Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

May 7, 1999  701 - 744 (INDEX)                                                             le 7 mai 1999

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Edwin K. Lewis

Peter C. Ghiz

v. (26603)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.)

Roger B. Langille, Q.C.

FILING DATE 6.4.1999

Arthur David Gabriel et al.

Harvey J. Slobodzian

Pullan Guld Kammerloch

v. (27161)

Her Majesty the Queen (Man.)

Gregg Lawlor

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 31.3.1999

Robert Joseph Houle et al.

Harvey J. Slobodzian

Pullan Guld Kammerloch

v. (27161)

Her Majesty the Queen (Man.)

Gregg Lawlor

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE  6.4.1999

Michel S. Loignon et al.

Jacques Lamoureux

Lamoureux, Morin, Lamoureux, s.e.n.c.

c. (27201)

Collège (CÉGEP) Montmorency et al. (Qué.)

Jean-Claude Girard

Pothier Delisle, s.e.n.c.

DATE DE PRODUCTION 22.3.1999

John C. MacDonald

Phillip G. Hunt

Shields & Hunt

v. (27202)

ADGA Systems International Ltd. (Ont.)

Stephen Bird

Kimmel, Victor, Ages

FILING DATE 22.3.1999

Pierre Benoît

P. Claude Laporte

Gasco Lelarge

c. (27203)

Luc Landry et al. (Qué.)

Réal N. Bélanger

DATE DE PRODUCTION 23.3.1999

Luc Landry

Réal N. Bélanger

c. (27203)

La Société de l’Assurance automobile du Québec et al. (Qué.)

Roberto Clocchiatti

Gélinas & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION 23.3.1999

P.R.

Marie Lafond

Roy, Trudel, Lafond, Lebel et Gingras

c. (27206)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)

Chantale Pelletier

Procureur général du Québec

DATE DE PRODUCTION 25.3.1999

Camco Inc. et al.

James D. Kokonis, Q.C.

Smart & Biggar

v. (27208)

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

Christopher Kvas

Barrigar & Moss

FILING DATE 23.3.1999

Maytag Corporation et al.

James D. Kokonis, Q.C.

Smart & Biggar

v. (27209)

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

Christopher Kvas

Barrigar & Moss

FILING DATE 23.3.1999

David Matthew Bryan

Arthur J. Stacey

Thompson Dorfman Sweatman

v. (27222)

Her Majesty the Queen (Man.)

Christopher Mainella

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 31.3.1999

Stephen M. Byer

Stephen M. Byer

v. (27224)

Royal Insurance Company of Canada / Royal Sun Alliance  (Qué.)

Jean Charette

Pépin, Létourneau & Associés

FILING DATE 6.4.1999

Gabrielle Caux Nadeau

Daniel St-Pierre

Cayer, St-Pierre, Rousseau

c. (27225)

Rose Nadeau et al. (Qué.)

Marc Paradis

Ogilvy Renault

DATE DE PRODUCTION 1.4.1999

Dr. Bruno Riendeau Ph.D.

Dr. Bruno Riendeau, Ph.D.

c. (27226)

La Ville de Québec (Qué.)

Guy Bilodeau

Boutin Roy & Assoc.

DATE DE PRODUCTION 1.4.1999

Vigi Santé Ltée

Sylvain Bélair

Bélanger Sauvé

c. (27227)

Ville de Montréal et al. (Qué.)

Pierre Caron

Jalbert, Séguin, Verdon, Caron & Mahoney

DATE DE PRODUCTION 1.4.1999

Daphne Whiten

Gary R. Will

MacMillan Rooke Boeckle

v. (27229)

Pilot Insurance Company et al. (Ont.)

Earl Cherniak

Lerner & Associates

FILING DATE 6.4.1999

Jacques Biron

Jacques Biron

c. (27230)

Marc-André Côté et al. (Qué.)

Lizann Demers

Bernard Roy & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION 6.4.1999

Marth Realties Ltd.

Mitchell H. Klein

Goodman Phillips & Vineberg

v. (27231)

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

Roger Roy

Dep. A.G. for Canada

FILING DATE  6.4.1999

André St-Jacques

Alain Johnson

c. (27232)

Romain Bourdon et al. (Qué.)

Joane Poulin

DATE DE PRODUCTION 6.4.1999

Dr. Robert G. Baker

Stephen J. Grace

Beament Green

v. (27233)

Boy Scouts of Canada (Ont.)

William L. Vanveen

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson

FILING DATE  6.4.1999

Helo Lafrentz et al.

W. Paul Sharek

Emery Jamieson

v. (27234)

Herbert Michel (Alta.)

Harold W. Veale, Q.C.

Ogilvy & Company

FILING DATE 16.4.1999

Benoit Proulx

Lawrence Corriveau, c.r.

Corriveau, Corriveau

c. (27235)

Le procureur général du Québec (Qué.)

Claude Gagnon

St-Laurent, Gagnon

DATE DE PRODUCTION 6.4.1999

Raymond Lebeuf

Jean-Jacques Rainville

Dunton Rainville, senc

c. (27236)

Groupe Snc-Lavalin Inc. et al. (Qué.)

Michel C. Chabot

Heenan Blaikie Aubut, senc

DATE DE PRODUCTION 7.4.1999

Jean Piché

Jean-Luc Paris

c. (27237)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)

Paul Crépeau

Subs. du procureur général

DATE DE PRODUCTION 7.4.1999

Warren Laverne Knoblauch

Mona T. Duckett

Royal, McCrum, Duckett & Glancy

v. (27238)

Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

Arnold Schlayer  

A.G. of Alberta

FILING DATE  8.4.1999

Ronald J. Béliard

Ronald J. Béliard

c. (27241)

Norma Gough Husbands (Qué.)

Simon Ruel

Grey Casgrain

DATE DE PRODUCTION 9.4.1999

Anderson T. Walcott

Anderson T. Walcott

v. (27242)

Charles Roach et al. (Ont.)

Charles C. Roach

Roach, Schwartz & Associates

FILING DATE  9.4.1999

O’Neil Grant

Keith E. Wright

v. (27243)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 9.4.1999

The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company

Mason Greenaway

Donaldson, Donaldson, Greenaway

v. (27244)

Maryanne Marchand et al. (Ont.)

Bruce R. Mitchell

McTague Law Firm

FILING DATE  12.4.1999

Laurier Henri

Bélec & Associés

c. (27245)

Victoire Henri (Qué.)

Jean J. Laflamme

DATE DE PRODUCTION 12.4.1999

G.D.

Ginette Bélisle-Heurtel

c. (27246)

J.C. (Qué.)

Stéphane Proulx

DATE DE PRODUCTION 12.4.1999

Bernard Austie et al.

R.J. Langridge

North & Company

v. (27248)

Alfons Aksnowicz (Alta.)

Brett Townsend

Townsend, Malcolm, Kenwood & Co.

FILING DATE 13.4.1999

White Spot Limited

Donald J. Jordan, Q.C.

Taylor Jordan Chafetz

v. (27249)

British Columbia Labour Relations Board et al. (B.C.)

Carolyn Askew

Askew, Fiorillo & Glavin

FILING DATE 13.4.1999

Jacques Biron

Nathalie Durocher

Durocher Leduc

c. (27251)

Arthur Andersen Inc. (Qué.)

Louis Coallier

Guy & Gilbert

DATE DE PRODUCTION 14.4.1999

Committee for the Equal Treatment of Asbestos Minority Shareholders

Freya J. Kristjanson

Borden & Elliot

v. (27252)

Sa Majesté du chef du Québec et al. (Ont.)

Sheila Block

Tory Tory DesLauriers & Binnington

FILING DATE  16.4.1999

Norman Elder

Scott K. Fenton

Fasken Campbell Godfrey

v. (27219)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Rosella M. Cornaviera

A.G. of Ontario

FILING DATE  30.3.1999

MAY 3, 1999 / LE 3 MAI 1999

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

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges McLachlin et Iacobucci

Adele Rosemary Breese (nee Gruenke)

v. (27207)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Reference to Court of Appeal for Manitoba  pursuant to s. 690  of the Criminal Code  asking whether information arising from the Self Defence Review conducted by Ratushny J. was admissible as fresh evidence, and, if any evidence was admissible, to determine the case as if it were an appeal by the Applicant on the issue of fresh evidence - Court of Appeal found that none of the evidence was admissible - Whether the defence psychiatrist’s new opinion was not admissible as fresh evidence because it failed to comply with the due diligence requirement set out in R. v. Palmer (1980), 1 S.C.R. 759 - Whether certain testimony from the preliminary inquiry and a taped conversation with the Applicant were reasonably capable of being admitted in evidence or of being fresh evidence - Whether certain reports, photographs and notations made by the Applicant about her ongoing state of health prior to the murder were reasonably capable of being admitted in evidence or of being fresh evidence - Whether the Self Defence Review Summary and Final Report, or any of its component parts, including the transcript of the interview with the Applicant conducted by the Self Defence Review and the five video tapes submitted on her behalf were reasonably capable of being admitted in evidence or of being fresh evidence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Edmund Roopnarine‑Singh

v. (27132)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Defence - Self-defence - Charge to the jury - Evidence - Prisons - Pre-emptive strike by Applicant against fellow inmate resulting in death - Whether Court of Appeal erred in ruling that inference of honest but mistaken belief as to the existence of an assault could not be made where accused had not testified - Whether Court of Appeal erred in ruling that inference of honest but reasonable mistake by accused as to the existence of an assault could not be based upon the evidence of third party witnesses - Whether ruling violates ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

February 8, 1999

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

                                                                                     Gauthier & Associates

                                                                                                v. (26844)

                                                 482511 Ontario Limited, carrying on business under the firm

name and style of Dunpar Construction (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Contracts - Which principle (tort or contract) applies in this circumstances of this case where the work in question meets industry standards for the material specified but does not provide the result expressly contracted for - By refusing to interfere with factual findings of the Ontario Court (General Division), that the defects in workmanship in this case are “barely noticeable” and the security system hook-up was not the Respondent’s responsibility, the Court of Appeal has permitted to stand factual findings which are directly contrary to all of the evidence, including specific admissions made by the Respondent, these being palpable and overriding errors.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache

Evangelos Exarhos

v. (24608)

Bank of Nova Scotia (Que.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Did Court of Appeal have jurisdiction to re-open appeal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

December 18, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

Dany Fafard

c. (26856)

Commission d'enquête chargée de faire enquête sur la Sûreté du Québec (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Procédure - Preuve - Exclusion de la preuve - Commission d’enquête chargée de faire enquête sur la Sûreté du Québec - Droit à la réputation - Art. 24  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Art. 4 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., ch. C-12 - Art. 2858 du Code civil du Québec, L.Q. 1991, ch. 64 - Art. 46 du Code de procédure civile, L.R.Q., ch. C-25 - N’ayant fait l’objet d’aucun désaveu, l’acte répréhensible du procureur d’une commission d’enquête - posé en public - doit-il lier l’agir des commissaires? - Le principe de l’imputabilité fait-il obligation au tribunal compétent de réparer équitablement la violation des droits fondamentaux d’un citoyen par l’alter ego d’une commission d’enquête gouvernementale? - Dans la perspective de la Charte canadienne , une commission d’enquête gouvernementale est-elle un tribunal compétent au sens de l’art. 24  de la Charte canadienne ? - Dans la perspective du droit positif de la province de Québec, une commission d’enquête gouvernementale est-elle régie par le régime d’exclusion de preuve prévu par l’art. 2858 du Code civil? - Responsable d’une atteinte à la réputation d’un citoyen, une commission d’enquête doit-elle exclure de ses archives un élément de preuve préjudiciable? - Dans le cadre d’une procédure en révision judiciaire, une cour de justice peut-elle recourir au pouvoir réparateur de l’art. 46 du Code de procédure civile pour ordonner la radiation de l’élément de preuve contesté? - La règle de droit suivante, décrite par la Cour d’appel du Québec, est-elle compatible avec la Charte canadienne  : «Enfin, s’appuyant sur l’arrêt Krever de la Cour suprême du Canada, les commissaires ont émis l’avis que si elles ne pouvaient décider de la responsabilité civile ou pénale de qui que ce soit, il était malgré tout inévitable que ses opinions ou conclusions puissent influer sur l’opinion publique et affecter des réputations.»?  - Privé par la loi du pouvoir d’imputer un blâme ou une faute, un organisme gouvernemental d’enquête viole-t-il l’équité procédurale en tolérant, dans le cours de ses travaux, que son procureur (et alter ego) sollicite et obtienne publiquement l’opinion d’un témoin à l’effet qu’un participant a commis un crime grave, malgré l’acquittement prononcé sur le sujet par un jury?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

CORAM:    Cory, Major and Binnie JJ. /

Les juges Cory, Major et Binnie

W.S.R.

v. (27177)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sufficiency of reasons - Miscarriage of justice - Whether the trial judge’s failure to give reasons for rejecting an accused’s evidence occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

March 9, 1999

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

Dr. Eric Leu and Dr. Pat McLean

v. (27037)

Health One Inc. (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Whether a restrictive covenant is an unlawful restraint of trade if the covenantor does not carry on the same business as the covenantee; Whether a corporation providing space, facilities and the services of a clinic to family physicians may have a legitimate business reason to enforce a restrictive covenant restraining the practice of medicine by physicians departing from the health clinic; Whether a management company may restrain the practice of medicine by physicians if it is prohibited from engaging in the practice of medicine; Whether a corporation may restrict access to health care by Canadians through restrictive covenants in agreements with health care professionals - Whether Carruthers Clinic Ltd. v. Herdman, [1956] O.R. 770, correctly held that a covenantee is not entitled to restrain a covenantor from carrying on business other than that carried on by the covenantee.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

MAY 6, 1999 / LE 6 MAI 1999

26980                    ROBERT WILLIAM LATIMER - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Sask.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

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

La demande d’autorisation d’appel et la demande de prorogation de délai sont accordées.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal - Defence - Necessity - Sentence - Constitutional exemption - Should the defence of necessity have been left with the jury - Did the Court of Appeal err in interpreting the defence of necessity and in failing to ask whether necessity is determined on an objective, subjective or qualified objective basis - Should the trial judge have ruled on whether necessity would be left to the jury prior to counsels’ addresses - Should the trial judge have told jury of the minimum applicable punishment - Did the trial judge fail to provide the jurors with correct and comprehensive responses to their questions - Should the trial judge have instructed the jury to decide the case on what they felt was just, if they felt that following the law would lead to an unjust result - Should the trial judge have charged the jury that they could find that the Applicant had the legal right to decide to commit suicide for his daughter as her surrogate decision maker - Did the Court of Appeal err in reversing the finding that on these facts the minimum sentence is a cruel and unusual punishment contrary to s.12  of the Charter, and that a constitutional exemption should be granted with respect to sentence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

December 1, 1997

Court of the Queen’s Bench of Saskatchewan

(Noble J.)

Conviction on one count of second degree murder - Constitutional exemption from mandatory sentence of life imprisonment granted

26851               PETER OWEN McMASTER v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)

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 - Evidence - Admission of hearsay evidence - Reliability of witness to hearsay evidence - The test of relevance of hearsay evidence set out in R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531 -  Whether hearsay evidence should be excluded from evidence on the basis that the witness testifying to the hearsay is not credible or is unreliable - Whether the witness’s lack of credibility is a factor to be considered by a trial judge when determining whether to admit hearsay evidence or a factor to be considered by the trier of fact when assessing the weight of the hearsay evidence or both.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26892                    JEAN-FRANÇOIS TÊTU c. CAMIL BOUCHARD ET VILLE DE CHICOUTIMI  (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

Procédure civile - Procédure allégée - Procédure préalable au procès - Inscription tardive pour enquête et audition - Délai de rigueur - Demande de prolongation du délai refusée - Impossibilité d’agir - Erreur de l’avocat - Sauvegarde des droits de la partie - Le jugement de la Cour d’appel est-il discordant par rapport à l’état du droit applicable en matière d’interprétation procédurale? - Code de procédure civile, L.R.Q., ch. C-25 - art. 481.11 C.p.c.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

27039                    THOMAS WESLEY RATHWELL v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law - Defence - Automatism - Trial - Jury Instructions - Jury Instructions concerning the intent required for proof of second degree murder - Whether the trial judge’s interpretation of the evidence and charge to the jury erroneously affirmed that there was evidence of intent to commit second degree murder - Whether evidence taken on a voir dire on the issue of non-insane automatism was erroneously excluded - Whether jury was entitled as a matter of common sense to draw an inference that a sane and sober person intends the natural and probable consequences of his voluntary act - Whether jury was properly instructed on the defence of provocation - Whether jury charge, taken as a whole, was confusing.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27090                    KAMBIZ MAFI 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 - Evidence - Trial - Whether evidence of Applicant’s financial difficulties had a prejudicial effect that outweighed its probative value - Whether there was a sufficient nexus between the victim’s state of mind regarding the Applicant’s suspected thefts and a motive to allow such character evidence to go before the jury - Whether a trial judge has a duty to hold a voir dire on his or her own motion when alerted to the possibility that evidence might be inadmissible - R. v. Hodgson, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 449 - R. v. Wells, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 517.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

June 19, 1996

Supreme Court of British Columbia (Oppal J.)

Conviction on two counts of second degree murder

October 1, 1998

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Esson, Donald, and Mackenzie JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

January 13, 1999

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

26909                    SOCIÉTÉ RODABER LTÉE ET ROGER BERNATCHEZ c. BANQUE NATIONALE DU CANADA ET FRANCINE MASSE (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

Procédure - Procédure civile - Jugements et ordonnances - Chose jugée - Code de procédure civile, L.R.Q., ch. C-25 - La  Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en rejetant l’action des demandeurs pour cause de chose jugée? - La chose  jugée s’applique-t-elle lorsqu’une action est rejetée pour défaut de se conformer à des règles de procédure?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

26803                    LES LABORATOIRES ABBOTT LIMITÉE c. RONALD BOURQUE (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

Procédure - Procédure civile - Exception déclinatoire - Compétence - Recours collectif - Article 164 C.p.c. - Article 1003 C.p.c. - Requête en rétractation - Les principes prévus à l’article 164 C.p.c. concernant l’incompétence ratione materiae s’appliquent-ils au stade de l’autorisation d’exercer un recours collectif? - Les principes relatifs à la juridiction exclusive de l’arbitre de grief sont-il applicables dans le cadre de l’exercice d’un recours collectif? - La Cour supérieure du Québec a-t-elle juridiction pour décider des relations entre un employeur et ses salariés dans d’autres provinces canadiennes que le Québec au seul motif qu’ils sont tous participants dans un même régime de retraite? - La requête en rétractation de jugement est-elle le recours approprié pour se pourvoir contre un jugement d’un tribunal qui omet de trancher in limine litis une objection relative à sa juridiction ratione materiae?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

26849                    ADEL F. ANTIPPA c. M^E GUY E. DULUDE et UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À TROIS-RIVIÈRES (Qué.)

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

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Droit du travail - Arbitrage - Convention collective - Contrôle judiciaire - Erreur manifestement déraisonnable - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en fait en concluant que le demandeur a refusé inconditionnellement d’accepter son affectation au Centre de recherche en photobiophysique? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en fait et en droit en refusant de se prononcer sur la légalité des conditions attachées par la mise en cause à l’affectation du demandeur au Centre de recherche en photobiophysique, mais en sanctionnant néanmoins le défaut de s’y conformer? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en refusant d’appliquer la Lettre d’entente No. 2 de la Convention collective, régissant le statut des professeurs rattachés aux centres de recherche de la mise en cause et en appliquant de préférence un document antérieur rescindé par cette Convention? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en fait et en droit en concluant que le demandeur n’a pas droit au bénéfice de la subvention octroyée par le Fonds pour la formation de chercheurs et l’aide à la recherche (F.C.A.R.) pour la période de 1988 à 1991?- Est-il de l’intérêt supérieur de la justice et du public que la Cour suprême du Canada, compte tenu des circonstances en l’espèce, statue sur les questions mixtes de droit et de fait pour déterminer si la Cour d’appel a erré sur des aspects dont l’importance dépasse le cadre du présent litige?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

26889                    PAUL LABERGE, MAURICE LABERGE ET LAURENT LABERGE c. CAISSE DE DÉPÔT ET DE PLACEMENT DU QUÉBEC et BUREAU DE LA PUBLICITÉ DES DROITS DE LA CIRCONSCRIPTION FONCIÈRE DE MONTRÉAL (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 - Prêt - Législation - Interprétation - Par. 10(1)  et (2)  de la Loi sur l’intérêt , L.R.C. 1985, ch. I-15  - Droit d’acquitter un prêt hypothécaire par anticipation sauf s’il s’agit d’une “hypothèque sur biens-fonds consentie par une compagnie par actions ou autre personne morale” - L’exception énoncée au par. 10(2) continue-t-elle de s’appliquer à une hypothèque qui, bien que constituée à l’origine par une compagnie, ne porte désormais plus que sur le bien-fonds d’un individu, à la suite du transfert de propriété de ce bien-fonds par une compagnie à l’individu alors que ce transfert a requis l’autorisation écrite du créancier hypothécaire et est concomitant à une délégation de paiement acceptée par le délégataire créancier hypothécaire? - Dans la négative, l’offre de paiement faite conformément aux prescriptions du par. 10(1) est-elle suffisante pour être libératoire quant aux intérêts ou bien une telle offre est-elle assujettie aux formalités énoncées dans les lois provinciales? - Potash c. Royal Trust Co., [1986] 2 R.C.S. 351.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

27185                    NICHOLAS Y. BONAMY v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(B.C.)

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

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

La demande pour hâter l’audition d’un pourvoi et la demande d’autorisation d’appel sont rejetées avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Prerogative remedies - Did lower courts err in disposition of case.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26923                    135596 CANADA INC. c. COMITÉ PARITAIRE DES BOUEURS DE LA RÉGION DE MONTRÉAL (Qué.)

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

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Code civil - Interprétation - Procédure - Preuve - Admissibilité d’une preuve de ouï-dire aux termes de l’art. 2870 du Code civil du Québec, L.Q. 1991, ch. 64 - Admissibilité d’une preuve obtenue lors de perquisitions aux termes de l’art. 2858 C.c.Q. - La Cour supérieure a-t-elle erré dans son interprétation et son application des art. 2858 et 2870 C.c.Q.? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en accueillant la requête en rejet d’appel?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 9 octobre 1998

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

26819                    A.S. TRANSPORT INC. c. SOUS-POSTE DE CAMIONNAGE EN VRAC LA PRAIRIE-NAPIERVILLE INC., TRANSPORT EN VRAC BEAUHARNOIS SALABERRY INC., RÉAL PERRAS, GEORGES NOËL, CONRAD BÉRARD, JEAN-PIERRE GARAND, POSTE DE CAMIONNAGE RICHELIEU INC., SOUS-POSTE DE CAMIONNAGE EN VRAC DE TAILLON INC., POSTE DE CAMIONNAGE EN VRAC RÉGION 06 INC. ET MARCEL LEGAULT (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 administratif - Compétence - Législation - Interprétation - Loi sur le camionnage, L.R.Q., ch. C-5.1 - Révocation de privilèges de transport de matières en vrac - Un commissaire, membre d’un organisme de régulation en matière économique, a-t-il le pouvoir de sanctionner un détenteur de permis sous prétexte qu’il enfreint l’autorisation émise par son organisme, alors que la sanction appliquée en l’espèce est de nature pénale et entraînerait la fermeture de l’entreprise?  (SGD - 3, 79, 120, 76)

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

28.4.1999

Before / Devant:   BASTARACHE J.

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file a motion for a rehearing

Her Majesty the Queen

    v. (26493)

Steve Brian Ewanchuk (Crim.)(Alta.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la demande pour une nouvelle audition

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to April 26, 1999.

28.4.1999

Before / Devant:   BINNIE J.

Motions for extension of time and leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of British Columbia, the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), the British Columbia Human Rights Coalition, La Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Manitoba Human Rights Commission, the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, and the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission

IN/DANS:              British Columbia Human Rights Commission, et al.

v. (26789)

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

Requêtes en prorogation de délai et en autorisation d'intervenir

GRANTED / ACCORDÉES

1.                  The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Attorney General of British Columbia is granted, the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length and to present oral argument not to exceed 15 minutes;

2.                  The motion for an extension of time and for leave to intervene of the applicant Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) is granted, the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length and to present oral argument not to exceed 15 minutes;

3.                  The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant British Columbia Human Rights Coalition is granted, the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length and to present oral argument not to exceed 15 minutes;

4.                  The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse is granted, the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length and to present oral argument not to exceed 15 minutes;

5.                  The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Canadian Human Rights Commission  is granted, the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length and to present oral argument not to exceed 15 minutes;

6.                  The motion for an extension of time and for leave to intervene of the applicant Manitoba Human Rights Commission is granted, the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length and to present oral argument not to exceed 15 minutes;

7.                  The motion for an extension of time and for leave to intervene of the applicant Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission is granted, the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length and to present oral argument not to exceed 15 minutes;

8.                  The motion for an extension of time and for leave to intervene of the applicant Ontario Human Rights Commission is granted, the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length and to present oral argument not to exceed 15 minutes;

9          The motion for an extension of time and for leave to intervene of the applicant Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission is granted, the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length and to present oral argument not to exceed 15 minutes;

10.              The motion for an extension of time and for leave to intervene of the applicant Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission is granted, the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length and to present oral argument not to exceed 15 minutes;

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

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

28.4.1999

Before / Devant:   BASTARACHE J.

Motion for extension of time and leave to intervene

BY/PAR:          Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted (“AIDWYC”) and The Innocence Project

IN/DANS:       A. G.

v. (26924)

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

Requête en prorogation de délai et en autorisation d'intervenir

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

1.                  The motions for an extension of time and for leave to intervene of the applicants Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted (“AIDWYC”) and The Innocence Project are granted.

My Order dated April 6, 1999, granting (“AIDWYC”) and The Innocence Project leave to intervene in the Biniaris (26570) and Molodowic (26645) appeals is amended by increasing the length of their single joint factum to 40 pages and increasing the length of their single oral argument to 30 minutes in all three appeals.

The interveners shall serve and file their factum no later than May 31, 1999.

28.4.1999

Before / Devant:    BINNIE J.

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

Hendrik Anthony Reckman

    v. (27189)

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

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

GRANTED IN PART / ACCORDÉE EN PARTIE

UPON APPLICATION made by the applicant for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal to this Court;

AND HAVING read the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

Mr. Reckman’s application for an extension of time within which to serve and file his application for leave to appeal to this Court is granted, on consent, to and including May 31, 1999.  The only reason given by Mr. Reckman for a longer extension, to September 30, 1999, is his desire to review certain papers at Manitoulin Island which he feels would  substantiate his version of events.  This Court has neither the mandate nor the capacity to retry the case or to disagree with the trial judge about the credibility of the applicant or his wife, the complainant.   This can only be done at a new trial.  I have read the materials in the Appeal Book filed with the Ontario Court of Appeal.  In order to obtain a new trial, Mr. Reckman will have to show a fatal error by the trial judge in his conduct of the first trial.  This will require legal argument and analysis and does not require fresh evidence, which is only admissible in exceptional circumstances.  As no other reason for the further delay has been offered by Mr. Reckman, and as an extension of time until May 31, 1999 is adequate for the preparation of legal submissions in support of the application for leave to appeal, Mr. Reckman’s demand for an extension beyond May 31, 1999 is rejected.

29.4.1999

Lingeswaran Krishantharajah

v. (27192)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

(appeal)

3.5.1999

Sa Majesté la Reine

    c. (25858)

Edmon Kabbabe (Qué.)

(appel)

MAY 3, 1999 / LE 3 MAI 1999

26555                               N.H. and D.H. v. H.M., M.H. and THE DIRECTOR OF CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES (B.C.)

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

McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.

The motion for a rehearing is dismissed with costs.

La requête en nouvelle audition est rejetée avec dépens.

The Court –  This is a custody case.  The applicant Hubert M. applies for a rehearing of this appeal, which was heard by the Court on February 17, 1999.  At that time the Court unanimously allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal ((1998), 156 D.L.R. (4th) 548), and restored the trial judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, delivered September 26, 1997 ([1997] B.C.J. No. 2144 (QL)).  The result was to grant permanent custody of the child, Ishmael Tavarres H., the applicant’s grandson, to his other grandparents, Nancy H. and Duncan H., who are the respondents in this motion for rehearing, with continuing rights of access to the mother and to the applicant.  The applicant seeks a rehearing on the basis that the respondents failed to serve the Sagkeeng First Nation, an intervener in the British Columbia Court of Appeal, with their application for leave to appeal to this Court and the notice of appeal herein.  Ishmael is a member of the Swan Lake First Nation and is not a member of the Sagkeeng First Nation.

The facts of this case are as follows.  Ishmael was born March 8, 1995 and is four years old.  The putative father is an African-American who lives in the United States, where the adoptive grandparents, the respondents, also live.  The mother, Melissa is an aboriginal Canadian.  At birth, she was a member of the Swan Lake First Nation of Manitoba.  She and her sister passed through a long list of foster homes in their infancy and were given up for adoption by the applicant and were adopted by the respondents when they were four and six years old respectively.  After Melissa became pregnant with Ishmael, she resided with the respondents for some time both before and after his birth.  Shortly following the birth, Melissa being unable or unwilling to look after Ishmael, the respondents took over his care.  Ishmael was subsequently taken by his mother to British Columbia where, eventually, he came into the care of the British Columbia Ministry of Children and Families (as it now is).

The trial judge found that both the applicant and the respondents were sincere and loving grandparents and each were capable of offering a good home to Ishmael.  In his reasons, he gave considerable emphasis to the aboriginal heritage of Ishmael’s mother’s side.  He said that “aboriginal heritage and the ability of his biological grandfather to preserve and enhance it are important considerations” (para. 46), and that the claims of the applicant to custody were soundly based on “ties of blood, his obvious love and affection for Ishmael, his aboriginal heritage, [and] his demonstrated ability to provide a home and care for his family” (para. 49).  At the same time, the trial judge extensively reviewed the other circumstances of the parties, including the stability of the respective homes, and concluded that “the submission that Ishmael’s aboriginal heritage is virtually a determining factor here oversimplifies a very complex case” (para. 47).  The trial judge did not agree that an order granting custody of Ishmael to the respondents would uproot him from his culture.  Ishmael is African-American on his putative father’s side, aboriginal Canadian on his mother’s side, and has lived a significant part of his life with his adoptive grandparents, who are neither.  As the trial judge said, “[t]his is not a case of taking an aboriginal child and placing him with a non-aboriginal family in complete disregard for his culture and heritage.  The fact is that Melissa is the [adopted] daughter of [the respondents] and Ishmael is their grandson” (para. 46).

The trial judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeal, which put emphasis on the apparent stability at the time of the appeal of the relationship between the applicant and J.S., and the fact Ishmael appeared “well integrated into the family unit of [the applicant], J.S., and their daughter Sharleen....  J.S. is proving to be a resource of stability to [the applicant] and the family and is able, together with [the applicant], to provide a good home milieu for Ishmael....  As well, Ishmael has in his present home a young sibling, the child Sharleen, to whom he relates well” (pp. 551 and 554-55).  We were advised at the hearing of the appeal that the applicant no longer lives with J.S. and Sharleen, but has returned to live in Manitoba.

Both the trial judge and the Court of Appeal referred to the Child, Family and Community Service Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 46, which provides a statutory direction to public authorities in British Columbia to have careful regard to the cultural identity of aboriginal children.  In particular, s. 4(2) provides that: “If the child is an aboriginal child, the importance of preserving the child’s cultural identity must be considered in determining the child’s best interests”.  The Court of Appeal noted that “[a]s a strict matter of law, the Child, Family and Community Service Act is not applicable to the proceedings” (p. 555).  That court nevertheless concluded that the trial judge had “underemphasized ties of blood and culture” (p. 554).  This Court, on appeal, disagreed.  We concluded that in fact the trial judge had given careful attention to the aboriginal ancestry of Ishmael, together with all the other factors relevant to Ishmael’s best interest, and that there was no error in his decision, which was reached after five days of evidence and two weeks of reflection, that justified its reversal by the Court of Appeal.  The importance of the findings of the trial judge in custody cases cannot be forgotten.  They should not be lightly set aside by appellate courts.

The question that now arises for decision is whether this appeal should be reheard because the respondents did not serve on the Sagkeeng First Nation a copy of the application for leave to appeal and the notice of appeal herein.  Rule 23 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada requires service of the application for leave “on the parties in the courts below”.  The Sagkeeng First Nation did not participate at the trial level but was granted limited intervener status by the British Columbia Court of Appeal.  Such interveners do not thereby acquire the rights of a party in this Court:  Sawridge Indian Band v. Canada, [1997] S.C.C.A. No. 430 (QL).  Rule 1 of the Supreme Court of Canada Rules defines “party” to include interveners “unless the context does not so permit”.  Rule 23 clearly refers to those who have “party” status “in the courts below”.  “Party” is defined in the British Columbia Court of Appeal Rules, s. 1, to mean “the appellant and each respondent who has filed a notice of appearance under rule 4(1).”  The Sagkeeng First Nation did not bring itself within that definition.  While it is good practice for parties seeking leave to appeal to this Court to serve interveners as well as parties in the courts below, the technical objection raised by the applicant is met by the technical answer of s. 4(1) of the British Columbia Court of Appeal Rules.  Equally, the respondents were not required by s. 60  of the Supreme Court Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. S-26 , to serve the Notice of Appeal on the Sagkeeng First Nation unless and until an order granting intervention status was made by a judge of this Court after application under Rule 18.  This procedure was implemented by a change in the Rules to which the attention of the profession was drawn by the Court’s Notice to the Profession dated January 16, 1984.  No such order was made in favour of the Sagkeeng First Nation.  More substantively, however, we do not think it fair for the applicant, who lives on the Sagkeeng First Nation Reserve, who received all proper notices and who fully participated in the proceedings in this Court, who knew of the absence of the Sagkeeng First Nation and who could if he had wished have provided notification on his own to the Sagkeeng First Nation, to now complain of the respondents’ alleged oversight.  The applicant’s argument that the original hearing of the appeal was improperly constituted is rejected.

The Court would, nevertheless, consider the grant of a rehearing if this were one of those truly exceptional cases where the applicant could show a potential failure of justice at the original hearing.  No such potential has been identified.  Both the applicant and the mother were ably represented by counsel at the hearing of February 17, 1999.  At that time, counsel addressed the relevant arguments which the Sagkeeng First Nation now wishes to reargue, except for its demand for an up-dated psychological assessment of Ishmael, which the applicant himself did not request at the time of the hearing of February 17, 1999.  Interveners address the general legal issues raised by an appeal.  It is not their role to seek to expand the record of adjudicative facts beyond that which satisfies the immediate parties.

In Greater Montreal Protestant School Board v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 167, the Court said, in terms equally applicable to the present application, at p. 168:

In essence the applicants are saying that, when one considers all of the material before the Court, and more particularly certain items brought to its attention at the time of the application, one cannot but make ... findings in a manner favourable to their case.  Having found adversely to the applicants, the Court, argue [the] applicants, must have overlooked this material and therefore should rehear the case.

That is an argument that any unsuccessful party could make seeking a rehearing.  There is nothing here before us supportive of the fact that the Court misled itself or was misled as regards what was the record before it, the nature of the issues, or the questions to be addressed.

We conclude that no rehearing is justified.  The motion for a rehearing is therefore dismissed with costs.

*************

La Cour ‑‑ Il est question en l’espèce d’une affaire de garde.  Le requérant Hubert M. demande une nouvelle audition du présent pourvoi, que notre Cour a entendu le 17 février 1999.  À cette date, la Cour à l’unanimité a accueilli le pourvoi, annulé l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie‑Britannique ((1998), 156 D.L.R. (4th) 548), et rétabli le jugement de première instance rendu, le 26 septembre 1997, par la Cour suprême de la Colombie‑Britannique ([1997] B.C.J. No. 2144 (QL)).  Notre Cour a alors accordé la garde permanente de l’enfant, Ishmael Tavarres H., petit‑fils du requérant, à ses autres grands‑parents, Nancy H. et Duncan H., intimés dans la présente requête en nouvelle audition, en l’assortissant de droits d’accès en faveur de la mère et du requérant.  Ce dernier sollicite une nouvelle audition pour le motif que les intimés n’ont signifié à la première nation Sagkeeng, intervenante devant la Cour d’appel de la Colombie‑Britannique, ni leur demande d’autorisation d’appel devant notre Cour ni l’avis d’appel en l’espèce.  Ishmael est un membre de la première nation de Swan Lake et non de la première nation Sagkeeng.

Les faits de la présente affaire sont les suivants.  Ishmael est né le 8 mars 1995 et est maintenant âgé de quatre ans.  Le père putatif est un Afro‑Américain qui vit aux États‑Unis, où habitent également les grands‑parents adoptifs intimés.  La mère, Melissa, est une Canadienne d’origine autochtone.  À sa naissance, elle faisait partie de la première nation de Swan Lake au Manitoba.  Sa soeur et elle ont été placées dans de nombreuses familles d’accueil pendant leur enfance et ont été données en adoption par le requérant et adoptées par les intimés lorsqu’elles étaient âgées de six et quatre ans respectivement.  Lorsque Melissa est tombée enceinte d’Ishmael, elle a habité chez les intimés pendant un certain temps tant avant qu’après la naissance de son fils.  Peu après la naissance d’Ishmael, les intimés l’ont pris en charge parce que Melissa était incapable ou refusait de s’en occuper.  Ishmael a par la suite été emmené par sa mère en Colombie‑Britannique, où il a fini par être confié aux soins du Ministry of Children and Families de la Colombie‑Britannique (tel qu’on l’appelle aujourd’hui).

Le juge de première instance a conclu que le requérant et les intimés étaient des grands‑parents honnêtes et affectueux et que chacun était en mesure d’offrir un bon foyer à Ishmael.  Dans ses motifs, il a insisté considérablement sur le patrimoine autochtone maternel d’Ishmael.  Il a affirmé que [traduction] «le patrimoine autochtone de son grand‑père biologique et sa capacité d’en promouvoir le maintien et la valorisation sont des facteurs importants» (par. 46), et que les demandes de garde de la part du requérant étaient fondées solidement sur «les liens du sang, l’affection et l’amour évidents qu’il avait pour Ishmael, son patrimoine autochtone, [et] sa capacité manifeste d’offrir un toit et des soins à sa famille» (par. 49).  En même temps, le juge de première instance a examiné en profondeur les autres facettes de la situation des parties, y compris la stabilité des foyers respectifs, pour ensuite conclure que [traduction] «l’argument selon lequel le patrimoine autochtone d’Ishmael est pratiquement un facteur déterminant en l’espèce simplifie à l’extrême une affaire très complexe» (par. 47).  Il n’acceptait pas qu’une ordonnance accordant la garde d’Ishmael aux intimés le déracinerait de sa culture.  Ishmael, qui est un Afro‑Américain du côté paternel et Canadien d’origine autochtone du côté maternel, a passé une partie importante de sa vie avec ses grands‑parents, qui ne sont ni l’un ni l’autre.  Comme l’a affirmé le juge de première instance, [traduction] «[i]l ne s’agit pas, en l’espèce, du placement d’un enfant autochtone dans une famille non autochtone au mépris total de sa culture et de son patrimoine.  Il reste que Melissa est la fille [adoptive des intimés] et que Ishmael est leur petit‑fils» (par. 46).

Le jugement de première instance a été infirmé par la Cour d’appel, qui a insisté sur la stabilité apparente, à l’époque de l’appel, des rapports entre le requérant et J.S., et sur le fait que Ishmael paraissait [traduction] «bien intégré dans la cellule familiale [du requérant], de J.S. et de leur fille Sharleen.  [. . .] J.S. s’avère une source de stabilité pour [le requérant] et la famille, et est en mesure, de concert avec [le requérant], de fournir un bon environnement familial à Ishmael.  [. . .] De même, Ishmael compte, dans son foyer actuel, une jeune soeur, l’enfant Sharleen, avec qui il s’entend bien » (pp. 551, 554 et 555).  Nous avons appris, pendant l’audition du pourvoi, que le requérant a quitté J.S. et Sharleen pour retourner vivre au Manitoba.

Le juge de première instance et la Cour d’appel se sont tous les deux référés à la Child, Family and Community Service Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, ch. 46, qui enjoint aux autorités publiques de la Colombie‑Britannique de tenir compte soigneusement de l’identité culturelle des enfants autochtones.  En particulier, le par. 4(2) prévoit ceci:  [traduction] «Si l’enfant est un autochtone, l’importance de préserver son identité culturelle doit être prise en considération au moment de décider ce qui est dans son intérêt».  La Cour d’appel a souligné que, [traduction] «[s]ur le plan strictement juridique, la Child, Family and Community Service Act ne s’applique pas aux présentes procédures» (p. 555).  Cette cour a néanmoins conclu que le juge de première instance n’avait [traduction] «pas accordé l’importance nécessaire aux liens du sang et à la culture» (p. 554).  Lors du pourvoi, notre Cour a exprimé son désaccord avec cette conclusion.  Nous avons statué qu’en réalité le juge de première instance avait pris soigneusement en considération l’ascendance autochtone d’Ishmael, ainsi que tous les autres facteurs pertinents pour déterminer ce qui était dans son intérêt, et que sa décision, qui a été rendue après cinq jours de témoignages et deux semaines de réflexion, ne comportait aucune erreur qui justifiait la Cour d’appel de l’infirmer.  On ne saurait oublier l’importance des conclusions du juge de première instance dans les affaires de garde.  Les cours d’appel devraient s’abstenir de les écarter à la légère.

La question qui doit maintenant être tranchée est de savoir s’il y a lieu de réentendre le présent pourvoi parce que les intimés n’ont signifié à la première nation Sagkeeng ni un exemplaire de la demande d’autorisation d’appel ni l’avis d’appel en l’espèce.  L’article 23 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada prescrit la signification de la demande d’autorisation «aux parties au litige devant le tribunal de juridiction inférieure».  La première nation Sagkeeng n’était pas partie au litige en première instance, mais s’est vu accorder la simple qualité d’intervenante par la Cour d’appel de la Colombie‑Britannique.  Ces intervenants n’acquièrent pas de ce fait les droits d’une partie à un litige devant notre Cour:  Bande indienne Sawridge c. Canada, [1997] C.S.C.R. n^o 430 (QL).  L’article 1 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada définit le mot «partie» comme incluant les intervenants «sauf indication contraire du contexte».  L’article 23 mentionne clairement ceux qui ont la qualité de «partie» «au litige devant le tribunal de juridiction inférieure».  L’article 1 des Court of Appeal Rules de la Colombie‑Britannique définit le mot [traduction] «partie» comme désignant «l’appelant et chaque intimé qui a déposé un avis de comparution en vertu de la règle 4(1).»  La première nation Sagkeeng n’a rien fait pour que cette définition s’applique à elle.  Même s’il est bon que les parties qui demandent l’autorisation d’appel devant notre Cour signifient leur demande aux intervenants et aux parties au litige devant le tribunal de juridiction inférieure, l’objection de nature procédurale soulevée par le requérant trouve sa réponse au par. 4(1) des Court of Appeal Rules de la Colombie‑Britannique.  L’article 60  de la Loi sur la Cour suprême , L.R.C. (1985), ch. S‑26 , n’obligeait pas non plus les intimés à signifier l’avis d’appel à la première nation Sagkeeng tant et aussi longtemps qu’elle n’aurait pas obtenu auprès d’un juge de notre Cour une ordonnance l’autorisant à intervenir, à la suite d’une demande fondée sur l’art. 18 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada.  Cette procédure a été implantée par une modification des Règles que notre Cour a portée à l’attention des membres de la profession dans son avis aux avocats daté du 16 janvier 1984.  Aucune ordonnance de cette nature n’a été rendue en faveur de la première nation Sagkeeng.  De manière plus substantielle, toutefois, nous pensons qu’il n’est pas juste que le requérant, qui vit dans la réserve de la première nation Sagkeeng, qui a reçu tous les avis appropriés et qui a participé pleinement aux procédures devant notre Cour, qui était au courant de l’absence de la première nation Sagkeeng et qui aurait pu, s’il l’avait voulu, effectuer lui‑même une signification à la première nation Sagkeeng, vienne maintenant se plaindre de l’oubli qu’auraient commis les intimés.  L’argument du requérant selon lequel l’audition initiale du pourvoi était irrégulière est rejeté.

La Cour considérerait néanmoins la possibilité d’accorder une nouvelle audition, s’il s’agissait de l’un de ces cas vraiment exceptionnels où le requérant serait en mesure de démontrer qu’il a pu y avoir déni de justice à l’audition initiale.  Aucune possibilité de cette nature n’a été identifiée.  Le requérant et la mère ont tous les deux été bien représentés par avocat lors de l’audition du 17 février 1999.  À ce moment, les avocats ont examiné les arguments pertinents que la première nation Sagkeeng souhaite maintenant débattre de nouveau, sauf en ce qui concerne sa demande d’évaluation psychologique à jour d’Ishmael, que le requérant lui‑même n’avait pas sollicitée au moment de l’audition du 17 février 1999.  Les intervenants abordent les questions de droit générales que soulève un appel.  Il ne leur appartient pas de chercher à élargir le dossier des faits en litige au‑delà de ce qui satisfait les parties immédiates.

Dans l’arrêt Grand Montréal, Commission des écoles protestantes c. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 2 R.C.S. 167, à la p. 168, la Cour a fait l’affirmation suivante, qui est tout aussi applicable à la présente demande:

En substance, les requérantes disent que si on tient compte de toute la documentation soumise à la Cour, et plus particulièrement de certains éléments portés à son attention au moment de la requête, on ne peut que conclure en leur faveur sur ces deux points.  Les requérantes plaident que, comme la Cour les a déboutées, elle n’a pas dû tenir compte de ces documents et qu’elle devrait donc ordonner une nouvelle audition.

C’est un argument que toute partie déboutée pourrait faire valoir pour chercher à obtenir une nouvelle audition.  On ne nous a rien soumis qui appuie le fait que la Cour s’est fourvoyée ou a été induite en erreur en ce qui concerne la teneur du dossier dont elle était saisie, la nature des questions en litige ou les questions à examiner.

Nous concluons qu’une nouvelle audition n’est pas justifiée.  La requête en nouvelle audition est donc rejetée avec dépens.

AGENDA for the week beginning May 10, 1999.

ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 10 mai 1999.

Date of Hearing/                           Case Number and Name/    

Date d'audition                             Numéro et nom de la cause

The Court is not sitting this week

La Cour ne siège pas cette semaine

NOTE: 

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

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

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                                                                                      

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)

872899 Ontario Inc. v. Iacovoni (Ont.), 26891, *02 8.2.99                                                   92(99)                               256(99)

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

   *02 8.2.99                                                                                                                                   93(99)                               257(99)

928412 Ontario Ltd. v. M.N.R. (F.C.A.), 27146, *A                                                              335(99)

2897041 Canada Inc. c. Immobilière Natgen Inc. (Qué.), 26936, *B                                670(99)

A.K. (S.) v. C. (A.) (Alta), 27038, *A                                                                                        71(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)

Abbott Laboratories, Ltd. v. Nu-Pharm Inc. (F.C.A.), 27051, *A                                        71(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, *A                                                                                    329(99)

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

Albert Fisher Canada Ltd. v. Win Sun Produce Co. (B.C.), 26940, *A                              1750(98)

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)

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

Al Sagban (F.C.A.), 27111, *A                                                                                                  329(99)

American Home Assurance Co. v. Marine Industries Ltd.(Qué.), 27126, *A                    334(99)

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

   21.2.99                                                                                                                                         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, *A                                                                        329(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)

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, *A                                                                                                                                   1(99)

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

   (B.C.), 27045, *A                                                                                                                       79(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. (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)

Baker v. Boy Scouts of Canada (Ont.), 27233, *A                                                                 703(99)

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

   27000, *A                                                                                                                                   2(99)

Barreau du Québec c. Fortin (Qué.), 27152, *A                                                                    335(99)

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

Battye v. Tirano (Ont.), 26917, *01 8.2.99                                                                                79(99)                               253(99)

Beckett v. The 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, *A                                                                                                        144(99)

Benge c. Hôpital général de Toronto (Ont.), 27010, *A                                                      3(99)

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

Bennett (Russell) v. Superintendent of Brokers (B.C.), 27031, *A                                     6(99)

Benoît c. Landry (Qué.), 27203, *A                                                                                          701(99)

Bhaduria v. City-TV - A Division of CHUM Television Group (Ont.), 27100, *A            232(99)

Biron c. Arthur Andersen Inc. (Qué.), 27251, *A                                                                   705(99)

Biron c. Côté (Qué.), 27230, *A                                                                                                703(99)

Biron c. Tribunal des professions (Qué.), 27099, *A                                                            332(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 (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 (Qué.), 26969, *A                                                                                458(99)

Breese v. The Queen (Man.), 27207, *B                                                                                   706(99)

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

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

    *A                                                                                                                                              536(99)

British Columbia Securities Commission v. Global Securities Corporation (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)

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

Brown (Paul E.) v. Cole (B.C.), 27046, *A                                                                              8(99)

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

   27150, *A                                                                                                                                   335(99)

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

Bunn v. The Queen (Ont.), 26918, *A                                                                                       536(99)

Burnhamthorpe Square Inc. v. Goodyear Canada Inc. (Ont.), 27056, *A                        71(99)

Busse Farms Ltd. v. Federal Business Developmet Bank (Sask.), 27116, *A                   333(99)

Byer v. Reyes (Qué.), 26539, *A                                                                                                536(99)

Byer v. Royal Insurance Company of Canada (Qué.), 27224, *A                                       702(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

   8.2.99                                                                                                                                           78(99)                               250(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 Corporation (F.C.A.), 27208, *A                                                 702(99)

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

   (B.C.), 27082, *A                                                                                                                       198(99)

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

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

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

   29.4.99                                                                                                                                         540(99)                             675(99)

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

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

Chciuk v. The Queen (Ont.), 27076,*B                                                                                     613(99)

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

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, *A                                     70(99)

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s v. Shama Textiles Inc. (Que.), 26799, *02 8.2.99          77(99)                               249(99)

Chabot c. Gauthier (Qué.), 26973, *A                                                                                     1931(98)

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

Cherryhill Rehabilitation Clinic v. Salo (Ont.), 27077, *A                                                145(99)

Chieu v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.), 27107, *A                            328(99)

Chisan v. 478370 Alberta Inc. (Alta.), 26888, *A                                                                 1657(98)

City of Charlottetown v. Government of Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.), 27144, *A        332(99)

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

Clement v. Attorney General for Ontario (Ont.), 27078, *A                                                536(99)

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

   (B.C.), 26975, *B                                                                                                                        379(99)

Comité de discipline de la sûreté du Québec c. Bouchard (Qué.), 26957, *A                 1794(98)

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

   Legault Inc. (Qué.), 27073, *A                                                                                               197(99)

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

   minière Québec Cartier (Qué.), 27128, *A                                                                          334(99)

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

   Grand-Portage (Qué.), 27003, *A                                                                                         328(99)

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

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

Communauté urbaine de Montréal c. Lapointe (Qué.), 27140, *A                                    331(99)

Communauté urbaine de Montréal c. Ville de Westmount (Qué.), 26938, *A                  1725(98)

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

   *A                                                                                                                                               1550(98)

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

Coopérative Fédérée du Québec c. Banque de commerce canadienne impériale

   (Qué.), 26926, *A                                                                                                                      1725(98)

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 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)

Coughlin v. Comery (Ont.), 27027, *B                                                                                     670(99)

Credit Lyonnais Canada v. National Bank of Canada (Ont.), 26942, *02 11.3.99          240(99)                             425(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, *A                                 6(99)

D. (G.) c. C. (J.) (Qué.), 27246, *A                                                                                           705(99)

Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. (Ont.), 27118, *A                                                329(99)

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

Davies v. The Queen (Crim.)(Yuk.), 26870, *01 8.2.99                                                            87(99)                               255(99)

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

Deslauriers c. Labelle (Qué.), 26993, *A                                                                                1(99)

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

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

Direk v. Dixon (Ont.), 26836, *02 8.2.99                                                                                   17(99)                               252(99)

Doman v. Superintendent of Brokers (B.C.), 27026, *A                                                       5(99)

Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company 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)

Dufour c. Centre hospitalier St-Joseph-de-la-Malbaie (Qué.), 26986, *A                       1(99)

Dular v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.), 26992, *A                             332(99)

Dulude c. La Reine (Qué.), 27105, *B                                                                                      610(99)

Dupont c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26853, *01 21.1.99                                                            1973(98)                           109(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, *A                                198(99) 

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

Elder v. The Queen (Ont.), 27219, *A                                                                                      705(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. 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, *A                             198(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 8.2.99                                                             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)

Exarhos v. Bank of Nova Scotia (Que.), 24608, *B                                                               708(99)

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

   du Québec (Qué.), 26856, *B                                                                                                  708(99)

Farhat c. Ordre des opticiens d’ordonnances du Québec (Qué.), 27103, *A                  333(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, *A                                                                                                  3(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, *A                                                     334(99)

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

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, *A            199(99)

Foote v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26895, *01 8.2.99                                                               13(99)                               246(99)

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

   27005, *A                                                                                                                                   3(99)

French (Doug) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26529, *02 22.4.99                                            482(99)                             621(99)

French (Doug) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24748, *02 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)

Gabriel v. The Queen (Man.), 27161, *A                                                                                 701(99)

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

Gagné (Michel) c. Commission municipale du Québec (Qué.), 27012, *A                      4(99)

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

Gariépy v.The Queen in right of Canada (F.C.A.)(Que.), 26794, *02 8.2.99                      78(99)                               250(99)

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

Gauthier and Associates v. 482511 Ontario Ltd. (Ont.), 26844, *B                                   707(99)

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

   *02 25.3.99                                                                                                                                 377(99)                             487(99)

General Motors Corporation v. Baljian (Ont.), 26864, *02 8.2.99                                      80(99)                               254(99)

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

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

   8.2.99                                                                                                                                           90(99)                               244(99)

Glass v. Musqueam Indian Band (F.C.A.), 27154, *A                                                           458(99)

Gosselin c. La Reine (Qué.), 27178, *A                                                                                   537(99)

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

Grant v. The Queen (Ont.), 27243, *A                                                                                      704(99)

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

Hall v. Puchniak (Man.), 27070, *A                                                                                        144(99)

Hammond v. Town Council of the Town of Wabana (Nfld.), 27157, *A                            458(99)

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

   26857, *02 8.2.99                                                                                                                       88(99)                               256(99)

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

Henri c. Henri (Qué.), 27245, *A                                                                                              704(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, *B                                                                            614(99)

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

Houle v. The Queen (Man.), 27161, *A                                                                                    701(99)

Hudson’s Bay Co. v. Piko (Ont.), 27087, *A                                                                           198(99)

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

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

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

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

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

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

   27071, *A                                                                                                                                   197(99)

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

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

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

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

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

Jevco Insurance Co. v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. (Ont.), 27129, *B                  673(99)

Jeyarajah v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27167, *A                                                                           459(99)

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

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

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

Kainth v. The Queen (F.C.A.) (Ont.), 26832, *02 8.2.99                                                         15(99)                               251(99)

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

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

   *02 25.3.99                                                                                                                                 149(99)                             494(99)

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

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

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

Khan (Mohamed Ameerulla) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 26765, *05 (application

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

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

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

   11.3.99                                                                                                                                         241(99)                             425(99)

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

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

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

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

Knight v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 26859, *01 8.2.99                                                           12(99)                               245(99)

Knoblauch v. The Queen (Alta.), 27238, *A                                                                           704(99)

Kopij v. Corporation of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (Ont.), 27074, *A  197(99)

KPMG Inc. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (Ont.), 27080, *A                          232(99)

Krist v. The Queen (B.C.), 26970, *B                                                                                        614(99)

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

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

   11.3.99                                                                                                                                         343(99)                             426(99)

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

L. (F.). c. Garneau-Fournier (Qué.), 27104, *A                                                                     333(99)

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

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

Lacquaniti v. Devine (Ont.), 25078, *A                                                                                   4(96)

Laflamme c. Vézina (Qué.), 27147, *A                                                                                     335(99)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lavigne v. Human Resources Development (F.C.A.), 27011, *A                                        4(99)

Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat (B.C.), 27108, *A                                           328(99)

Law Society of Upper Canada v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (Ont.), 27125, *A                 334(99)

Lebeuf c. Groupe Snc-Lavalin Inc. (Qué.), 27236, *A                                                           704(99)

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

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

Lessard v. Société québécoise d’assainissement des eaux (Qué.), 27028, *A                  6(99)

Leu v. Health One Inc. (Ont.), 27037, *B                                                                                 710(99)

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

   (Qué.), 27059, *A                                                                                                                      70(99)

Lewis v. The Queen (P.E.I.), 26603, *A                                                                                     701(99)

Lin v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (Ont.), 26827, *02 8.2.99                                                     14(99)                               247(99)

Lineal Group Inc. v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (Ont.), 27040, *A                                       7(99)

Lindsay (David) v. Provincial Government of Manitoba (Man.), 27181, *A                   537(99)

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

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

   18.2.99                                                                                                                                         81(99)                               303(99)

Lloyd’s of London v. Norris (N.B.), 26977, *A                                                                       1931(98)

Loignon c. Collège (CÉGEP) Montmorency (Qué.), 27201, *A                                         701(99)

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

Lore v. The Queen (Crim.)(Qué.), 26683, *02 22.4.99                                                              1248(98)                           623(99)

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

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

MacDonald v. ADGA Systems International Ltd. (Ont.), 27202, *A                                  701(99)

MacDonald v. Coopers &Lybrand Ltd. (Ont.), 27145, *A                                                   334(99)

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

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

   25.3.99                                                                                                                                         416(99)                             490(99)

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

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

Magna-Tardif c. Langevin (Qué.), 27137, *A                                                                         331(99)

Mailloux c. Beltrami (Qué.), 27182, *A                                                                                   538(99)

Malhotra v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 27034, *A                                 7(99)

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

Marchand (René) c. Chaudière de la (Qué.), 26880, *B                                                      669(99)

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

   27117, *A                                                                                                                                   329(99)

Marth Realties Ltd. v. A.G. of Canada (F.C.A.), 27231, *A                                                 703(99)

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

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

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

   *02 25.3.99                                                                                                                                 149(99)                             493(99)

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

Matthiessen v. The Queen (Alta.), 27170, *B                                                                          671(99)

Maytag Corporation v. Whirlpool Corporation (F.C.A.), 27209, *A                                702(99)

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

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

McCullough v. The Queen (Ont.), 27088, *B                                                                          668(99)

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

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

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

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

Mensink v. Dale (Ont.), 27135, *B                                                                                            672(99)

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

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

   *02 7.1.99                                                                                                                                   1765(98)                           31(99)

Minister of National Revenue v. Mitchell (F.C.A.), 27066, *A                                           144(99)

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

   (Qué.), 27022, *A                                                                                                                      5(99)

Ministry of Finance v. Higgins (Ont.), 27191, *A                                                                  609(99)

Mondesir v. Manitoba Association of Optometrists (Man.), 26816, *02                           1942(98)                           23(99)

Monfette c. Hôtel-Dieu de Saint-Jérôme (Qué.), 26697, *02 21.1.99                                   1974(98)                           111(99)

M. (F.) c. B. (P.) (Qué.), 26813, *02 8.2.99                                                                               1937(98)                           244(99)

Morton v. Rabito (Ont.), 27130, *B                                                                                          673(99)

Moxham v. The Queen in right of Canada (F.C.A.), 27180, *A                                          537(99)

Muise v. Workers’ Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (N.S.), 26804, *01                     1880(98)                           27(99)

Municipalité de St-Lin c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.), 27016, *A                    4(99)

Murray-Audain v. Corporation of the Town of Newcastle (Ont.), 26913, *02 4.3.99       207(99)                             391(99)

N. (F.G.) v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26951, *01 11.3.99                                                       342(99)                             426(99)

Nadeau c. Nadeau (Qué.), 27225, *A                                                                                      702(99)

Naima c. Sears Canada Inc. (Qué.), 26874, *02 1.4.99                                                          461(99)                             559(99)

Nalley’s Canada Ltd. v. Deputy Minister of Revenue Canada (F.C.A.), 27058, *A        70(99)

National Bank of Canada v. Gagliano (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26848, *02 18.2.99                        86(99)                               297(99)

Nelson  v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26684, *02 11.3.99                                                       238(99)                             423(99)

Nespolon v. Alford (Ont.), 26862, *02 21.1.99                                                                         1977(98)                           113(99)

Niderost v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26960, *01 1.4.99                                                       350(99)                             561(99)

Noël c. Société d’énergie de la Baie James (SEGJ) (Qué.), 26914, *A                             1725(98)

Northwood Pulp and Timber Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27033, *A                                 6(99)

Noskey v. The Queen (Alta.), 26022, *A                                                                                  1121(97)

Novic v. Metropolitan Toronto Civic Employees Union Local 43 (Ont.), 27097, *A     332(99)

O’Shanter Development Co. v. Minott (Ont.), 27179, *A                                                     537(99)

Ontario Nurses’ Association v. Orillia Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital (Ont.), 27176,

   *A                                                                                                                                               537(99)

Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, District 9 v. Barton (Ont.),

   26911, *02 4.3.99                                                                                                                       234(99)                             384(99)

Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, District 9 v. Barton (Ont.),

   27085, *A                                                                                                                                   291(99)                            

Orlov v. Metro Toronto Police (O.P.P.) (Ont.), 26825, *01 7.1.99                                       1871(98)                           29(99)

Osuitok v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.W.T.), 27102, *01 29.4.99                                                   549(99)                             678(99)

Pacific National Investments Ltd. v. Corporation of the City of Victoria (B.C.),

   27006,*03 22.4.99                                                                                                                      460(99)                             620(99)

Pack M.J. Inc. c. La Reine (Qué.), 27069, *A                                                                         144(99)

Paddon Hughes Development Co. v. Pancontinental Oil Ltd. (Alta.), 27030, *A           6(99)

P. (U.) c. S. (P.) (Qué.), 27067, *01 18.3.99                                                                              349(99)                             468(99)

Pardee Equipment Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27165, *A                                                   459(99)

Parsons v. Guymer (Ont.), 27143, *A                                                                                       332(99)

Paterson v. The Queen (B.C.), 27133, *B                                                                                 669(99)

Pearl c. Gentra Canada Investments Inc. (Qué.), 26807, *02 18.2.99                                 86(99)                               297(99)

Pearlman v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 27096, *A                                                                 199(99)

Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department

   Store Union Local 558 (Sask.), 27060, *B                                                                           205(99)

Perks v. The Queen (Ont.), 27153, *A                                                                                      336(99)

Perez v. Governing Council of the Salvation Army in Canada (Ont.), 27136, *A          331(99)

Piché c. La Reine (Qué.), 27237, *A                                                                                         704(99)

Pinsonneault c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26795, *01 18.2.99                                                 201(99)                             294(99)

Plamondon c. La Reine (Qué.), 22477, *A                                                                              332(99)

Pocklington Financial Corporation v. Alberta Treasury Branches (Alta.), 27054,

   *05 18.1.99                                                                                                                                 160(99)                             160(99)

Posen v. Stoddart Publishing Co. (Ont.), 26782, *02 7.1.99                                                 1870(98)                           28(99)

Poulin c. Commission de la fonction publique du Québec (Qué.), 27142, *A                 332(99)

Pregent v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26753, *01 21.1.99                                                         1971(98)                           99(99)

Pringle v. London City Police Services Board (Ont.), 26935, *A                                      1725(98)

Procureur général du Québec c. Cross (Crim.)(Qué.), 26944, *03 25.3.99                         340(99)                             492(99)

Procureur général du Québec c. Barney (Crim.)(Qué.), 26944, *03 25.3.99                       340(99)                             492(99)

Proulx c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.), 27235, *A                                                 703(99)

Provincial Court Judges’ Association of British Columbia v. Attorney General of

   British Columbia (B.C.), 26812, *01 21.1.99                                                                         1936(98)                           98(99)

Pushpanathan v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.)(Ont.),

   25173, *C                                                                                                                                    210(98)

R. (P.) c. La Reine (Qué.), 27206, *A                                                                                       701(99)

R. (W.S.) v. The Queen (Ont.), 27177,*B                                                                                  709(99)

R. v. S. (A.) (Ont.), 27052, *A                                                                                                     72(99)

R. c. Caouette (Qué.), 27050, *A                                                                                               70(99)

R. v. Deschamps (Crim.)(Ont.), 27013, *03   22.4.99                                                                484(99)                             624(99)

R. v. Dew (Crim.)(Man.), 27017, *B                                                                                           202(99)

R. v. Ducharme (Qué.), 27160, *A                                                                                             459(99)

R. v. Groot (Crim.)(Ont.), 26929 4.3.99 (The application for leave to cross-appeal

   is dismissed/la demande d’autorisation d’appel-incident est rejetée)                             393(99)                            

R. c. Hamelin (Qué.), 27250, *A                                                                                                609(99)

R. c. Kebreau (Qué.), 27114, *B                                                                                                667(99)

R. v. Khan (Crim.)(Man.), 26765, *01 21.1.99                                                                           1971(98)                           100(99)

R. c. Lévesque (Crim.)(Qué.), 26939, *03 22.4.99                                                                     484(99)                             625(99)

R. v. Lowns (Crim.)(B.C.), 27072, *02 22.4.99                                                                           483(99)                             622(99)

R. v. Martel Building Ltd. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26893, *03 18.2.99                                               149(99)                             301(99)

R. v. Middleton (Crim.)(Ont.), 26860, *01 4.3.99                                                                      233(99)                             383(99)

R. v. Palin (Qué.), 27159, *A                                                                                                     458(99)

R. v. Robertson (Crim.)(Nfld.), 26614, *01 7.1.99                                                                     1878(98)                           25(99)

R. v. Ruzic (Crim.)(Ont.), 26930, *03 25.3.99                                                                             340(99)                             492(99)

R. v. Sherlock (Crim.)(Man.), 27134, *01 29.4.99                                                                     543(99)                             676(99)

R. in right of the Province of British Columbia v. C.A. (B.C.), 27065, *A                         199(99)

R. in right of the Province of Ontario v. 974649 Ontario Inc. (Ont.), 27084, *A            198(99)

R. in right of the Province of Ontario v. Mason (Ont.), 26797, *02                                    1872(98)                           30(99)

Rain v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 27041, *01 1.4.99                                                               413(99)                             557(99)

Rathwell v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27039, *01 6.5.99                                                         545(99)                             713(99)

Reed v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27018, *01 1.4.99                                                                418(99)                             564(99)

Renaud c. Commission des affaires sociales (Qué.), 26677, *3 21.1.99                              1877(98)                           105(99)

Richard c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26934, *01 18.3.99                                                           345(99)                             464(99)

Richardson v. Richardson (B.C.), 26956, *02 7.1.99                                                              1941(98)                           23(99)

Richer (Sylvio) c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26769, *01 8.2.99                                                76(99)                               248(99)

Richer (Sylvio) c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26852, *01 18.2.99                                              84(99)                               295(99)

Richter & Associés Inc. c. Wightman (Qué.), 26735, *A                                                       1210(98)

Riendeau c. Ville de Québec (Qué.), 27226, *A                                                                     702(99)

Rijntjes v. Workers’ Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (N.S.), 26906, *01

   7.1.99                                                                                                                                           1942(98)                           24(99)

Riopel c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26787, *01 25.2.99                                                              201(99)                             352(99)

Robson v. The Queen (Ont.), 27062, *A                                                                                   197(99)

Rocky Mountain Ecosystem Coalition v. Joint Review Panel (F.C.A.)(Alta.),

   25618, *A                                                                                                                                   1958(96)

Rodrigue (Réal) c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.), 26884, *A                               1657(98)

Roopnarine-Singh v. The Queen (Man.), 27132, *B                                                              706(99)

Rounds v. The Queen in right of Canada (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26775, *02 15.4.99                    462(99)                             567(99)

Royal Bank of Canada v. Director of Investigation and Research (Ont.),

   26315                                                                                                                                           5(98)                                 232(98)

The applications for an extension of time are granted.  The applications

 for oral hearings are dismissed. An order will go staying the following

orders pending the determination of the appeals in  Royal Bank of

Canada v. Director of Investigation and Research (Ont.) (26316);

Canadian Pacific Limited, et al v. Director of Investigation and Research

(Ont.) (26317).

a)  The order granted on February 20, 1997 by Farley J. in Ontario Court

(General Division) Commercial List File Nos. B55/95F, B55/95G and B55/95H;

b)  The order granted on May 21, 1996 by Farley J. in Ontario Court

(General Division) Commercial List File No. B55/95F; and

c)  The order granted on March 19, 1997 by Farley J. in Ontario Court

(General Division) Commercial List File Nos. B55/95B, B55/95F and B55/95M.

Russell v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26699, *01 4.3.99                                    206(99)                    390(99)

S. (M.) v. S. (P.I.) (B.C.), 27151, *A                                                              481(99)

S.A. Louis Dreyfus & Cie c. Holding Tusculum B.V. (Qué.), 26843, *02 18.3.99                               347(99) 466(99)

Saskatchewan Joint Board, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union v.

   Kindersley and District Co-Operative Ltd. (Sask.), 27079, *A                        197(99)

Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board v. Kindersley and District Co-Operative

   Ltd. (Sask.), 27079, *A                                                                              197(99)

Sam Lévy & Associés Inc. c. Canpro Investments Inc. (Qué.), 26875, *A          1597(98)

Sam Lévy & Associés Inc. c. Canpro Investments Inc. (Qué.), 26908, *A          1724(98)

Samra v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26976, *01 29.4.99                                    553(99)                    682(99)

Sawicki v. The Queen (Ont.), 26031, *A                                                         1325(97)

Sawyer c. La Reine (Qué.), 27115, *A                                                            329(99)

Schmalfuss v. Feldman (Ont.), 26927, *A                                                      1794(98)

Schmand v. Heppner (B.C.), 27093, *05 18.2.99                                             199(99)                    359(99)

Seaspan International Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26868, *02 18.2.99     91(99)                      299(99)

Services des espaces verts Ltée/Chemlawn c. Ville de Hudson (Qué.), 26937, *A                             1725(98)

Shell Canada Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 26596, 4.3.99 (The application for leave

   to cross-appeal is granted. The costs for the application to cross appeal are to be

   paid by the Crown in any event of the cause forthwith after taxation on the

   solicitor and client scale/La demande d’appel-incident est accordée. Les dépens

   relatifs à cette demande devront être payés par le ministère public quelle que soit

   l’issue de la cause, immédiatement après la taxation sur la base procureur-client)                         393(99)

Sheppard v. Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26949,

    *01 4.3.99                                                                                               237(99)                    387(99)

Shulman v. United States of America (Crim.)(Ont.), 26912, *03 18.2.99            146(99)                    292(99)

Silliker v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27053, *B                                                542(99)

Simanek (Myra) v. Train (Jack) (Ont.), 26248, *A                                            1867(97)

Simanek (Myra) v. Train (Jack) (Ont.), 27141, *A                                            334(99)

Simon v. Minicipality of Oka (Qué.), 27124, *A                                               334(99)

Skogan v. Winkelaar (Alta.), 27081, *A                                                         198(99)

Smith v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (Ont.), 27061, *A        72(99)

Snake v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 25459, *A                                                 1(97)

Société d’hypothèque Banque Nationale c. Sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec

   (Qué.), 26988, *A                                                                                      7(99)

Société Rodaber Ltée c. Banque nationale du Canada (Qué.), 26909, *02 6.5.99                               546(99) 714(99)

Somra v. 432080 Ontario Ltd. (Ont.), 26667, *02 21.1.99                                 1939(98)                   108(99)

Spanevello v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26959, *01 11.3.99                             337(99)                    421(99)

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

   (Qué.), 26823, *02 28.1.99                                                                         83(99)                      156(99)

Sreih c. La Reine (Crim)(Qué.), 26762, *01 4.3.99                                           339(99)                    388(99)

St-Jacques v. Bourdon (Qué.), 27232, *A                                                       703(99)

Stark v.The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26792, *01 7.1.99                                        1873(98)                   21(99)

Stenzler v. Ontario College of Pharmacists (Ont.), 26820, *01 8.2.99               81(99)                      254(99)

Stewart v. United States of America (B.C.), 27042, *05 1.3.99                         408(99)                    408(99)

Stewart v. Minister of Justice for Canada (B.C.), 27043, *05 1.3.99                  408(99)                    408(99)

Stonojlovic v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26876, *01 1.4.99                               375(99)                    556(99)

Stuart v. Ernst & Young (B.C.), 25964, *B                                                      659(98)

Succession of Clifford Burton v. City of Verdun (Que.), 26955, *A                    1865(98)

Sullivan c. Camp Carowanis Inc. (Qué.), 26771, *01 8.1.99                              14(99)                      247(99)

Sutherland v. The Queen in right of Canada (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26056, *01 28.1.99 1967(97)                   157(99)

Syndicat des cols bleus de ville de Saint-Hubert c. Ville de Saint-Hubert (Qué.),

   27122, *A                                                                                                 333(99)

Syndicat des enseignantes et enseignants de la banlieue de Québec c. Commission

   scolaire des navigateurs (Qué.), 26961, *A                                                  1970(98)

Tailleur v. Sendziak (Alta.), 27169, *A                                                           536(99)

Tandon v. Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. (Ont.), 27139, *02 29.4.99                 486(99)                    679(99)

Têtu c. Bouchard (Qué.), 26892, *02 6.5.99                                                    542(99)                    712(99)

Therrien (Conrad) c. Banque Royale du Canada (Qué.), 27049, *A                    70(99)

Therrien (Richard) c. Ministre de la Justice (Qué.), 27004, *A                           3(99)

Thompson v. The Queen (Alta.), 27024, *B                                                    667(99)

Thornhill Aggregates Ltd. v. Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge (B.C.),

   26818, *02 29.4.99                                                                                    543(99)                    680(99)

Tin Wis Resort Ltd. v. Assessor of Area #05 - Port Alberni (B.C.), 27015, *B    611(99)

Tinkasimire v. Valeo Engine Cooling Ltd. (Ont.), 26996, *A                             70(99)

Toronto Transit Commission v. Lindsay (Ont.), 27092, *A                                199(99)

Travaillleur et travailleuses unis de l’alimentation et du commerce, local 500

   c. Ivanhoe Inc. (Qué.), 27121, *A                                                               333(99)

Tremblay (Sonia) c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.), 26883, *A                 1657(98)

Trengrove Developments Inc. (94-2663(GST)G) v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.),

   26793, *02 7.1.99                                                                                     1941(98)                   22(99)

Tsaoussis v. Baetz (Ont.), 26945, *02 28.1.99                                               11(99)                      152(99)

Union of Nova Scotia Indians v. Attorney General of Nova Scotia (N.S.), 26861,

   *01 21.1.99                                                                                              75(99)                      102(99)

United Nurses of Alberta, Local 115 v. Foothills Provincial General Hospital

   (Alta.), 27098, *A                                                                                      199(99)

V. (M.) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26527, *C                                                1276(98)

Varma (Aditya Narayan)  v. Forsyth (Ont.), 26750, *02 28.1.99                         74(99)                      154(99)

Varma (Aditya Narayan) v. Rozenberg (Ont.), 27110, *A                                  232(99)

Veinot v. Veinot (N.S.), 27047, *A                                                                 71(99)

Verchere v. Western Canadian Sopping Centres Inc. (Ont.), 27138, *A             331(99)

Vigi Santé Ltée c. Ville de Montréal (Qué.), 27227, *A                                      702(99)

Ville de Saint-Hubert c. Blanchet (Qué.), 26872, *02 21.1.99                           1974(98)                   110(99)

Ville de Saint-Hubert c. S.S.Q. Société d’assurance générale (Qué.), 26738, *02

   18.2.99                                                                                                                                   147(99) 299(99)

Ville de Saint-Laurent c. 150460 Canada Inc. (Qué.), 26821, *02 25.3.99          417(99)                    491(99)

Vincent v. The Queen (Ont.), 26925, *05 8.2.99                                              311(99)                    311(99)

Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.)(Yuk.),

   26808, *02 21.1.99                                                                                    1875(98)                   103(99)

Walcott v. Roach (Ont.), 27242, *A                                                               704(99)

Ward v. Government of Saskatchewan (Sask.), 26991, *02 4.3.99                   235(99)                    385(99)

Weisenberger v. Johnson & Higgins Ltd. (Man.), 27106, *A                             333(99)

Weisfeld v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 24334, *A                                           1595(94)

Wellcome Foundation v. Apotex Inc. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26902 *02 21.1.99            1876(98)                   104(99)

WestarPetroleum Ltd. v. Colborne Capital Corp. (Alta.), 27188,*A                    538(99)

Westfair Foods Ltd. v. Wright (Alta.), 27055, *A                                             71(99)

White Spot Limited v. British Columbia Labour Relations Board (B.C.), 27249,

   *A                                                                                                           705(99)

Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Company (Ont.), 27229, *A                                     703(99)

Wightman c. Widdrington (Qué.), 26989, *02 18.3.99                                      348(99)                    467(99)

Wild v. The Queen (B.C.), 26384, *A                                                             4(98)

Wilson v. Schierbeck (Alta.), 27148, *A                                                         335(99)

Woodward v. Stelco Inc. (Ont.), 26865, *02 4.3.99                                          17(99)                      390(99)

Wyeth-Ayerst Canada Inc. c. Deghenghi (Qué.), 26739, *02 8.2.99                   13(99)                      246(99)

Zaretski v. Workers’ Compensation Board (Sask.), 26727, *01 28.1.99            1508(98)                   157(99)

CUMULATIVE INDEX ‑ APPEALS                                    INDEX CUMULATIF ‑ POURVOIS

This index includes appeals standing for judgment at the beginning of 1999 and all appeals heard in 1999 up to now.

Cet index comprend les pourvois en délibéré au début de 1999 et tous ceux entendus en 1999 jusqu'à maintenant.

*01 dismissed/rejeté

*02 dismissed with costs/rejeté avec dépens

*03 allowed/accueilli

­*04 allowed with costs/accueilli avec dépens

*05 discontinuance/désistement

                                                                                                                                                   Hearing/                         Judgment/

CASE/AFFAIRE                                                                                                                      Audition                          Jugement

                 Page

65302 British Columbia Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26352                                  632(99)

Abouchard v. Conseil scolaire de langue française d’Ottawa-Carleton — Section

   Publique (Ont.), 25899                                                                                                        1788(98)

Attorney General for Ontario v. M. (Ont.), 25838                                                              489(98)

Baker (Thomas Bruce) v. Francis (Ont.), 26562                                                                697(99)

Baker v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 25823                     1742(98)

Batchewana Indian Band v. Corbière (Ont.), 25708                                                        1545(98)

Beaulac v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26416                                                                         409(99)

Bese v. Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute (Crim.)(B.C.), 25855                            1026(98)

Best v. Best (Ont.), 26345                                                                                                        314(99)

Bond v. Novak (B.C.), 26811                                                                                                  474(99)

Bracklow v. Bracklow (B.C.), 26178, *04 25.3.99                                                               1744(98)                           507(99)

British Columbia Government and Service Employee’s Union v. Government of

   British Columbia (B.C.), 26274                                                                                          361(99)

C. (L.) v. Mills (Crim.)(Alta.), 26358                                                                                     129(99)

Campbell v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 25780, appeal allowed in part / pourvoi

   est accueilli en partie, 22.4.99                                                                                             881(98)                             633(99)

Children’s Foundation v. Bazley (B.C.), 26013                                                                 1542(98)

Davis v. The Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.), 26441                                                                             410(99)

Delisle c. Attorney General of Canada (Qué.), 25926                                                      1544(98)

Des Champs v. Conseil des écoles séparées catholiques de langue française de

   Prescott-Russell (Ont.), 25898                                                                                            1788(98)

Dobson v. Dobson (N.B.), 26152                                                                                           1995(98)

FBI Foods Ltd. v. Cadbury Schweppes Inc. (B.C.), 25778, *04 28.1.99                          716(98)                             163(99)

Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v. Can-Dive Services Ltd. (B.C.), 26415                    409(99)

G. (J.) v. Minister of Health and Community Services (N.B.), 26005                             1787(98)

Gladue v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26300, *01 23.4.99                                                      1996(98)                           634(99)

H (N.) v. M. (H.) (B.C.), 26555, *03 17.2.99                                                                          314(99)

Jones v. Smith (B.C.), 26500, *01 25.3.99                                                                             507(99)                             507(99)

Judges of the Provincial Court of Manitoba v. The Queen in right of the

   Province of Manitoba (Man.), 24846                                                                                92(98)

Law v. Minister of Human Resources Development (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 25374, *01

   25.3.99                                                                                                                                    93(98)                               506(99)

Lepage v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26320                                                                           1026(98)

Liew v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26676                                                                              504(99)

M.J.B. Entreprises Ltd. v. Defence Construction (1951) Ltd. (Alta.), 25975,

   *03 22.4.99                                                                                                                             1744(98)                           633(99)

Marshall v. The Queen (N.S.), 26014                                                                                   1743(98)

Minister of Justice v. Burns (Crim.)(B.C.), 26129                                                                504(99)

Orlowski v. Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute (Crim.)(B.C.), 25751                    1026(98)

Pearson c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 24107                                                                            1995(98)

Poliquin c. Perron-Malenfant (Qué.), 26451                                                                      473(99)

Poulin c. Morency (Qué.), 26340                                                                                          632(99)

R. v. Campbell (Alta.), 24831                                                                                                 92(98)

R. v. Ewanchuk (Crim.)(Alta.), 26493, *03 25.2.99                                                              1579(98)                           362(99)

R. c. G. (B.) (Crim.)(Qué.), 26226                                                                                           219(99)

R. c. Kabbabe (Crim.)(Qué.), 25858                                                                                      1965(98)

R. c. Jolivet (Crim.)(Qué.), 26646                                                                                           360(99)

R. v. Monney (Crim.)(Ont.), 26404, *03 23.4.99                                                                    1965(98)                           633(99)

R. v. Stone (Crim.)(B.C.), 26032                                                                                              1091(98)

R. v. Sundown (Crim.)(Sask.), 26161, *01 25.3.99                                                                1742(98)                           506(99)

R. v. Trombley (Crim.)(Ont.), 26755, *01 23.4.99                                                                 696(99)                             699(99)

R. v. Warsing (Crim.)(B.C.), 26303                                                                                         1054(98)

R. v. White (Crim.)(B.C.), 26473                                                                                              1789(98)

R. in Right of Canada v. Del Zotto (Crim.)(Ont.), 26174, *04 21.1.99                              131(99)                             132(99)

Richter & Associés Inc. c. Sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec (Qué.), 26272,

   *03 29.4.99                                                                                                                             696(99)                             698(99)

Royal Bank of Canada v. W. Got & Associates Electric Ltd. (Alta.), 26081                 1889(98)

Ryan v. Corporation of the City of Victoria (B.C.), 25704, *04 28.1.99                          1027(98)                           163(99)

Starr v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 26514                                                                             1964(98)

Stone v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 25969                                                                              1091(98)

Taylor-Jacobi v. Boy’s and Girl’s Club of Vernon (B.C.), 26041                                    1543(98)

Thomas v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 25943                                                                          1054(98)

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1288P v.

   Alisco Building Products Ltd. (N.B.), 26203                                                                   312(99)

United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1518 v. Kmart Canada Ltd.

   (B.C.), 26209                                                                                                                          312(99)

Vancouver Society of Immigrant & Visible Minority Women v. Minister of

   National Revenue (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 25359, *01 28.1.99                                                     354(98)                             163(99)

Winko v. Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute (Crim.)(B.C.), 25856                         1026(98)

Winters v. Legal Services Society (Crim.)(B.C.), 26180                                                     1964(98)