Bulletins

SUPREME COURT                                                         COUR SUPRتME

OF CANADA                                                              DU CANADA   

       BULLETIN  OF                        BULLETIN DES

       PROCEEDINGS                         PROCÉDURES

May 21, 1999  773 - 858                                                                    le 21 mai 1999

CONTENTS                                       TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Yvon Descoteaux

Yvon Descoteaux

c. (26023)

Le Barreau du Québec et al. (Qué.)

François Folot

Flynn, Rivard, s.e.n.c.

DATE DE PRODUCTION 12.4.1999

Mustafa Dadar

Randall G. Maillet

v. (26833)

Her Majesty the Queen (N.B.)

James R. McAvity

A.G. of New Brunswick

FILING DATE 30.4.1999

Natalie Charbel

Natalie Charbel

c. (27155)

Daniel Tzintzis et al. (Qué.)

Marc de Wever

Lafleur Brown

DATE DE PRODUCTION 14.4.1999

Lor Tou Vang et al.

Gregory Lafontaine

Lafontaine & Associates

v. (27164)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Philip Downes

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE  30.4.1999

Glengarry Bingo Association

Donald N. Cherniawsky

Felesky Flynn

v. (27166)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.A.)

J.E. (Ted) Fulcher

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 3.5.1999

Paul David Smithson

Paul David Smithson

v. (27253)

Sandra Louise Smithson (Ont.)

Sandra Louise Smithson

FILING DATE 16.4.1999

Trent William Dryborough et al.

Richard B. Lindsay

Lindsay Kenney

v. (27254)

The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 43 (Coquitlam) (B.C.)

J.D. Truscott, Q.C.

Guild Yule & Company

FILING DATE 16.4.1999

Thomas Lo

Nagi Ebrahim

Ebrahim, MacLeod & Gervais

v. (27255)

Mackenzie, Gervais, s.e.n.c. et al. (Que.)

Julie Normand

McMaster Gervais

FILING DATE 16.4.1999

Dr. Earl Shuman

Henry S. Brown, Q.C.

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson

v. (27256)

The Ontario New Home Warranty Program (Ont.)

Netanus T. Rutherford

FILING DATE 16.4.1999

Constantin Teodorescu

Constantin Teodorescu

c. (27257)

Richard Barbeau (Qué.)

Jean-Jacques Gagnon

de Grandpré Godin, avocats

DATE DE PRODUCTION 19.4.1999

Monenco Limited and 67669 Alberta Inc.

John R. Singleton, Q.C.

Singleton Urquhart Scott

v. (27258)

Commonwealth Insurance Company et al. (B.C.)

D. Barry Kirkham, Q.C.

Owen Bird

FILING DATE 19.4.1999

Jag D. Bhaduria

Jag D. Bhaduria

v. (27259)

Toronto Board of Education et al. (Ont.)

J. Paul Howard

Shibley Righton

FILING DATE 19.4.1999

Bruce Agra Foods Inc.

Claude R. Thomson, Q.C.

Fasken Campbell Godfrey

v. (27260)

Trilwood Investments Limited et al. (Ont.)

Randy A. Pepper

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt

FILING DATE 20.4.1999

René Pearson

Jacques Larochelle

c. (27261)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)

Jacques Casgrain

Subs. du procureur général

DATE DE PRODUCTION 22.4.1999

Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline Management Limited, a body corporate et al.

C.D. O’Brien, Q.C.

Bennett Jones Verchere

v. (27262)

Union of Nova Scotia Indians, a body corporate et al. (F.C.A.)

Bruce H. Wildsmith, Q.C.

FILING DATE 22.4.1999

Bruce Douglas Peters

Richard C.C. Peck, Q.C.

Peck and Tammen

v. (27263)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

William F. Ehrcke, Q.C.

Min. of the A.G.

FILING DATE 22.4.1999

Mary Martha Coady

Mary Martha Coady

v. (27265)

Brian John Boyle (Ont.)

Kenneth Radnoff

Radnoff, Pearl, Slover, Swedko, Dwoskin

FILING DATE 23.4.1999

John Gorenko et al.

Guy Du Pont

Goodman Phillips & Vineberg

v. (27266)

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada et al. (Qué.)

Gilles Ouimet

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 23.4.1999

Michael S. Buhlers

Jeffrey Green

Green & Claus

v. (27268)

The Superintendent of Motor Vehicles for the Province of British Columbia et al. (B.C.)

George H. Copley, Q.C.

Min. of the A.G.

FILING DATE 26.4.1999

Harley Conrad

Ronald A. Pink, Q.C.

Pink Breen Larkin

v. (27270)

Imperial Oil Limited, a partnership of Imperial Oil Ltd. et al. (N.S.)

Brian G. Johnston, Q.C.

McInnes Cooper & Robertson

FILING DATE 30.4.1999

Amber Donna Abel

Edward L. Greenspan, Q.C.

Greenspan, Henein and White

v. (27271)

Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

J.B. Hawkes

Min. of the A.G.

FILING DATE 30.4.1999

Le Syndicat national des employés de l’aluminium d’Alma Inc.

Jocelyn Pilote

Larouche, Lalancette, Pilote & Bouchard, s.e.n.c.

c. (27272)

La Fédération des syndicats du secteur de l’aluminium Inc. et al. (Qué.)

Sylvain Seny

Trudel, Nadeau, Lesage, Larivière et Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION 3.5.1999

Flexi-Coil Ltd.

Roger T. Hughes, Q.C.

Sim, Hughes, Ashton & McKay

v. (27273)

Bourgault Industries Ltd. (F.C.A.)

Nicholas Fyfe, Q.C.

Smart & Biggar

FILING DATE 3.5.1999

Russell Martel

Rolland Russell Martel

v. (27275)

Brian Davidson (Ont.)

Richard B. Swan

Fasken Campbell Godfrey

FILING DATE 6.5.1999

Michael R. Guillemette

Michael R. Guillemette

v. (27280)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.A.)

Robert Carvalho

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 7.5.1999

Yves Bellavance

Robert Delorme

c. (27282)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)

Henri-Pierre Labrie

Subs. du procureur général

DATE DE PRODUCTION 7.5.1999

Kathleen A. Wilson, legal agent for Douglas C. Wilson and Subsea Cities Inc.

Kathleen A. Wilson

v. (27283)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.A.)

FILING DATE 10.5.1999

The Canadian Red Cross Society and York Finch General Hospital

Peter K. Boeckle

MacMillan Rooke Boeckle

v. (27284)

Douglas Walker as Executor of the Estate of Alma Walker et al. (Ont.)

Bonnie A. Tough

Hodgson Tough Shields DesBrisay O’Donnell

FILING DATE 10.5.1999

The Canadian Red Cross Society and the Toronto Hospital

Peter K. Boeckle

MacMillan Rooke Boeckle

v. (27285)

Lois Osborne as Executrix of the Estate of Ronald Charles Osborne, deceased et al. (Ont.)

Kenneth Arenson

FILING DATE 10.5.1999

Tivadar Galantai

Tivadar Galantai

c. (27288)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)

Michel F. Denis

Bureau des subs. du Procureur général

DATE DE PRODUCTION  27.4.1999

Frans G.A. Deroy et al.

David G. Colford

Brisset Bishop

v. (27290)

Holt Cargo Systems Inc. et al. (F.C.A.)

Thomas Hart

McInnes Cooper & Robertson

FILING DATE 11.5.1999

Ville de Sept-Îles

Claude Bureau

c. (27291)

Le Syndicat canadien de la Fonction publique, section locale 2589 et al. (Qué.)

Richard Gauthier

Trudel, Nadeau, Lesage, Larivière et associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION 11.5.1999

Victor Russell Walters

Marvin R.V. Storrow, Q.C.

Blake, Cassels & Graydon

v. (27293)

Northland Bank (In Liquidation) (B.C.)

William B. McAllister, Q.C.

Boughton Peterson Yang Anderson

FILING DATE 11.5.1999

Lewis Energy Management Inc.

Stephen A. McArthur

McArthur - Vereschagin

v. (27294)

Kevin MacKinnon (Ont.)

Gary Luftspring

Goodman & Carr

FILING DATE 11.5.1999

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada

Marie Nichols, c.r.

Morris Rosenberg

c. (27295)

Bernard Miller et al. (Qué.)

Léonard E. Seidman

Campbell, Cohen, Seidman, Léveillé

DATE DE PRODUCTION 14.5.1999

Braintech, Inc.

Michael Wilhelmson

McCarthy Tétrault

v. (27296)

John C. Kostiuk (B.C.)

Jeffrey Scouten

FILING DATE 14.5.1999

Her Majesty the Queen

Deborah Carlson

Dept. of Justice

v. (27297)

Harry Hoeppner (Man.)

Arne Peltz

Legal Aid Manitoba

FILING DATE 14.5.1999

Joseph Seward et al.

Louise Mandell, Q.C.

Mandell Pinder

v. (27298)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Brian W. Rendell

Min. of the A.G.

FILING DATE 17.5.1999

B.S.

Charles Lugosi

Lugosi & Cornett

v. (27048)

The Director of Child, Family and Community Service (B.C.)

Robert Hamilton

Dunnaway, Jackson & Hamilton

FILING DATE  28.4.1999

R.H.

Mario Dionne

Dionne Nadeau

c. (27264)

J.C. (Qué.)

Johanne Denis

Delorme & Denis

DATE DE PRODUCTION 23.4.1999

D.L. and L.E.

Albert C. Peeling

Azevedo & Peeling

v. (27276)

The Director of Children and Families (B.C.)

G.L.F. Somers, Q.C.

Somers & Company

FILING DATE  7.5.1999

Paul André Trudeau

Paul André Trudeau

c. (27274)

M.L. et al. (Qué.)

Claude Lemire

DATE DE PRODUCTION 6.5.1999

MAY 17, 1999 / LE 17 MAI 1999

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

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges McLachlin et Iacobucci

P.R.

c. (27206)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Charte Canadienne  ‐ Criminel - Droit criminel - Droit à une défense pleine et entière - Amnésie rétrograde - Art. 7 , 10  b ) , 11  d )  et 24  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Suite à une amnésie causée par un traumatisme crânien, le demandeur a perdu tout mémoire des événements entourant les infractions qui lui sont reprochées - Le demandeur présente une requête en vertu de la Charte canadienne  alléguant qu’il ne peut présenter une défense pleine et entière - Arrêt des procédures ordonné par la Cour du Québec (Chambre de la jeunesse) - La Cour d’appel ordonne que le procès du demandeur s’instruise devant un autre juge de la Cour du Québec (Chambre de la jeunesse) - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en concluant qu’il n’y avait pas ouverture dans le présent dossier à un recours en vertu de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés , se basant sur la prémisse que l’accusé était tout à fait en mesure de communiquer avec son procureur, de comprendre la preuve de la poursuite et de donner les instructions appropriées à son avocat? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en concluant que le recours à l’article 24(1)  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  était prématuré?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

                                         Stephen M. Byer, Robert Byer, ès qualités and 2786885 Canada Inc.

                                                                                                c. (26539)

                                                                                    Bernardo Reyes (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Procédure civile - Jugements et ordonnances - Appel - Aux termes de l’art. 519 du Code de procédure civile, L.R.Q., ch. C-25, la Cour d’appel a-t-elle l’obligation de motiver ses décisions d’accueillir la requête en cautionnement et d’accueillir la requête en rejet d’appel de l’intimé? - L’absence de motifs cause-t-elle un préjudice aux demandeurs? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en ordonnant aux demandeurs de fournir un cautionnement? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en niant aux demandeurs la possibilité de fournir un cautionnement?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Attorney General of British Columbia

v. (27045)

Pacific Press, a Division of Southam Inc., Garry B. Nixon (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Civil procedure - Whether chambers judge erred in declining to strike out statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable claim

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache

Fernand Gosselin

c. (27178)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Charte canadienne  - Criminel - Droit criminel ‐ Détention - Preuve - Détention arbitraire - Arrestation illégale - Exclusion de la preuve - Art. 9  et 24 (2)  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Le demandeur a été trouvé coupable de conduite d’un véhicule à moteur alors que son taux d’alcoolémie dépassait la limite légale et d’entrave à un agent de la paix agissant dans l’exécution de son devoir - Les tribunaux de juridiction inférieure ont-ils erré en droit en déclarant que la détention du demandeur n’était pas arbitraire eu égard aux faits prouvés et en omettant d’exclure la preuve obtenue, dont le certificat du technicien qualifié, conformément aux articles 9  et 24(2)  de la Charte canadienne ? - Les tribunaux de juridiction inférieure ont-ils erré en droit en omettant de déclarer que les agents de la paix n’étaient pas dans l’exécution de leur devoir et en omettant conséquemment de prononcer l’acquittement du demandeur sur le troisième chef d’accusation, soit le chef d’entrave à un agent de la paix dans l’exercice de son devoir?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

La procureure générale du Québec et Gilles Belval

c. (27212)

Ghislain Noiseux et Procureur Général du Canada (Crim.)(Qué.)

ET ENTRE:

La Procureure Générale du Québec et Gilles Belval

c. (27212)

Denis Comeau et Procureur Général du Canada (Crim.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Droit constitutionnel - Législation - Procès - Procédure préalable au procès - Interprétation - Droits linguistiques - Le par. 841(3) du Code criminel  requiert-il que les textes des formules y prévues soient imprimés dans les deux langues officielles en un format bilingue? - Dans l’affirmative, le par. 841(3) viole-t-il des droits garantis par l’art. 133  de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867  et est-il par conséquent inapplicable constitutionnellement aux poursuites devant les tribunaux du Québec? - Dans l’affirmative, le par. 841(3)  du Code criminel  peut-il recevoir une interprétation atténuée voulant que les textes des formules y prévues soient imprimés dans les deux langues officielles en deux formats unilingues, pour les poursuites devant les tribunaux du Québec?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 31 mars 1999

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

Robert Lavigne

v. (27011)

Human Resources Development (formerly Health and Welfare Canada) and Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.A.)(Qué.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Costs - Whether legislation permits the Court to order costs, other than ‘out of pockets,’ to lay litigants.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Communauté urbaine de Québec et Ville de Québec

                                                                                                c. (26863)

                                                                            Les Galeries de la Capitale Inc.

- et -

Bureau de révision de l’évaluation foncière du Québec (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit municipal - Évaluation - Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire -  Évaluation pour fins de taxe locative d’un parc d’amusement intégré dans un grand centre commercial - Parc récréatif exploité à perte par les propriétaires du centre commercial - Quelle est la norme de contrôle applicable à une Cour siégeant en appel d’une décision d’un tribunal administratif non protégé par une clause privative, lorsque la loi prévoit un droit d’appel et que le litige vise une question qui requiert l’application de l’expertise spécialisée du tribunal? - Appartient-il à la collectivité de subventionner une exploitation commerciale déficitaire par le biais de l’équivalent d’une exemption de taxes?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

CORAM:   Cory, Major and Binnie JJ. /

Les juges Cory, Major et Binnie

Michel Provost

v. (27198)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sentence - Whether Court of Appeal for the Province of British Columbia erred in overturning the determinate sentence imposed on the Applicant.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Cudd Pressure Control Inc.

v. (27029)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.A.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Business Tax - Notional expenses - Permanent establishments in Canada of foreign enterprises - U.S. corporation operates in Canada through a permanent establishment -  Permanent establishment provides services to client in Canada using unique equipment owned by U.S. corporation -  No rent is paid by the permanent establishment for the use of the equipment - In calculating income of permanent establishment for Canadian taxation services, whether notional rent for use of unique equipment can be deducted as an expense - Whether notional transactions should be taken into account in computing the income of a permanent establishment - Whether the tax treaty in question required notional intra-corporate transactions to be taken into account in computing the income of a non-resident person who carries on business in Canada through a permanent establishment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

December 16, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

Gerald W. Veinot

v. (27047)

Reginald A. Veinot, M. Carmon Veinot and

 Nina L. Veinot, Adminstratrix of the Estate of

Maurice Clinton Veinot (N.S.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law ‐ Estates - Real property - Remedies - Constructive and resulting trust - Farmer dying intestate - Two sons having spent their adult lives working, improving and running farming operation - Third son having made less substantial contribution of work to the farm - Trial judge awarding 35% share of net value of estate to each of two sons who worked the land, and 5% share to third son; remainder of estate to be divided in accordance with Intestate Succession Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 236 - Whether Court of Appeal erred in law by in affirming  trial judge’s findings in law with respect to conflicting doctrines of constructive and resulting trust and implied partnership, and in disregarding the Intestate Succession Act ans Matrimonial Property Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c.275 - Whether Court of Appeal failed to apply appropriate standard of appellate review - Whether Court of Appeal failed to apply the appropriate test for objection on the basis of judicial bias.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

December 24, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

Abbott Laboratories,  Limited and Abbott Laboratories

v. (27051)

Nu‐Pharm Inc. and the Minister of Health Canada (F.C.A.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Patents - Construction - Evidence - Can extrinsic patents be tendered without proof as evidence of their contents - Can extrinsic and later filed patents be used to construe the patent at issue - Can a presumption of lack of obviousness of one process be drawn from the issuance of one or more extrinsic patents on other processes - Can the Federal Court of Appeal disregard all evidence apart from the disputed evidence contained in the extrinsic patents?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

February 11, 1998

Federal Court (Trial Division)

(Lutfy J.)

Application to prohibit the Minister of National Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance to the Respondent granted

September 28, 1998

Federal Court of Appeal

(Desjardins, Linden and Létourneau JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed; order set aside

November 26, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

MAY 17, 1999 / LE 17 MAI 1999

27208                    CAMCO INC. and GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY - v. - WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION and INGLIS LIMITED (F.C.A.)

CORAM:               Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

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

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

August 18, 1997

Federal Court of Canada (Trial Division)

(Cullen J.)

Respondents’ Canadian patents 1,049,803 and 1,095,734 valid; latter patent infringed; Respondents to elect between profits and damages; permanent injunction against Applicants with respect to latter patent; Applicants’ counterclaim dismissed

January 22, 1999

Federal Court of Appeal

(Stone, Létouneau and Sexton JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed with costs March 23, 1999

March 23, 1999

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

27209                    MAYTAG CORPORATION, MAYTAG LIMITED AND MAYTAG QUEBEC INC. - v. - WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION and INGLIS LIMITED (F.C.A.)

CORAM:               Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

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

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

MAY 20, 1999 / LE 20 MAI 1999

27024                    FRED THOMPSON - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Alta.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law - Defence - Honest belief in consent  - Evidence - Hearsay evidence - Whether there was an “air of reality” to the Applicant’s defence of honest belief in consent? - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in not setting aside a conviction for sexual assault after finding error in the admissibility of hearsay evidence at trial?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27088                    DENIS RUSSEL MCCULLOUGH - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

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

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in holding that the decision in Regina v. Chaulk, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303, concerning the constitutionality of former s. 16(4)  of the Criminal Code , was determinative of the Applicant’s constitutional challenge to ss. 16(2) and (3) of the current Code given the recent enactment of Part XX.1 of the Code - Whether the Applicant, because of his history as a patient in state-run mental health facilities under the authority of Lieutenant Governor’s warrant, is entitled to a constitutional exemption, pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, from the application of the presumption of sanity at his trial.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

July 9, 1998

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(McMurtry C.J.O., Labrosse, and Abella  JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

January 19, 1999

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal and motion for extension of time filed

27133                    ROGER DALE PATERSON v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(B.C.)

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

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

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Charge to jury - “Rolled-up charge” - Defences - Automatism - Intent - Common sense inference - Second degree murder - Jury empanelling procedure - Challenge for cause - Whether the trial judge erred in failing to allow prospective jurors to be asked about bias against homosexuals - Whether the trial judge erred in imposing a publication ban on names of witnesses - Whether the trial judge erred regarding the admissibility of witnesses’ statements - Whether the trial judge adequately instructed the jury on the defences put forth by the Applicant - Whether the trial judge was obligated to give the jury a rolled-up charge putting forth the Applicant’s multiple defences - Whether the trial judge adequately instructed the jury on the common sense inference.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26936                    2897041 CANADA INC. v. IMMOBILIÈRE NATGEN INC. (Que.)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Civil Code - Loan - Leases - Assignment of rentals - Art. 1571 Civil Code of Lower Canada, S.C. 1865, c. 41 - Acceptance of assignment - Did the Lessee accept that all rental payments due by it under a lease agreement would be paid to the Lessor’s first ranking hypothecary creditor? - Declaratory judgment by the Superior Court declaring that an assignment of rentals in favour of the Lessor’s second ranking hypothecary creditor had priority over the assignment of rentals to the first ranking hypothecary creditor - Judgment reversed by the Court of Appeal, assignment of rentals in favour of first ranking hypothecary creditor held to have priority.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27027                    RONALD COUGHLIN  v. WILLIAM F. COMERY AND FLEURY COMERY  (Ont.)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence - Solicitor-client relationship - Standard of care - Scope of retainer agreement - What is the standard of care of a lawyer to a client - The scope of a lawyer’s intake consultation - Whether a lawyer who is consulted in respect of an injury and potential rights under a disability policy owes a duty to his client in respect of the potential rights in tort law - Did the lower courts dispose of this case properly.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26838                    LOVEY CRIDGE - v. - LAWRENCE PIERCE (B.C.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

The application for reconsideration of the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La requête visant à obtenir le réexamen de la demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

4.5.1999

Before / Devant:   CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER

Motion by the appellant to state a constitutional question

K.L.W.

    v. (26779)

Winnipeg Child and Family Services (Man.)

Requête de l’appelante pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

Notices of intention to intervene are to be filed no later than June 14, 1999.

1.             Is s. 21(1) of The Child and Family Services Act, S.M. 1985‐86, c. C‐80, as amended, in whole or in part inconsistent with, or infringe or deny rights guaranteed by, s. 7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

2.             If the answer to the foregoing question is yes, is s. 21(1) of The Child and Family Services Act, S.M. 1985‐86, c. C‐80 as amended demonstrably justified pursuant to s. 1  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

[traduction]

1.             Le paragraphe 21(1) de la Loi sur les services à l’enfant et à la famille, L.M. 1985‐86, ch. C‐80 et ses modifications, est‐il, en totalité ou en partie, incompatible avec les droits garantis par l’art. 7  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés , ou y porte‐t‐il atteinte?

2.             Dans l’affirmative, la justification du par. 21(1) de la Loi sur les services à l’enfant et à la famille, L.M. 1985‐86, ch. C‐80 et ses modifications, peut‐elle se démontrer conformément à l’article premier de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

11.5.1999

Before / Devant:   LE REGISTRAIRE ADJOINT

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

Jean Piché

    c. (27237)

Sa Majesté La Reine (Qué.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Délai prorogé au 8 juin 1999.

12.5.1999

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the response of the respondent, Robert Schram

Derek Alchimowicz

     v. (27187)

Robert Schram, et al. (Ont.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to April 30, 1999.

12.5.1999

Before / Devant:   BASTARACHE J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:               Criminal Lawyers’ Association

IN/DANS:             Her Majesty the Queen

v. (26339)

Thomas Andrew Bunn (Crim.)(Man.)

and

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (26462)

R.N.S. (Crim.)(B.C.)

and

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (26377)

R.A.R. (Crim.)(Man.)

and

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (26329)

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

L.F.W. (Crim.)(Nfld.)

and

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (26376)

Jeromie Keith D. Proulx (Crim.)(Man.)

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

14.5.1999

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

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

Mark Edward Russell

     v. (26699)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire, le dossier et le cahier de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’appelant

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to April 30, 1999.

17.5.1999

Before / Devant:   CORY J.

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

Arthur Kennedy Ross

    v. (27286)

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

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to August 16, 1999.

17.5.1999

Before / Devant:   CORY J.

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

Ernest Dwayne Sangwais

     v. (27287)

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

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to July 14, 1999.

18.5.1999

Before / Devant: CORY J.

Motions for extension of time and leave to intervene

BY/PAR:               Attorney General of New Brunswick, Attorney General of Alberta and the Council of Canadians with Disabilities (“CCD”)

IN/DANS:             Terry Grismer (Estate)

v. (26481)

British Columbia Council of Human Rights, et al.  (B.C.)

Requêtes en prorogation de délai et en autorisation d'intervenir

GRANTED / ACCORDÉES

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1.                  The motion for an extension of time and for leave to intervene of the applicant Attorney General of New Brunswick is granted, the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length and to present oral argument not to exceed 10 minutes.

2.                  The motion for an extension of time and for leave to intervene of the applicant Attorney General of Alberta is granted, the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length and to present oral argument not to exceed 10 minutes.

3.                  The motion for an extension of time and for leave to intervene of the applicant Council of Canadians with Disabilities (“CCD”) is granted, the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length and to present oral argument not to exceed 10 minutes.

The interveners shall not be entitled to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record apart from their factum and oral submissions.

Pursuant to Rule 18(6), each of the interveners shall pay to the appellant and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondents by the interventions.

19.5.1999

Sa Majesté la Reine

    c. (26939)

Renaud Lévesque (Qué.)

14.5.1999

O’Shanter Development Company

v. (27179)

Timothy Bartholemew Minott (Ont.)

(leave)  

14.5.1999

Laurier Henri

    c. (27245)

Victoire Henri Qué.)

(demande d’autorisation)

17.5.1999

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

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Newfoundland, et al.

      v. (26362)

Andrew Wells (Nfld.)

John B. Laskin, Reg Locke and Andrew E. Bernstein, for the appellants.

Gillian D. Butler, Q.C., Stacy L. Feltham and Kenneth S. Purchase, for the respondent.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Motion filed by the Appellants for an order extending the time to file a supplementary book of authorities granted.

Nature of the case:

Constitutional Law - Division of Powers - Administrative Law - Statutory office abolished and statutory office holder dismissed without compensation following enactment of replacement Act - Office holder not appointed to replacement board - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in holding that no distinction exists between the Legislature and the Executive, which undermines the supremacy of the Legislature in matters within its constitutional competence - Whether the majority erred in declining to follow Reilly v. The King [1934] A.C. 176 (P.C.) - Whether duty of fairness arises - Whether the office holder has a right to damages.

Nature de la cause:

Droit constitutionnel - Répartition des compétences - Droit administratif - Abolition d’un poste créé par la loi et renvoi du titulaire du poste sans indemnisation après adoption d’une nouvelle loi - Titulaire du poste non nommé dans le poste de remplacement - La Cour d’appel à la majorité a-t-elle commis une erreur en statuant qu’il n’y a, entre le pouvoir législatif et le pouvoir exécutif, aucune distinction qui mine la suprématie du pouvoir législatif dans des matières qui relèvent de sa compétence constitutionnelle? - La Cour d’appel à la majorité a-t-elle commis une erreur en refusant de suivre Reilly c. The King, [1934] A.C. 176 (C.P.)? - L’obligation d’agir avec équité est-elle en cause? - Le titulaire du poste a-t-il droit à des dommages-intérêts?

19.5.1999

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

Her Majesty the Queen

      v. (26854)

W.J.F. (Crim.)(Sask.)

Daryl Rayner, for the Appellant.

David W. Andrews, for the Respondent.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Criminal law - Evidence - Trial - Procedural law - Child witness - Whether the trial judge was correct in holding that it was necessary for the Crown to tender evidence to explain the reason why a child witness would not answer questions put to her before permitting out of court statements made by the child to be introduced into evidence pursuant to R. v. Khan [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531 - Whether the trial judge was correct in finding that the requirement of necessity had not been established when a child witness is unresponsive and avoids answering questions put to her. 

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel — Preuve — Procès — Droit procédural — Témoignage d’enfant — Le juge du procès a‐t‐il eu raison de statuer que le ministère public devait présenter une preuve expliquant pourquoi une enfant assignée comme témoin ne répondrait pas aux questions qui lui étaient posées, avant de permettre que des déclarations extrajudiciaires faites par l’enfant ne soient présentées en preuve conformément à l’arrêt R. c. Kahn, [1990] 2 R.C.S. 531 — Le juge du procès a‐t‐il eu raison de conclure qu’il n’avait pas été satisfait au critère de nécessité, lors de son témoignage, l’enfant se montrait vague et refusait de répondre aux questions qui lui étaient posées?

MAY 20, 1999 / LE 20 MAI 1999

25838                    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ONTARIO -v.- M.  -and- H. -and- THE FOUNDATION FOR EQUAL FAMILIES, THE WOMEN’S LEGAL EDUCATION AND ACTION FUND (LEAF), EQUALITY FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS EVERYWHERE (EGALE), THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, THE UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA, THE EVANGELICAL FELLOWSHIP OF CANADA, THE ONTARIO COUNCIL OF SIKHS, THE ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY and REAL WOMEN OF CANADA (Ont.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin,

Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.                                      

The appeal and the cross‐appeal are dismissed with solicitor‐and‐client costs to both M. and H. in the proceedings before this Court, Gonthier J. dissenting on the appeal.  The constitutional questions are answered as follows:

Question 1:           Does the definition of "spouse" in s. 29 of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, infringe or deny s. 15(1)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

Answer:                 Yes.  Gonthier J. would answer no.

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

Answer:                 No.  Gonthier J. would find it unnecessary to answer the question.

Le pourvoi principal et le pourvoi incident sont rejetés avec dépens sur la base procureur-client dans notre Cour en faveur de M. et de H.  Le juge Gonthier est dissident quant au pourvoi principal.  Les questions constitutionnelles recoivent les réponses suivantes:

Question 1:           Est-ce que la définition de «conjoint» à l’art. 29 de la Loi sur le droit de la famille, L.R.O. 1990, ch. F.3, a pour effet de nier les droits garantis au par. 15(1)  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  ou d’y porter atteinte?

Réponse:        Oui.  Le juge Gonthier répondrait non.

Question 2:       Si la réponse à la question 1 est oui, est-ce que cette négation ou atteinte est justifiée dans le cadre d’une société libre et démocratique au sens de l’article premier de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

Réponse:        Non.  Le juge Gonthier estime inutile de répondre à cette question.

25708                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF INDIAN AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS CANADA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA - and - BATCHEWANA INDIAN BAND - v. - JOHN CORBIÈRE, CHARLOTTE SYRETTE, CLAIRE ROBINSON and FRANK NOLAN, each on their own behalf and on behalf of all non-resident members of the Batchewana Band - and - ABORIGINAL LEGAL SERVICES OF TORONTO INC., CONGRESS OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES, LESSER SLAVE LAKE INDIAN REGIONAL COUNCIL, NATIVE WOMEN’S ASSOCIATION OF CANADA and UNITED NATIVE NATIONS SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (F.C.A.) (Ont.)

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

McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ. 

The appeal is dismissed and the remedy is modified by striking out the words “and is ordinarily resident on the reserve” in s. 77(1)  of the Indian Act  and suspending the implementation of the declaration of invalidity for 18 months, with costs to the respondents.  The restated constitutional questions are answered as follows:

Question 1.           Do the words “and is ordinarily resident on the reserve” contained in s. 77(1)  of the Indian Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. I-5 , contravene s. 15(1)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , either generally or with respect only to members of the Batchewana Indian Band?

Answer: Yes, in their general application.

Question 2.           If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, is s. 77(1)  of the Indian Act  demonstrably justified as a reasonable limit pursuant to s. 1  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

Answer: No.

Le pourvoi est rejeté et la réparation est modifiée en supprimant les mots «et réside ordinairement sur la réserve» employés au par. 77(1)  de la Loi sur les Indiens , et en suspendant la prise d’effet de la déclaration d’invalidité pour 18 mois, avec dépens en faveur des intimés.  Les questions constitutionnelles reformulées reçoivent les réponses suivantes:

Question 1.           Les mots «et réside ordinairement sur la réserve» figurant au par. 77(1)  de la Loi sur les Indiens , L.R.C. (1985), ch. I-5 , contreviennent-ils au par. 15(1)  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés , soit de façon générale, soit uniquement en ce qui concerne les membres de la bande indienne de Batchewana?

Réponse:               Oui, dans leur application générale.

Question 2.           Si la réponse à la question 1 est affirmative, le par. 77(1)  de la Loi sur les Indiens  est-il une limite raisonnable dont la justification peut se démontrer en vertu de l’article premier de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

Réponse:               Non.

26416                    JEAN VICTOR BEAULAC - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - and - THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC, THE COMMISSIONER OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES, ASSOCIATION DES JURISTES D’EXPRESSION FRANÇAISE DE L’ONTARIO and ASSOCIATION DES JURISTES D’EXPRESSION FRANÇAISE DU MANITOBA (Crim.) (B.C.)

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

McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.