché d’alimentation et s’est emparé du tiroir‑caisse. Au cours d’une bagarre opposant le propriétaire à l’appelant, ce dernier a frappé le propriétaire le jettant au sol et l’a frappé à quatre reprises avec le fusil. L’appelant fut appréhendé peu de temps après.

L’appelant était âgé de 28 ans et on le disait être un usager de drogue ayant des tendances suicidaires. Il n’avait pas d’antécédants judiciaires bien qu’il ait reçu une absolution conditionnelle en juin 1994 pour possession d’un couteau à cran d’arrêt qui ne fonctionnait pas. On a dit que la commission des vols qualifiés ne lui ressemblait pas. L’appelant a purgé environ quatre mois de détention préventive.

L’appelant a été accusé de vol qualifié et de tentative de vol qualifié. Le juge du procès a imposé la peine minimale de quatre ans pour le vol qualifié sans déduire le temps purgé à titre de détention préventive, en plus d’une peine de trois ans à être purgée concuremment pour la tentative de vol qualifié, et une interdiction de posséder des armes à feu pour une période de dix ans pour chacun des chefs d’accusation. Le juge du procès a précisé que la peine imposée dans cette affaire était quelque peu irrégulière en ce qu’elle considérait que les crimes étaient tout aussi sérieux l’un que l’autre, mais elle attribuait cela au fait que l’imposition d’une peine obligatoire, dans le cas d’un vol qualifié se situant dans le haut de l’échelle de la gravité objective, n’est pas inconstitutionnelle. L’appelant a interjeté appel de la décision lui imposant la peine minimale obligatoire et du refus du juge du procès de déduire le temps purgé. L’appel a été rejeté.

Origine :                                                 Colombie-Britannique

N^o du greffe :                                                         26800

Jugement de la Cour d’appel :                            Le 7 mai 1998

Avocats :                                                               James E. Turner pour l’appelant

Peter W. Ewert pour l’intimée

26802      Christopher Ronald Arrance v. Her Majesty The Queen

Criminal law - Sentencing - Mandatory minimum sentences  -  Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the term of four years imprisonment mandated by s. 344(a) cannot be reduced by taking into account pre-disposition time served pursuant to s. 719(3)  of the Criminal Code .

On January 15, 1997, at about 1:00 AM, the Appellant robbed a gas station.  He pointed a loaded shotgun at the attendant, holding the barrel about five inches from the attendant’s chest and demanded money and cigarettes.  The attendant complied, handing over about $112 and 94 packages of cigarettes.  The Appellant then drove away in a van in which an accomplice had been waiting.  A few moments later this van was stopped by the police and the Appellant fled on foot with the money and cigarettes, but he was apprehended after a short chase.  The money and cigarettes were recovered.  In the van, the police found the shotgun, which was loaded. 

The Appellant pled guilty to robbery.  He was a 21 year old drug addict with a record of 19 convictions since April, 1990.  Following the decision of Grist J. in R. v. Wust (26732), the trial judge gave the Appellant credit for time served and sentenced him to three and one half years imprisonment.  The Appellant appealed his sentence.  The sentence appeal was dismissed, but the Appellant’s sentence was increased to four years imprisonment. 

Origin of the case:                                                British Columbia

File No.:                                                 26802

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     May 7, 1998

Counsel:                                                                James Bahen for the Appellant

Peter U. W. Ewart Q.C. for the Respondent

26802      Christopher Ronald Arrance c. Sa Majesté la Reine

Droit criminel - Détermination de la peine - Peines minimales obligatoires - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant qu’on ne peut pas réduire la durée de quatre ans de prison exigée par l’art. 344a) en tenant compte du temps purgé avant qu’une décision soit rendue, en application de l’art. 719 (3)  du Code criminel  ?

Le 15 janvier 1997, vers 1 heure du matin, l’appelant a commis un vol dans une station-service.  Il a pointé un fusil de chasse chargé en direction du préposé, tenant le canon à environ cinq pouces de sa poitrine, et a exigé l’argent et des cigarettes. Le préposé a obéi, lui remettant environ 112 $ et 94 paquets de cigarettes.  L’appelant s’est alors enfui dans une fourgonnette dans laquelle l’attendait un complice. Quelques minutes plus tard, cette fourgonnette a été stoppée par la police et l’appelant s’est enfui à pied avec l’argent et les cigarettes, mais a été appréhendé après une courte poursuite. L’argent et les cigarettes ont été recouvrés. Dans la fourgonnette, la police a trouvé le fusil de chasse, qui était chargé.

L’appelant a reconnu sa culpabilité à l’accusation de vol qualifié.  Il était un narcomane de 21 ans, dont le dossier comptait 19 déclarations de culpabilité depuis avril 1990. Suivant la décision du juge Grist dans R. c. Wust (26732), le juge du procès a accordé à l’appelant un crédit pour le temps purgé et lui a imposé une peine de trois ans et demi d’emprisonnement. L’appelant a interjeté appel de sa peine.  L’appel a été rejeté, mais la peine de l’appelant a été augmentée à quatre ans d’emprisonnement.

Origine:                                                  Colombie-Britannique

N^o du greffe:                                          26802

Arrêt de la Cour d'appel:                     Le 7 mai 1998

Avocats:                                                James Bahen pour l'appelant

Peter U.W. Ewart, c.r., pour l'intimée

26615      Allan Granovsky v. Minister of Employment and Immigration

Canadian Charter  - Civil - Canada Pension Plan Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8  - Whether the contributory requirements for disability benefits contained in the Canada Pension Plan Act discriminate against temporarily disabled individuals contrary to s. 15(1)  of the Charter - If so, whether the discrimination can be reasonably and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society pursuant to s. 1  of the Charter.

In 1980, the Appellant injured his back and left wrist in a workplace accident.  He was determined to be temporarily totally disabled under the Manitoba Workers’ Compensation Plan Act and received disability benefits under the Act until 1984.  In 1985, he was determined to have a 15% permanent disability and was awarded a lump sum payment.   In 1993, the Appellant applied for a disability pension under the Canada Pension Plan Act on the basis that he was suffering from a degenerative back condition which prevented him from pursuing work.  His application was denied by the Minister of Employment and Immigration on the ground that he did not meet the Plan’s minimum contributory requirements.  Section 44(2)(a) of the Act required claimants to have made contributions for five of the last ten years.  The Appellant argued that he was unable to do so because of his workplace injury.  Prior to his injury, he had made contributions to the Plan during six of seven years.

The Appellant unsuccessfully appealed the Minister’s decision, without counsel, to the Pension Review Tribunal.  The Appellant then appealed, with counsel, to the Pension Appeals Board, raising for the first time a constitutional argument.  The Appellant argued that the contributory requirements of the Canada Pension Plan Act discriminated against temporarily disabled persons and violated their right to equal treatment guaranteed under s. 15(1)  of the Charter because they had the effect of discriminating against temporarily disabled persons who were unable to satisfy them.  He argued that this constituted “indirect” or “adverse effect” discrimination.

The Pension Appeal Board rejected the Appellant’s arguments and dismissed the appeal.  The Appellant then applied to the Federal Court of Appeal for judicial review of the Board’s decision.  His application was dismissed in two sets of very different reasons.  The majority held that the Appellant’s rights under s. 15(1) had been infringed, but that the infringement constituted a reasonable limit demonstrably justified under s. 1  of the Charter.  The minority held, however, that the Appellant had not made a case of discrimination under s. 15 , and that if he had, the government had not discharged the onus of proving that the limitation was reasonable.

Origin of the case:                                                Federal Court of Appeal

File No.:                                                 26615

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     March 10, 1998

Counsel:                                                                Ronald Schmalcel for the Appellant

Edward R. Sojonky for the Respondent

26615      Allan Granovsky c. Ministre de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration

Charte canadienne  - Droit civil - Régime de pensions du Canada , L.R.C. (1985), ch. C-8  - Les exigences de cotisation en vue du versement des prestations d’invalidité prévues dans le Régime de pensions du Canada constituent-elles une discrimination contre des personnes souffrant d’invalidité partielle, contrairement au par. 15(1)  de la Charte? - Dans l’affirmative, la discrimination est-elle une atteinte raisonnable dont la justification peut se démontrer dans le cadre d’une société libre et démocratique conformément à l’article premier de la Charte?

En 1980, l’appelant s’est blessé au dos et au poignet gauche dans un accident du travail.  On a jugé qu’il était atteint d’une invalidité totale temporaire conformément à la Manitoba Worker’s Compensation Plan Act et il a reçu des prestations d’invalidité en application de la Loi jusqu’en 1984.  En 1985, on a considéré qu’il était atteint d’une invalidité permanente de 15% et on lui a accordé une somme globale.  En 1993, l’appelant a demandé une pension d’invalidité en vertu du Régime de pensions du Canada pour le motif qu’il souffrait d’une affection dorsale dégénérative qui l’empêchait de continuer de travailler.  Le ministre de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration a rejeté sa demande pour le motif qu’il ne respectait pas les exigences minimales de cotisation en vertu du Régime.  Aux termes de l’al. 44(2)a) de la Loi, le demandeur doit avoir versé des cotisations au Régime pendant cinq des dix dernières années.  L’appelant a prétendu qu’il n’a pas pu le faire en raison de son accident du travail.  Avant son accident, il avait versé des cotisations au Régime pendant six des sept dernières années.

L’appelant a, sans l’assistance d’un avocat, interjeté appel de la décision du ministre devant le tribunal de révision des pensions mais n’a pas eu gain de cause.  Avec l’assistance d’un avocat, l’appelant a par la suite interjeté appel devant la Commission d’appel des pensions, soulevant pour la première fois un argument constitutionnel.  L’appelant a prétendu que les exigences de cotisation du Régime de pensions du Canada constituaient une discrimination contre des personnes atteintes d’une invalidité temporaire et contrevenaient au droit à l’égalité de traitement garanti par le par. 15(1)  de la Charte parce qu’elles exerçaient une discrimination contre des personnes atteintes d’une invalidité temporaire qui ne pouvaient pas les respecter.  Il a soutenu qu’il s’agissait d’une discrimination «indirecte» ou d’une discrimination «par suite d’un effet préjudiciable».

La Commission d’appel des pensions a rejeté les arguments de l’appelant ainsi que l’appel. L’appelant a par la suite présenté une demande de contrôle judiciaire de la décision de la Commission à la Cour d’appel fédérale.  Sa demande a été rejetée dans deux séries de motifs fort  différents.  La Cour à la majorité a conclu que les droits de l’appelant en vertu du par. 15(1) avaient été violés, mais que cette violation constituait une limite raisonnable dont la justification pouvait se démontrer en vertu de l’article premier de la Charte.  Le juge minoritaire a conclu, toutefois, que l’appelant n’avait pas établi une discrimination au sens de l’art. 15  et que, s’il l’avait fait, le gouvernement ne s’était pas acquitté de son fardeau de prouver que la limite était raisonnable.

Origine:                                                  Cour d’appel fédérale

N^o du greffe:                                          26615

Arrêt de la Cour d'appel:                     Le 10 mars 1998

Avocats:                                                Ronald Schmalcel pour l’appelant

Edward R. Sojonky pour l’intimé

26601      Will-Kare Paving & Contracting Limited v. Her Majesty The Queen

Taxation - Statutes - Interpretation - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that manufacturers who supply goods manufactured by them in conjunction with the provision of services to their customers are not entitled to the deductions under ss.20(1) (a), 125.1  and 127(5)  of the Income Tax Act  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in adopting a presumption that the words “goods for sale” in these sections and the Regulations relating to them were intended to have the common law meaning of a “sale of goods” under the law of contract.

The Appellant had been in the business of asphalt paving since 1974. Until 1988, it purchased asphalt from suppliers, but in 1988 it constructed an asphalt plant. The Appellant felt that it would have to sell some asphalt to third-parties to make the plant economically feasible, and in fact sold approximately 25% of its output to third parties. Between 85 and 90% of the Appellant’s own paving contracts are for new pavement. The trial judge accepted the Appellant’s estimate that 45-50% of the total cost was for materials. The Appellant conceded that these contracts are for work and materials, not sales of goods within the common law meaning of that expression.

In the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988, the Appellant acquired an asphalt plant, related equipment and related controls. In the following two fiscal years, the Appellant incurred additional capital costs. As expected, the Appellant’s sales and revenues from paving contracts and third-party sales increased.

In the taxation years 1988, 1989 and 1990, the Appellant included the plant and additions to it in Class 39 of Schedule II of the Income Tax Regulations claiming that the plant was property used primarily in the manufacturing and processing of goods for sale. The Appellant claimed a capital cost allowance under s. 20(1)(a) of the Act, and claimed deductions with respect to the plant under s. 127(5) of the Act on the grounds that the additions were qualified property within the meaning of s. 127(9) of the Act. The Appellant also claimed the manufacturing and processing profits deduction under s. 125.1(1) of the Act in its 1988 and 1989 taxation years under s. 5201 of the Regulations which prescribes “Canadian manufacturing and processing profits” for s. 125.1(3)(a) of the Act.

The Minister of National Revenue reclassified the property for the purposes of capital cost allowance and denied any investment tax credit under s. 127(5), both on the basis that the plant was not being used “primarily” for the “manufacturing or processing of goods for sale ¼”.  The Appellant appealed the reassessments. The Tax Court and the Federal Court of Appeal denied the Appellant’s appeals.

Origin of the case:                                                Federal Court of Appeal

File No.:                                                 26601

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     February 20, 1998

Counsel:                                                                Robert M. MacLellan and Philip Anisman for the Appellant

Bruce S. Russell and John Bodurtha for the Respondent

26601      Will-Kare Paving & Contracting Limited c. Sa Majesté la Reine

Droit fiscal - Lois - Interprétation - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que des fabricants qui fournissent des marchandises fabriquées par eux en même temps qu’ils fournissent des services à leurs clients n’ont pas droit aux déductions visées aux art. 20(1)a), 125.1 et 127(5) de la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en présumant que les mots “marchandises à vendre” employés dans ces articles et le règlement y afférent devaient avoir le sens que la common law donne à une “vente” en droit des contrats?

La compagnie appelante s'occupait d'asphaltage depuis 1974.  Jusqu'en 1988, elle se procurait l'asphalte nécessaire auprès de fournisseurs, mais en 1988, elle a construit une usine de fabrication d'asphalte.  Elle a estimé qu'elle devrait vendre à des tiers une partie de l'asphalte produit pour que l'usine soit rentable et en fait elle a vendu à des tiers environ 25 p. 100 de la production de l'usine.  Entre 85 et 90 p. 100 des contrats de pavage de l’appelante portent sur du pavage nouveau. Le juge de première instance a accepté l’évaluation de l’appelante suivant laquelle de 45 à 50 p. 100 de coût total était consacré aux matériaux. L’appelante a reconnu que ces contrats se rapportaient au travail et aux matériaux et non à la vente de marchandises au sens de la common law.

Au cours de l’année financière se terminant le 31 mars 1988, l’appelante a acquis une usine de fabrication d’asphalte, ainsi que des équipements et contrôles s’y rattachant. Au cours des deux années financières qui ont suivi, l’appelante a engagé d’autres dépenses de capital.  Comme prévu, les ventes et les revenus provenant des contrats de pavage de l’appelante et des ventes à des tiers ont augmenté.

Au cours des années d’imposition 1988, 1989 et 1990, l’appelante a inclus l’usine et ses ajouts dans la catégorie 39 de l’annexe II du Règlement de l’impôt sur le revenu, alléguant que l’usine était un bien utilisé principalement pour la fabrication ou la transformation de marchandises en vue de la vente.  L’appelante a réclamé une déduction pour amortissement en vertu de l’al. 20(1)a) de la Loi et a réclamé des déductions relativement à l’usine en vertu du par. 127(5) de la Loi au motif que les ajouts étaient des biens admissibles au sens du par. 127(9) de la Loi.  L’appelante a aussi réclamé la déduction relative aux bénéfices de fabrication et de transformation en vertu du par. 125.1(1) de la Loi, dans ses années d’imposition 1988 et 1989, en vertu de l’art. 5201 du Règlement qui définit les “bénéfices de fabrication et de transformation au Canada” aux fins de l’al. 125.1(3)a) de la Loi.

Le ministre a reclassifié le bien aux fins de la déduction pour amortissement et a rejeté tout crédit d'impôt à l'investissement conformément au paragraphe 127(5), au motif que l'usine de fabrication d'asphalte n'était pas «principalement» utilisée pour «la fabrication ou la transformation de marchandises à vendre [...]».  L’appelante a interjeté appel des nouvelles cotisations. La Cour de l’impôt et la Cour d’appel fédérale ont rejeté les appels de l’appelante.

Origine:                                                                  Cour d'appel fédérale

N^o du greffe:                                                          26601

Arrêt de la Cour d'appel:                                     le 20 février 1998

Avocats:                                                                Robert M. MacLellan et Philip Anisman pour l'appelante

Bruce S. Russel et John Bodurtha pour l’intimée

26871      Board of Police Commissioners of the City of Regina v. Regina Police Association Inc. and Greg Shotton

Administrative law - Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Statutes - Interpretation - Arbitration - Respondent police officer resigned rather than face discipline proceedings - Police chief later refusing to accept Respondent’s withdrawal of his resignation - Respondent grieving that decision under the collective agreement - Arbitrator held that issue was not arbitrable because it fell under the jurisdiction of the Saskatchewan Police Commission or a hearing officer under The Police Act, 1990, S.S. 1990, c. P-15.01  - Whether Court of Appel erred in holding that the issue of the Respondent’s resignation was arbitrable under the collective agreement.

The Respondent Shotton was engaged as a member of the Regina Police Service in 1977 and was promoted to the rank of sergeant in 1995.  In July and September of 1996 he was interviewed by members of the Regina Police Service Internal Affairs Division, and was advised that he would be charged with discreditable conduct and could also be subject to dismissal proceedings under The Police Act, 1990.  In November 1996, he met with his chief of police who indicated that he intended to issue notices of formal discipline proceedings against the Respondent Shotton  and that he would seek an order for dismissal in the event of conviction. He also indicated to the Respondent Shotton that the latter would not be subject to disciplinary action if he resigned.  He gave the Respondent Shotton five days to consider his decision and suggested that he contact a lawyer and a union representative for advice.  After considering the matter and discussing it with his union president, the Respondent Shotton tendered his resignation.  He subsequently attempted to withdraw his resignation, but the chief of police considered his resignation binding and would not permit its withdrawal.  The Respondent Shotton attempted to grieve the police chief’s actions, but his employer, the Regina Board of Police Commissioners, was of the view that it was not a grievable matter as it was governed by the Act and not the collective agreement.  The Respondent Shotton and his union, the Regina Police Association, claimed that the resignation had been submitted under duress and was therefore not valid.  The Respondent Association and the Appellant Board agreed to refer the matter to an arbitrator selected under the collective agreement to determine whether the matter fell under the scope of the Act or the collective agreement. 

The arbitrator held that the issue raised by the grievance was not arbitrable but rather fell within the jurisdiction of the Saskatchewan Police Commission or of a hearing officer acting under the Act.  An application to the Queen’s Bench of Saskatchewan for an order quashing the arbitrator’s decision was dismissed.  A majority of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan allowed the appeal of that decision, with Vancise J.A. dissenting.

Origin of the case:                                                Saskatchewan

File No.:                                                 26871

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     July 20, 1998

Counsel:                                                                Neil Robertson for the Appellant

Merrilee Rasmussen Q.C. for the Respondents Police Assn. and Greg Shotten

26871      Board of Police Commissioners de la ville de Regina c. Regina Police Association Inc. Et Greg Shotton

Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Compétence - Lois - Interprétation -Arbitrage - Le policier intimé a démissionné plutôt que de faire face à des procédures disciplinaires - Refus subséquent du chef de police d’accepter le retrait de la démission de l’intimé - L’intimé a formé un grief contre cette décision en vertu de la convention collective - L’arbitre a conclu que cette question n’était pas arbitrable parce qu’elle relevait de la compétence de la commission de police de la Saskatchewan ou d’un agent d’audition en vertu de The Police Act, 1990, S.S. 1990, ch. P‑15.01 - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que la question de la démission de l’intimé était arbitrable en vertu de la convention collective?

L’intimé Shotton a été embauché comme membre du service de police de Regina en 1977 et a été promu au rang de sergent en 1995. En juillet et septembre 1996, il a été interviewé par les membres de la division des affaires internes du service de police de Regina et a été avisé qu’il serait accusé de conduite indigne et pourrait également faire l’objet de procédures de renvoi en vertu de The Police Act, 1990 (la Loi). En novembre 1996, il a rencontré son chef de police qui a indiqué qu’il avait l’intention d’émettre des avis de procédures disciplinaires officielles contre l’intimé Shotton et que, dans l’éventualité d’une déclaration de culpabilité, il chercherait à obtenir une ordonnance de renvoi. Il a également indiqué à l’intimé Shotton qu’il ne ferait pas l’objet de mesures disciplinaires s’il démissionnait. Il a donné à l’intimé Shotton cinq jours pour examiner sa décision et lui a suggéré de communiquer avec un avocat et un représentant syndical pour obtenir leur avis. Après examen et discussion de l’affaire avec le président de son syndicat, l’intimé Shotton a offert sa démission. Il a plus tard tenté de retirer sa démission, mais le chef de police a considéré que sa démission avait force obligatoire et il n’en a pas autorisé le retrait. L’intimé Shotton a tenté de former un grief contre les actes du chef de police, mais son employeur, le Board of Police Commissioners de Regina, était d’avis que l’affaire n’était pas arbitrable puisqu’elle était régie par la Loi et non par la convention collective. L’intimé Shotton et son syndicat, Regina Police Association, ont prétendu que la démission avait été présentée sous la contrainte et n’était donc pas valide. L’Association intimée et le Board appelant ont convenu de soumettre l’affaire à un arbitre choisi en vertu de la convention collective pour déterminer si l’affaire relevait de la Loi ou de la convention collective.

L’arbitre a conclu que la question soulevée par le grief n’était pas arbitrable, mais qu’elle relevait plutôt de la compétence de la commission de police de la Saskatchewan ou d’un agent d’audition agissant en vertu de la Loi. Une demande à la Cour du Banc de la Reine de la Saskatchewan visant à obtenir une ordonnance annulant la décision de l’arbitre a été rejetée. La Cour d’appel à la majorité a accueilli l’appel de cette décision, le juge Vancise étant dissident.

Origine:                                                                  Saskatchewan

N^o du greffe:                                                          26871

Arrêt de la Cour d'appel:                                     le 20 juillet 1998

Avocats:                                                                Neil Robertson pour l’appelant

Merrilee Rasmussen, c.r., pour les intimés

27023      Richard Timm v. Her Majesty the Queen

Criminal law—Rights and freedoms—Right to silence—Detention—Whether length of detention relevant factor in determining whether right to silence violated—Evidence—Illegally obtained evidence—Connection between discovery of evidence and violation of fundamental right—Likelihood of discovering evidence by alternative non-conscriptive means—Whether Appellant’s right to remain silent while in detention violated—Whether trial judge erred in law in applying section 24(2)  of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .

At around 8:30 p.m. on September 8, 1993, responding to the Appellant’s telephone call, police found the Appellant’s parents dead, murdered in their bed.

When the police arrived, the Appellant was immediately taken to hospital. He was then taken to the police station for an interrogation that lasted forty hours. During this time, he gave the police a number of statements, including an inculpatory statement that the prosecution did not put in evidence. The Appellant’s father’s wallet was also found in the garbage can in the washroom of the police station. During this time, the Appellant had no contact with a lawyer, was strip searched three times and did not appear before a judge within the time prescribed under section 503  of the Criminal Code .

After the period of detention, the Appellant contacted his cousin. In the course of the conversation, in the presence of the police, he told her, [TRANSLATION] “I won’t hide it from you, I did it” and, in reference to his aunt, [TRANSLATION] “Tell her I’m sorry.” He also said that if he could turn back the clock, he would, but unfortunately he could not, and that his mother’s death was an accident.

About a month later, in light of the questioning of Yannick Gagné, one of the alleged accomplices, and information he gave, the police found the murder weapon, which was seized and filed in evidence at the Appellant’s trial. It was admitted that the questioning took place after the police were authorized to wiretap based on the Appellant’s compromising statement that was not put in evidence.

The evidence also disclosed a motive: his financial difficulties. The Appellant was therefore convicted of murdering his adoptive parents and conspiring with three people, including Yannick Gagné and Claude Boismenu.

Origin of the case:                                                Quebec

File No.:                                                 27023

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     November 3, 1998

Counsel:                                                                Josée Ferrari for the Appellant

Stéphane Lamarche for the Respondent

27023      Richard Timm c. Sa Majesté la Reine

Droit criminel - Droits et libertés - Droit au silence - Détention - La durée de la détention est-elle un facteur pertinent afin de déterminer si le droit au silence a été violé? - Preuve - Obtention de preuves par des moyens illégaux - Lien entre la découverte de preuves et la violation du droit fondamental - Probabilité de découverte des éléments de preuve par des moyens autres que la mobilisation de l’appelant contre lui-même - Le droit de l’appelant de garder le silence durant sa détention a-t-il été violé? - Le juge de première instance a-t-il erré en droit dans son application de l’article 24 (2)  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

Le 8 septembre 1993, vers 20h30, les policiers, à la suite d’un appel téléphonique de l’appelant, découvrent les parents de celui-ci morts, assassinés dans leur lit.

À l’arrivée des policiers, l’appelant est immédiatement conduit à l’hôpital. Il est ensuite conduit au poste de police pour être interrogé. Il n’en sortira que quarante heures plus tard. Il donnera, durant cette période, plusieurs déclarations aux policiers, dont une déclaration compromettante qui ne sera jamais produite en preuve par la poursuite. Le portefeuille du père de l’appelant sera également retrouvé dans la poubelle de la salle de bain du poste de police. Durant cette période, il ne communiquera pas avec un avocat, subira trois fouilles à nu et ne comparaîtra pas devant un juge dans le délai prévu à l’article 503  du Code criminel .

À la fin de la période de détention, l’appelant communiquera avec sa cousine. Au cours de la conversation, en présence des policiers, il lui mentionne: “Je ne te le cacherai pas, c’est moi” et, en parlant de sa tante: “Demande-lui pardon de ma part”. Il lui explique aussi que s’il pouvait revenir en arrière, il le ferait, mais que malheureusement il ne le pouvait pas et que le décès de sa mère était accidentel.

Environ un mois plus tard, à la suite de l’interrogatoire de Yannick Gagné, un des présumés complices, et des informations données par celui-ci, les policiers retrouveront l’arme du crime qui sera saisie et déposée en preuve au procès de l’appelant. Il est admis que cet interrogatoire a eu lieu à la suite de l’obtention, par les policiers, d’une autorisation d’écoute électronique. Cette autorisation a elle-même été obtenue en se fondant sur la déclaration compromettante de l’accusé non mise en preuve.

La preuve a également révélé l’existence d’un mobile: ses difficultés financières. L’appelant a donc été déclaré coupable des meurtres de ses parents adoptifs ainsi que de complot avec trois personnes, dont Yannick Gagné et Claude Boismenu.

Origine:                                                  Québec

N^o du greffe:                                          27023

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel:                    Le 3 novembre 1998

Avocats:                                                Me Josée Ferrari pour l’appelant

Me Stéphane Lamarche pour l’intimée

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, *A   935(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, *B                                                     1653(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, *A                                                                               538(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, *A                                                                                     537(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, *A                           979(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, *B                                                                                                                                    1500(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)

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, *A                                 938(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, *A                                                                     745(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)

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, *A                                                      1491(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)

Benoît c. Landry (Qué.), 27203, *B                                                                                           1593(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, *A                                                                                      1520(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, *A                               774(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, *A                                                                                    1491(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)

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, *A                                                               937(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 Columbia College of Teachers v. Trinity Western University (B.C.), 27168,

    *A                                                                                                                                              536(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, *B                                                                                                                                    1660(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, *B               1591(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)

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)

Campbell v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27342, *01 14.10.99                                                   1229(99)                           1545(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, *B                                                      1326(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, *A                                                                                   1518(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)

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

Centra Gas Manitoba v. Bohemier (Man.), 27197, *A                                                         745(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, *B                                             1493(99)

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

Chung v. The Queen (Alta.), 27508, *A                                                                                   1517(99)

City of Charlottetown v. Government of Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.), 27144, *B        1658(99)

City of Edmonton v. Protection Mutual Insurance Co. (Alta.), 27186, *A                       538(99)

Clapp v. The Queen (Ont.), 27381, *B                                                                                      1590(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, *A                                                                                                                       705(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, *B                                                                                                1172(99)

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

   minière Québec Cartier (Qué.), 27128, *B                                                                           1500(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)

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 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)

Couture c. Ferme La Champignière Inc. (Qué.), 27301, *A                                                1320(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, *B                                                 1496(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, *B                                                                              1648(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, *A                                                          777(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)

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, *A                                                                                         1323(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)

Dynamex Canada Inc. v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers (F.C.A.), 27300, *B         1653(99)

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

   25545, *A                                                                                                                                   2143(96)

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, *A                                                                                    1517(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)

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, *B                                                                          1521(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)

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, *B                                                      1595(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)

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 (Qué.), 27388, *B                                                       1649(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, *A                                                                                      1516(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)

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, *B                                1650(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, *A                                                           458(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)

Gorenko v. The Queen (Qué.), 27266, *A                                                                                775(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, *B                                                                       1655(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, *B                                                        1648(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)

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, *A                                                                        777(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, *B                             1660(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)

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)