Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

February 12, 1999  232 - 290 (INDEX)                                                  le 12 février 1999

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Jag Bhaduria

Jag D. Bhaduria

v. (27100)

City-TV - A Division of CHUM Television Group, Moses Znaimer, and Stephen Hurlbut (Ont.)

Mark S. Hayes

Fasken Campbell Godfrey

DATE DE PRODUCTION 12.1.1999

Aditya Narayan Varma

Aditya Narayan Varma

v. (27110)

Mary Rozenberg (C27230) et al. (Ont.)

Tom Teahen

Genest Murray Desbrisay Lamek

DATE DE PRODUCTION 18.1.1999

KPMG Inc.

Richard D. Howell

Aylesworth, Thompson, Phelan, O’Brien

v. (27080)

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (Ont.)

Michael Fredericks

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson

DATE DE PRODUCTION 8.1.1999

Denis Russel McCullough

Paul Burstein

Burstein and Paine

v. (27088)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Milan Rupic

Attorney General for Ontario

DATE DE PRODUCTION 19.1.1999

FEBRUARY 8, 1999 / LE 8 FÉVRIER 1999

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

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges McLachlin et Iacobucci

                                                                                    Her Majesty The Queen

                                                                                                v. (26860)

                                                             Trevor Middleton and Susan Coutts (Crim.)(Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Consciousness of guilt - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial judge should not have charged the jury on inferences that could be drawn from post-offence statements by the Respondents to the police in the absence of independent evidence of fabrication - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no independent evidence of fabrication.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                  Bot Construction Limited

                                                                                                v. (26758)

Her Majesty The Queen, in Right of the Province

 of Ontario, represented by the Minister of Transportation

 for the Province of Ontario and Bob Breeze (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial Review - Procedural fairness - Contracts - Section 23 of the Qualification Procedure for Contractors providing for review and appeal - Whether the Applicant is entitled to procedural fairness, and if so, the extent of that procedural fairness - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the Applicant’s motion for leave to appeal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, District 9

v. (26911)

Peter G. Barton, James N. Bartlet, Linvel Jones and Greater Essex County District School Board (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural Law - Civil Procedure - Evidence - Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Natural justice - Disposing of an appeal on an issue not raised by the litigants - Whether Court of Appeal erred in denying a remand to an arbitration board to conduct a hearing to determine a litigant’s period of disability in order to determine damages - Whether evidence should have been led in the first hearing.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Century Services Inc., formerly known as Century Disposals Inc.

v. (26983)

                                                     ZI Corporation, formerly known as Multi-Corp Inc.  (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE    

Commercial law - Contract - Appeals - Whether Court of Appeal erred in disposing of appeal on ground not raised at trial - Whether Court of Appeal erred by failing to apply Supreme Court of Canada decisions in McCauley v. McVey and Dynamic Drilling v. O.K. Detailing to a contract subject to the condition of subsequent board approval.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Jordan Ward

v. (26991)

Government of Saskatchewan (Sask.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Labour relations - Arbitration - Unionized workplace - Individual employees seeking to enforce arbitrators’ award - Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing appeal - Whether a judge on the Court of Appeal was biased by having been a Minister of the Respondent Government in the relevant time period.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache

                                                                                    9004-6673 Québec inc.

                                                                                                c. (26815)

                                                                                    Roxboro Excavation inc.

- et -

Gestion Bolain inc., Richter et Associés inc. et Marché Central Métropolitain inc. (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Procédure civile - Tribunaux - Récusation - Garantie d’impartialité judiciaire - Art. 234 du Code de procédure civile, L.R.Q., ch. C-25 - Certaines des déclarations du juge Guibault dans son jugement du 5 novembre 1997 suscitent-elles une crainte raisonnable de partialité à l’endroit du juge Guibault en ce qui concerne le litige faisant l’objet de la déclaration d’intervention amendée? - Les prétendus avantages administratifs qu’il peut y avoir à saisir un même juge de plusieurs dossiers connexes constituent-ils une considération pertinente pour déterminer s’il doit être récusé?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

                                                                            Marsha Bassi and Sotere Bassis

v. (26890)

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, William J. Whyte,

Jacqueline Carlyle, Wanda Bressan and Maureen Rush (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Civil - Civil rights - Labour law - Torts - Damages - Procedural law - Trial - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that the Applicant Bassi was not denied the right to fair trial by inappropriate cross-examination - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to find that the trial judge made any reversible error - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to find that the trial judge erred in not considering the tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering and emotional distress - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to find that the trial judge erred in dismissing the claims against the individual Respondents - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to grant the Applicants exemplary or punitive damages - Whether the Respondents’ method of terminating the Applicant Bassi’s employment violated her right to security of the person contrary to s. 7  of the Charter .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mr. Justice John E. Sheppard

v. (26949)

The Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes - Interpretation - Judges Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. J-1, sections 34  and 38  - Travel allowances for superior court judges - Whether Ontario superior court judges who reside outside their assigned regions are entitled to a daily travel allowance to commute to their judicial chambers - Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in ruling that that were not so entitled.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mr. Justice Thomas A. Beckett

v. (26958)

The Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes - Interpretation - Judges Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. J-1, sections 34  and 38  - Travel allowances for superior court judges - Whether Ontario superior court judges who reside outside their assigned regions are entitled to a daily travel allowance to commute to their judicial chambers - Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in ruling that that were not so entitled.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:   Cory, Major and Binnie JJ. /

Les juges Cory, Major et Binnie

                                                                                      Doris Merrill Nelson

                                                                                                v. (26684)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application for judicial review of the decision of the Tax Court of Canada - Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, as amended.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                          Tammy Donohue

                                                                                                v. (26867)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Civil law - Labour law- Unemployment insurance - Statutory interpretation - Whether claimant who is incapable of working because of illness of dependant child is entitled to sickness benefits pursuant to s. 14(b) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. U-1, as it stood in March, 1994 - Whether Act is discriminatory against claimant by depriving her of equal benefit under the law on grounds of sex, and family status as a parent of a child with a disabling condition.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

April 15, 1994       

Notification letter

Employment and Immigration Canada

Applicant’s claim for sickness benefits rejected

Merck Frosst Canada Inc. and Merck & Co., Inc.

v. (26903)

The Minister of Health and Apotex Inc. (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

 Property law - Patents - Interpretation - Statutory instruments - Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, as amended in SOR/98‐166 - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal correctly interpreted section 6(6) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Credit Lyonnais Canada in its capacity as Security Agent for the Abitibi and Gulf Lenders

v. (26942)

National Bank of Canada

- and -

 Pricewaterhouse Coopers Inc., (formerly Coopers & Lybrand Limited) the Trustee of the Estate of Olympia & York Developments Limited (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial Law - Guaranty-suretyship - Principal debtor clauses in guarantees - Co-guarantors execute guarantees of the same loan and each guarantee contains a principal debtor clause - Debtor defaults - Debtor and one co-guarantor become bankrupt - Creditor realizes upon security pledged by second co-guarantor and seeks to file a proof of claim in the estate of the bankrupt co-guarantor for the full amount of the loan based upon the bankrupt co-guarantor’s guarantee of the loan - Whether the principal debtor clause in the non-bankrupt co-guarantor’s guarantee required treating the realization upon security as a payment by a principal debtor for the purpose of  deducting the realized amount from the creditor’s proof of claim before filing in the estate of the bankrupt co-guarantor.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Pamela Khan

v. (26965)

Charles Harnick, Attorney General for Ontario (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Pre-trial procedure - Application for leave to institute or continue a proceeding pursuant to s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, chap. 43 - Whether the lower courts disposed of the case properly.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

FEBRUARY 11, 1999 / LE 11 FÉVRIER 1999

ADVANCE CUTTING & CORING LTD. ET AL. c. SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE ET LE PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL DU QUÉBEC  (Qué.)(26664)

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

Une audience est ordonnée.

An oral hearing is ordered.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit du travail - Relations de travail - Législation - Interprétation - Industrie de la construction - Obligation d’appartenir à une association d’employés - Liberté de non-association - Les articles 28, 30, 32, 39, 119.1(1) et 120 de la Loi sur les relations de travail, la formation professionnelle et la gestion de la main-d’oeuvre dans l’industrie de la construction, L.R.Q., chap. R- 20, portent-ils atteinte à l’alinéa 2d)  de la Charte canadienne  - Contestation rejetée en Cour du Québec et en Cour supérieure - Requête du demandeur pour permission d’appel rejetée.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

FEBRUARY 8,  1999 / LE 8 FÉVRIER 1999

CORAM:   Chief Justice Lamer and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

VIDEO CONFERENCE - VANCOUVER

Angelo Araujo et al.

    v. (26904)

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

David N. Lyon, for the motion.

Peter W. Hogg, contra.  (Vancouver)

Kevin Lathangue

    v. (26943)

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

David N. Lyon, for the motion.

Peter W. Hogg, contra. (Vancouver)

Robert Jenkins et al.

    v. (26899)

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

Sidney B. Simons, for the motion.

Peter W. Hogg, contra. (Vancouver)

Jolene Irons

    v. (26968)

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

Sidney B. Simons, for the motion.

Peter W. Hogg, contra. (Vancouver)

Neil Grandmaison et al.

   v. (26898)

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

Michael J. Munro and Peter Claus, for the motion.

Peter W. Hogg, contra. (Vancouver)

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

EXTENSION OF TIME GRANTED IN “IRONS (26968)” AND IN “ARAUJO (26904)” /

DÉLAI PROROGÉ ACCORDÉE DANS “IRONS (26968)” ET DANS “ARAUJO (26904)”

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Intercepted private communications - Wiretaps - Judicial review - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the existence of reasonable and probable grounds necessary for granting a wiretap authorization was not affected by a finding that the affiant had knowingly misled the Court on a matter relating to the accuracy of the matters set out in the wiretap affidavit - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial judge ought not to have considered a false explanation offered by the affiant to explain non-disclosure of errors in an affidavit.

26813                    F.M. - c. - P.B. (Qué.)

CORAM:               Le Juge en chef et les juges 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 - Une Cour d’appel peut-elle, sans enfreindre le droit d’une partie à une audition de sa cause, principe fondamental de justice naturelle garanti par l’art. 23 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., ch. C-12, rejeter sommairement un appel en vertu de l’art. 501(5) du Code de procédure civile, L.R.Q., ch. C-25, alors que ce recours n’est ni abusif ni dilatoire mais est au contraire bien fondé à la seule vue des documents? - Dans la négative, la partie lésée est-elle fondée, aux termes de l’art. 49  de la Charte, d’obtenir de la Cour suprême la cessation de cette atteinte illicite que seule une audition de sa cause pourra lui procurer?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

26869                    GIROCREDIT BANK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT DER SPARKASSEN - v. - HEIDRUN HEDWIG BADER, ANTON HANS BADER AND TOMAX ENTERPRISES LTD. (B.C.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law ‐ Civil procedure ‐ Pre‐trial procedure ‐ Interlocutory injunctions ‐ Mareva injunction and Anton Piller order ‐ Failure to make full and frank disclosure ‐ Whether chambers judge erred in fact in finding that the Applicant had failed to make full and frank disclosure in an ex parte application for a Mareva injunction and an Anton Piller order ‐ Whether chambers judge erred in law in dissolving the orders on the basis of material non‐disclosure ‐ Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing appeal ‐ Whether Court of Appeal erred in staying the action on the basis that British Columbia was a forum non conveniens and in failing to consider the in rem nature of the Applicant_s claim and the legitimate juridical advantage of proceeding in British Columbia.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26859                    NEIL KNIGHT & POWERRICH CORPORATION v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN  (Crim.)(Man.)

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

Statutes - Interpretation - Environmental law - Whether the Applicants are entitled to rely on the statutory revision of the French definition of “fertilizer” in s. 2  of the Fertilizers Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. F-10  in defence of charges of unlawfully selling fertilizer

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26895                    MICHAEL SEAN FOOTE v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN  (Crim.)(B.C.)

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

Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - Whether s. 651(3) of the Criminal Code , which requires that the Crown address the jury last where an accused has called a witness or witnesses, violates s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26739                    WYETH-AYERST CANADA INC. (AUPARAVANT AYERST McKENNA & HARRISON LTD., AVIS DE CHANGEMENT DE QUALITÉ DÉPOSÉ EN COUR D’APPEL DU QUÉBEC LE 17 OCTOBRE 1995) AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION c. DR. ROMANO DEGHENGHI  (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 du travail - Employeur et employé - Contrat - Interprétation - Congédiement - Programme d’intéressement des cadres - Clause de non-concurrence - Ordre public - Liberté contractuelle - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que la clause litigieuse du programme d’intéressement des cadres était une clause de non-concurrence contraire à l’ordre public, illégale et de nul effet?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

26771                    SHANNON SULLIVAN ET MAUREEN SULLIVAN c. CAMP CAROWANIS INC. (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

Responsabilité civile - Négligence - Preuve - Enfant de 14 ans devenue quadraplégique à la suite d’un plongeon effectué lors de son entrée dans un lac - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en établissant un nouveau standard en matière de sécurité aquatique? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en ne corrigeant pas les erreurs manifestes commises par le premier juge dans son appréciation de la preuve? - Portée d’une clause de non-responsabilité contenue dans les formules du Camp - Date à laquelle les intérêts et l’indemnité additionnelle deviennent payables - La mère de l’enfant peut-elle réclamer des dommages moraux?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

26827                    RENE LIN AND INGRID S.M. LIN v. THE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK  (Ont.)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural Law - Courts - Civil Procedure - Res Judicata - Banks and Banking - Personal Guarantees of loans - Whether judgments rendered by courts in Taiwan in an action on a promissory note and a personal guarantee rendered matter brought before the courts of Ontario res judicata - Whether courts of Ontario had jurisdiction to conduct trial - Whether the Court of Appeal ignored evidence that the claim would have been defeated in the courts of Taiwan.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26769               SYLVIO RICHER c. SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE - ET ENTRE - SYLVIO RICHER c. SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE - ET ENTRE - SYLVIO RICHER c.  LE DIRECTEUR DU CENTRE DE PRÉVENTION PARTHENAIS, LE PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL DU CANADA, JEAN CLAUDE PERRON, LILLY TRONCHE, LE DIRECTEUR DE L’ÉTABLISSEMENT ARCHAMBAULT, ROGER MERCIER ET LE DIRECTEUR, CENTRE RÉGIONAL DE RÉCEPTION  (Crim.)(Qué.)

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

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et les demandes d’autorisation d’appel sont rejetées.

The motion for an extension of time is granted and the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Appel - Appel déserté - Demande en rétractation de jugement - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en rejetant les demandes en rétractation de jugement au motif que le demandeur avait fait preuve d’un manque de diligence?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

26799                    CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S v. SHAMA TEXTILES INC./LES TISSUS SHAMA INC.  (Que.)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural Law - Evidence - Pre-trial procedure - Affidavit - Attorney-client privilege - Right to full defence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26828                    THE CSL GROUP INC. AND CANADA STEAMSHIP LINES INC. v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA  (F.C.A.)(Que.)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence - Maritime law - Foreseeability and proximity - Economic loss - Treasury board late in filing list of designated employees under the Public Service Staff Relations Act,  R.S.C. 1985, c. P-35  - Strike by part of Canadian coast guard causing problems for navigation on St. Lawrence River and Seaway necessitating a temporary closure of part of the system - Applicants claiming loss of revenues and increased expenses resulting from consequent delays in ship movements - Whether Treasury Board employees were negligent - Whether those employees had a duty to the Applicants - Whether the Respondent’s only obligation to ensure public safety, was in the sense of loss of life or damage to property, in the context of where the designation of employees is required to maintain an essential service and “safety” means the ability to navigate safely - Crown Liability and Proceedings Act , R.S.C. , 1985, c. C-50 , as amended.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26794                    CLAUDETTE GARIÉPY v. THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA  (F.C.A.)(Que.)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Labour law - Contracts - Torts - Negligence - Whether perceptions of political affiliation may disqualify a person for a position in the Public Service - Whether contractual (or quasi-contractual) terms between the Queen and a worker can exist outside the legislation.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26832                    CHAMKAUR KAINTH - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (F.C.A.) (Ont.)

CORAM:               Cory, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation  - Deduction of rental losses - Whether expenses incurred in renting property were deductible - Whether expenses were incurred with a reasonable expectation of profit - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application for judicial review of the decision of the Tax Court of Canada - Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, as amended.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26907                    DANIEL EQUIZI - v. - ALGOMA STEEL INC. (Ont.)

CORAM:               Cory, Major and Binnie JJ.

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

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Civil Procedure - Whether the motions judge erred in striking out the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

October 2, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

26836                    URAL DIREK - v. - ANTHONY DIXON, CARDINAL CAR AND TRUCK RENTAL INC., 458132 ONTARIO LIMITED, CARRYING ON BUSINESS AS DAVE WOOD MAZDA AND DAVE WOOD MAZDA LTD. (Ont.)

CORAM:               Cory, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Civil Procedure - Evidence - Charter - Use of an interpreter to understand and effectively participate in a trial - Right of a party to sit at the counsel table during the trial to instruct counsel - Whether amendments to a statement of claim were  wrongfully prevented - Whether a party was improperly prevented from referring to notes when giving testimony - Whether evidence on the effect of an accident on marital and family relationships was improperly suppressed - Charter rights to an interpreter and equal benefits of the law.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

December 15, 1995

Ontario Court (General Division) (Somers J.)

Damages of $34,984.00 awarded

July 9, 1998

Court of Appeal for Ontario

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

Appeal dismissed

September 3, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

26917                    CYRIL E. BATTYE - v. - MARIA JOSE VIERIA TIRANO (Ont.)

CORAM:               Cory, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Did lower courts err in disposition of case?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26864                    GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION - v. - DEKRAN BALJIAN, RITA BALJIAN, KEROP BALJIAN, ZEBUR KALMYAN, ARA BALJIAN AND ANDRE BALJIAN AND PETER TOLKOVSKI, CHRIS ANTHOPOULOS AS LITIGATION ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF JANE TOLKOVSKI (A.K.A. JAN TOLKOVSKI), THE SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA AND NATIONAL CAR RENTAL SYSTEMS INCORPORATED AND GOLDEN MILE MOTORS LIMITED (Ont.)

CORAM:               Cory, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to Dekran Baljian, Rita Baljian, Kerop Baljian, Zebur Kalmyan, Ara Baljian and Andre Baljian.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens à Dekran Baljian, Rita Baljian, Kerop Baljian, Zebur Kalmyan, Ara Baljian et Andre Baljian.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Limitations - Applicant added as party defendant after expiration of limitation period - Whether pattern of decision making by the Court of Appeal inconsistent with the legal test, as stated by the Supreme Court of Canada, applicable in cases where amendments to pleadings are sought to add a party defendant after the expiry of the applicable limitation period has run in favour of that proposed defendant - Whether Court of Appeal decision means there is a risk of third party being added as a party defendant after the limitation period has expired by virtue of exercising rights under the Rules of Practice - Whether decision of the Court of Appeal is inconsistent with the underlying rationales for limitation periods stated by the Supreme Court of Canada.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26820                    ROCHELLE CLAIRE STENZLER AND ARTHUR SHINJI ITO - v. - ONTARIO COLLEGE OF PHARMACISTS (Ont.)

CORAM:               Cory, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter, s. 2(d)  - Civil - Freedom of expression - Whether the granting of a grocery coupon constitutes “expression” within the meaning of s. 2 (b) of the Charter and is thus entitled to constitutional protection - Whether Ontario Divisional Court erred in dismissing application - Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing motion for leave to appeal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26870                    DESMOND MURRAY RAY DAVIES - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.) (Yukon)

CORAM:               Cory, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Search and seizure - Exclusion of evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the evidence obtained from the Applicant’s knapsack as a result of an unlawful search was not conscriptive

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26857                    HEADWAY PROPERTY INVESTMENT 78-1 INC. - v. - EDGECOMBE PROPERTIES LIMITED, EDGECOMBE INVESTMENT SERVICES LIMITED, ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT BOARD AND MARK MACKENZIE (Ont.)

CORAM:               Cory, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property Law - Mortgages - Commercial Law - Interest- Torts - Negligence - Mortgage interest rates - Negligent misrepresentation in a commercial transaction - Whether an award of damages on an undertaking was an award of damages at a rate of interest higher than the rate specified in a mortgage and, therefore, prohibited by s. 8(1) of the Interest Act - Whether damages should have been recoverable as a result of misrepresentation by an agent.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26891                    872899 ONTARIO INC. - v. - PAUL IACOVONI AND JACQUELINE IACOVONI (Ont.)

CORAM:               Cory, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Real property - Agreement of purchase and sale - Procedural law - Limitation of actions - prescription - Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.15, s. 45(1)(b) - Action statute-barred - Whether an agreement of purchase and sale is a specialty - Whether an agreement of purchase and sale is a contract under seal - Whether the lower courts erred in finding that more evidence was required to find that the agreement of purchase and sale was a contract under seal. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26905                    913719 ONTARIO LIMITED, CARRYING ON BUSINESS AS ADULTS ONLY VIDEO - v. - THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF MISSISSAUGA (Ont.)

CORAM:               Cory, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Municipal law - By-laws - Validity - Discrimination - Illegality - Vagueness - Ultra vires - Bad faith - Absence of statutory authority - Sub-delegation - Section 2 (b) of the Charter -  Municipality enacting by-law to license and regulate adult video stores - Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M. 45, s. 225 -  Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that no sub-classification exists - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no discrimination - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the by-law was not vague - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no improper sub-delegation - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no violation of s. 2 (b) of the Charter.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26723                    A. TONY FIORELLI - v. - DR. J. G. STEPHENS AND ST. MARY’S GENERAL HOSPITAL AND THE SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH OF THE DIOCESE OF HAMILTON (Ont.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

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

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

26629                    ROBERT WEIDENFELD - v. - HANSON HASHEY (Ont.)

CORAM:               Cory, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for reconsideration is dismissed.

La demande de réexamen est rejetée.

1.2.1999

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd.

     v. (26415)

Can-Dive Services Ltd. (B.C.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to December 15, 1998.

1.2.1999

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the book of authorities of the intervener the A.G. of Canada

Jean Victor Beaulac

    v. (26416)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le cahier de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’intervenant le procureur général du Canada

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to January 29, 1999.

1.2.1999

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum of the intervener the A.G. of Canada

Jean Victor Beaulac

    v. (26416)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire de l’intervenant le procureur général du Canada

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to January 20, 1999.

1.2.1999

Before / Devant:    THE REGISTRAR

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

Peter Owen McMaster

    v. (26851)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to January 26, 1999.

1.2.1999

Before / Devant:   CORY J.

Motion for a stay of execution

Shiu Dular

    v. (26992)

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Ont.)

Requête en vue de surseoir à l’exécution

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

Order will go staying proceedings in this matter until such time as the leave to appeal application is decided.   If leave to appeal is granted, the stay will continue until such time as the appeal is determined.   If leave to appeal is refused, the stay of proceedings will terminate at that time.

1.2.1999

Before / Devant:   CORY J.

Motion to add Irene Schell as a party appellant or in the alternative an intervener

British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal

     v. (26789)

Robin Blencoe (B.C.)

Requête pour ajouter Irene Schell comme partie appelante ou subsidiairement comme intervenante

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

The applicant, Irene Schell is granted leave to intervene, to file a factum not exceeding 20 pages in length and to make oral submissions not exceeding 10 minutes.

2.2.1999

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Gauthier & Associates

    v. (26844)

482511 Ontario Ltd. et al. (Ont.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to January 18, 1999.

2.2.1999

Before / Devant:    CORY J.

Motion to adjourn the hearing of the motion to quash set for February 8, 1999

Austin Ralph Bunn

     v. (26918)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Requête pour ajourner l’audition de la requête en annulation fixée au 8 février 1999

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    The application for an adjournment is therefore granted with the application to be heard on the 1st of March 1999.

2.2.1999

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Katherine Isobel McIndoe

      v. (26999)

Brendan Charles Cleveland O’Connell (B.C.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to January 22, 1999.

4.2.1999

Before / Devant:    LE REGISTRAIRE

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

Clifford Burton et al.

     c. (26955)

Ville de Verdun (Qué.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   La requête pour obtenir une ordonnance prorogeant le délai au 20 janvier 1999, pour signifier et produire la réponse de l’intimée à la demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

4.2.1999

Before / Devant:   CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER

Motion for additional time to present oral argument

BY/PAR:   Respondent Labour Relations Board of B.C.

IN/DANS:              United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1518

     v. (26209)

KMart Canada Ltd. et al. (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du temps accordé pour la plaidoirie

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   The application to extend time for oral argument from 30 minutes to 1 hour is granted.

5.2.1999

Before / Devant:   CORY J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Canada Life Assurance Co.

IN/DANS:              Burnhamthorpe Square Inc.

v. (27056)

Goodyear Canada Inc. (Ont.)

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

Canada Life was an intervener in the courts below.   It has a very real and direct interest in the outcome of the proceedings.   As a result it is granted leave to intervene on this application for leave to appeal.

The factum should be limited to 10 pages and must avoid repetition of the material so clearly and ably set out in the factum of the applicant.   It may be that the factum can set out the concerns expressed by Mr. Johnson in his affidavit and it would be unnecessary and inappropriate to file it.

8.2.1999

Before / Devant:    L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ J.

Motion for an extension of time and leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Procureur général du Québec

IN/DANS:              Jean Victor Beaulac

v. (26416)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation de délai et en autorisation d’intervenir

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

La requête du procureur général du Québec pour obtenir une ordonnance prorogeant le délai et l’autorisant d’intervenir, produire un mémoire de 20 pages et présenter une plaidoirie orale ne dépassent pas 30 minutes est accordée.

9.2.1999

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the applicant’s reply

Northwood Pulp and Timber Ltd.

     v. (27033)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la réplique de la requérante

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to January 28, 1999.

22.1.1999

Marie-France Leroux

c. (26650)

Centre hospitalier Ste-Jeanne D’Arc (Qué.)

(demande d’autorisation)

AGENDA for the week beginning February 15, 1999.

ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 15 février 1999.

Date of Hearing/                           Case Number and Name/    

Date d'audition                             Numéro et nom de la cause

1999/02/15                                  United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1288P  v. Allsco Building Products Ltd., a body corporate, et al. (N.B.)(Civil) (By Leave) 26203

1999/02/15 &16                           United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1518 v. KMart Canada Ltd. et al. (B.C.)(Civil) (By Leave) 26209

1999/02/17                                  Theodore Clifford Best v. Marlene Shirley Best (Ont.)(Civil) (By Leave) 26345

1999/02/17                                  N.H., et al.  v. H.M., et al. (B.C.)(Civil) (By Leave) 26555

1999/02/18                                  Patricia Carolyn Hickey v. Walter Donald Hickey (Man.)(Civil) (By Leave) 26430

1999/02/19                                  Sa Majesté la Reine c. Daniel Jolivet (Qué.)(Crim.)(De plein droit) 26646

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.

26203      United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1288P v. Allsco Building Products Ltd., a body corporate; et al

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Civil - Section 2 (b) of the Charter - Labour law - Secondary picketing - Whether ss. 104(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c.I-4 limits  the guarantee of freedom of expression under the Charter to the extent that it prohibits union members from distributing leaflets elsewhere than at the employer’s place of business in the context of a labour dispute.  If the answer is yes, whether the limit is reasonable and demonstrably justified under s. 1  of the Charter.

The Appellant, United Food & Commercial Workers International Union Local 1288P, and the Respondent, Allsco Building Products Ltd., are involved in a labour dispute. Allsco manufactures windows and doors, and distributes vinyl siding. The other Respondents, Wayside Four Seasons, Lumply Ltd., Maple Leaf Homes Inc., Atlantic Home Improvements Ltd., are distributors of Allsco products and have no collective bargaining relationship with the Appellant. On February 6, 1996, the Respondent Allsco locked-out its workers. Commencing in May of 1996, the Appellant’s members distributed leaflets to motorists by approaching vehicles entering the Respondents’ premises.

The Respondents commenced a proceeding seeking a declaration that the Appellant, through its agents, representatives and members, engaged in illegal picketing contrary to Section 104 of the Industrial Relations Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c.I-4 and an order making permanent an interlocutory injunction of August 12, 1996, prohibiting picketing at the Respondents’ premises apart from the Respondent Allsco.

The trial judge allowed the action and issued a declaration that the Appellant engaged in illegal picketing contrary to s. 104 of the Act on the dates specified in the agreed statement of facts, and granted an order confirming the injunction dated August 12, 1996 and making it permanent, and also held that s. 104(2) offended s. 2(b)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , but was saved by s. 1. The appeal was dismissed.

Origin of the case:                                                New Brunswick

File No.:                                                 26203

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     June 24, 1997

Counsel:                                                                David M. Brown for the Appellant

David W. Clark for the Respondents

26203    Union internationale des travailleurs et travailleuses unis de l’alimentation et du commerce c. Allsco Building Products Ltd., personne morale, et autres

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit civil - Alinéa 2b)  de la Charte - Droit du travail - Piquetage secondaire - L’interdiction aux membres d’un syndicat de distribuer des dépliants à l’occasion d’un conflit de travail, prévue au par. 104(2) de la Loi sur les relations industrielles, L.R.N.-B. 1973, ch. I-4, porte-t-elle atteinte à la liberté d’expression garantie par la Charte ?  Dans l’affirmative, cette violation est-elle raisonnable et sa justification peut-elle être démontrée en vertu de l’article premier de la Charte ?

L’Union internationale des travailleurs et travailleuses unis de l’alimentation et du commerce, appelante, et Allsco Building Products Ltd., intimée, sont parties à un conflit de travail.  Allsco fabrique des fenêtres et des portes, et distribue des bardages en vinyle.  Les autres intimées, Wayside Four Seasons, Lumply Ltd., Maple Leaf Homes Inc., Atlantic Homes Improvements Ltd, sont distributeurs des produits d’Allsco et n’entretiennent pas de relation de négociation collective avec l’appelante.  Le 6 février 1996, l’intimée Allsco a mis en lock-out ses employés.  À partir du mois de mai 1996, les membres de l’appelante ont distribué des dépliants aux automobilistes qui entraient dans les lieux des intimées.

Les intimées ont présenté une demande visant à obtenir une déclaration selon laquelle l’appelante, par l’intermédiaire de ses agents, représentants et membres, s’était livrée à du piquetage illégal, contrairement à l’art. 104 de la Loi sur les relations industrielles, L.R.N.-B. 1973, ch. I-4, et une ordonnance rendant permanente l’injonction interlocutoire prononcée le 12 août 1996, injonction interdisant le piquetage sur les lieux des intimées, autres que ceux de l’intimée Allsco.

Le juge de première instance a accueilli la demande, déclaré que, contrairement à l’art. 104 de la Loi, l’appelante s’était livrée à du piquetage illégal aux dates indiquées dans l’exposé conjoint des faits et a accordé une ordonnance confirmant et déclarant permanente l’injonction du 12 août 1996.  Il a en outre décidé que le par. 104(2) portait atteinte à l’al. 2b)  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  mais qu’il était sauvegardé par l’article premier.  L’appel a été rejeté.

Origine:                                                  Nouveau-Brunswick

N^o du greffe:                                          26203

Arrêt de la Cour d'appel:                     Le 24 juin 1997

Avocats:                                                David M. Brown pour l'appelant

David W. Clark pour les intimés

26209    United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1518 v. KMart Canada Ltd. and Labour Relations Board of British Columbia

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Civil - Whether ss. 1 (definition of “picket” or “picketing”), 65 and 67 of the Labour Relations Code, S.B.C. 1992, c. 82 limit freedom of expression as guaranteed by s. 2(b)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  to the extent that they prohibit union members from distributing leaflets at secondary sites of the employer in the context of a labour dispute - If so, is the limit reasonable and demonstrably justified under s. 1  of the Charter.

On December 8, 1992, the Respondent, Kmart Canada Ltd., applied to the Industrial Relations Council pursuant to ss. 85, 88 and 90 of the Industrial Relations Act to restrain leafleting activity by the Appellant union at the Respondent Kmart’s Lower Mainland and Victoria stores.

The Industrial Relations Act was replaced by the Labour Relations Code, S.B.C. 1992, c.82, declared in force January 18, 1993. The Council was continued as the Labour Relations Board. The relevant picketing provisions for this matter in the Code are identical to those contained in the Industrial Relations Act. The applications, hearing and Orders issued by the original panel were all under the Act, with only the reasons being issued by the Board under the Code.

The Respondent Kmart has seven stores in the Lower Mainland, two in Victoria, one in Campbell River, and one in Port Alberni. The Appellant union is certified to represent employees at the Port Alberni and Campbell River stores. The Appellant union declared a lawful strike on June 8, 1992, at the Campbell River store, and July 8, 1992, at the Port Alberni store. Kmart’s Lower Mainland and Victoria stores are not organized by the Union. The findings of fact of the Board were that from December 4 to 6, 1992, from 2 to 12 individuals representing the Union stood between two and 20 feet from the entrances to the Kmart stores in Lower Mainland and Victoria, and handed out two types of leaflets to customers who were about the enter Kmart. The majority of the individuals were between six and eight feet from the door. Both leaflets urged customers to shop at Kmart’s competitors, and one referred to Kmart’s unfair treatment of women employees. Buttons or pins were also handed out. The Board found no evidence of threats, or verbal or physical intimidation, but some customers appeared confused. A small number of customers turned away from the store.

An order was granted December 11, 1992, restraining the leafleting activity and clarification of that order was granted on December 16, 1992.  The Appellant applied for a reconsideration, but before the Board released its decision, the labour dispute was settled.  The Board took the opportunity to decide whether freedom of expression required that a consumer boycott be excluded from “picketing”, but refused to review the earlier Orders because the labour dispute had been settled.  A petition for judicial review was dismissed and an appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed.

Origin of the case:                                                British Columbia

File No.:                                                 26209

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     July 7, 1997

Counsel:                                                                John Baigent for the Appellant

Patrick G. Foy for the Respondent KMart

Joseph J. Arvay Q.C. for the Respondent Board

26209    Union internationale des travailleurs et travailleuses unis de l’alimentation et du commerce, section locale 1518 c. Kmart Canada Ltd. et Labour Relations Board of British Columbia

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Civil - Les articles premier (définition de “piquet de grève” ou “piquetage”), 65 et 67 du Labour Relations Code, S.B.C. 1992, ch. 82, limitent-ils la liberté d’expression garantie par l’al. 2 b )  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  dans la mesure où ils interdisent à des syndiqués de distribuer des dépliants dans des endroits secondaires par rapport aux locaux de l’employeur dans le contexte d’un conflit de travail? - Dans l’affirmative, est-ce qu’il s’agit d’une limite qui peut être justifiée conformément à l’article premier de la Charte?

Le 8 décembre 1992, l’intimée, Kmart Canada Ltd., a demandé à l’Industrial Relations Council, conformément aux art. 85, 88 et 90 de l’Industrial Relations Act, d’empêcher la distribution de dépliants par le syndicat appelant à ses magasins du Lower Mainland et de Victoria.

L’Industrial Relations Act a été remplacée par le Labour Relations Code, S.B.C. 1992, ch. 82, qui est entré en vigueur le 18 janvier 1993. Le Council a été maintenu sous le nom de Labour Relations Board (le “Conseil”). Les dispositions du Code concernant le piquetage, qui sont  pertinentes en l’espèce, sont identiques à celles de l’Industrial Relations Act. Les demandes, audiences et ordonnances rendues par la formation initiale relevaient toutes de l’ancienne loi; seuls les motifs du Conseil ont été rendus sous le régime du Code.

L’intimée Kmart a sept magasins dans le Lower Mainland, deux à Victoria, un à Campbell River et un à Port Alberni. Le syndicat appelant est accrédité pour représenter les employés des magasins de Port Alberni et Campbell River. Le syndicat appelant a déclaré une grève légale le 8 juin 1992 au magasin de Campbell River, et le 8 juillet 1992 au magasin de Port Alberni. Les employés des magasins du Lower Mainland et Victoria ne sont pas syndiqués. Le Conseil a constaté que, du 4 au 6 décembre 1992, de deux à douze personnes représentant le syndicat se sont tenues entre deux et vingt pieds des entrées des magasins Kmart du Lower Mainland et de Victoria, et ont remis deux types de dépliants à des clients qui allaient entrer dans les magasins Kmart. La majorité des individus étaient entre six et huit pieds de la porte. Les deux types de dépliants priaient les clients de faire leurs emplettes chez des concurrents de Kmart, et l’un d’eux mentionnait la façon injuste dont Kmart traitait ses employés de sexe féminin. Des macarons et des épinglettes ont également été distribués. Le Conseil n’a constaté aucune preuve de menaces ou d’intimidation verbale ou physique, mais certains clients ont paru confus. Un petit nombre de clients se sont éloignés du magasin.

Une ordonnance a été rendue le 11 décembre 1992, empêchant la distribution de dépliants et cette ordonnance a été clarifiée par une autre ordonnance en date du 16 décembre 1992. L’appelant a demandé un nouvel examen, mais le conflit de travail a été réglé avant que le Conseil rende sa décision. Le Conseil a profité de l’occasion pour décider si la liberté d’expression exigeait qu’un boycottage de consommation soit exclu du “piquetage”, mais il a refusé de réviser les ordonnances antérieures parce que le conflit de travail avait été réglé. Une demande de contrôle judiciaire a été rejetée, de même qu’un appel à la Cour d’appel.

Origine:                                                                  Colombie-Britannique

N^o du greffe:                                                          26209

Arrêt de la Cour d'appel:                                     Le 7 juillet 1997

Avocats:                                                                John Baigent pour l’appelante

Patrick G. Foy pour l’intimée Kmart

Joseph J. Arvay, c.r., pour le Conseil intimé

26345    Theodore Clifford Best v. Marlene Shirley Best

Family law - Division of property - Pensions - Husband contributing to Teachers’ Superannuation Fund for 32 years - Second marriage for both parties lasting 12 years near the end of the husband’s contribution period  - Whether appropriate method of pension valuation is termination value added method or termination pro rata method - What is the proper method of addressing the age of retirement within the pension valuation process? - Whether pension payable on an “if and when basis” - What impact should equalization of a pension asset have on the issue of spousal support?

The parties were married to one another from 1976 to 1988.  It was a second marriage for both.  At the time of trial, the Appellant was 58 years of age and employed as a school principal and a Trustee of the Ottawa Board of Education.  The Respondent was 57 and in poor health.  The Appellant remarried in 1989, while the Respondent continued to occupy the former matrimonial home.  The parties both had children from previous marriages who did not factor into the issues raised in the case.

The Appellant had been employed for 32 years at the time of trial by the Carleton Board of Education, and during all of that time,  he contributed to the Teachers’ Superannuation Fund.  At trial, the value of all assets and debts for the purposes of inclusion or deduction in each parties’ net family property statements was in issue.  The trial judge ruled on all matters relating to property and support.  On appeal, the only issues outstanding involved the valuation of and payment out of the pension.  The Appellant appeals from the decision of the trial judge, which was unanimously upheld on appeal, regarding the retirement date selected,  the method of pension valuation, and the method of payment of the portion of the equalization payment attributable to the pension. 

Two experts were called at trial, each of whom advocated a different method of pension valuation which produced widely divergent results.  The Appellant’s actuary set the value of the pension using the termination pro-rated method at $151,480;  while the Respondent’s actuary, using the termination value added method, determined the value of the pension to be $372,041.  The trial judge selected the latter value, with the effect that the Appellant was found to owe the Respondent an equalization payment,  after comparison of their net family properties,  of $147,649.50.  Rutherford J. ordered that the equalization payment be partially satisfied by a transfer of the Appellant’s interest in the matrimonial home to the Respondent, with the balance of $87,584.50 payable over ten years, with interest payable on the outstanding balance.  In addition, the Appellant was ordered to pay to the Respondent the sum of $2,500 monthly in spousal support.

Origin of the case:                                                Ontario

File No.:                                                 26345

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     October 3, 1997

Counsel:                                                                William J. Sammon and Jirina Bulger for the Appellant

Frank C. Tierney for the Respondent

26345    Theodore Clifford Best c. Marlene Shirley Best

Droit de la famille - Partage de biens - Pensions - Le mari a contribué au Régime de retraite des enseignants pendant 32 ans - Le second mariage des deux parties a duré 12 ans, près de la fin de la période de contribution du mari - La bonne méthode d’évaluation de la pension est-elle la méthode du calcul de la valeur ajoutée au moment de la séparation ou la méthode du calcul au prorata au moment de la séparation? - Quelle est la bonne façon de tenir compte de l’âge de la retraite dans le processus d’évaluation des pensions? - La pension est-elle payable en fonction de l’arrivée d’un événement? - Quelle incidence l’égalisation d’un avoir de retraite devrait-elle avoir sur la question des aliments?

Les parties ont été mariées ensemble de 1976 à 1988. Pour chacun, c’était un second mariage. Au moment du procès, l’appelant avait 58 ans et occupait un emploi de directeur d’école et d’administrateur du Conseil scolaire d’Ottawa. L’intimée avait 57 ans et était en mauvaise santé. L’appelant s’est remarié en 1989, alors que l’intimée a continué à occuper l’ancien foyer conjugal. Chacun avait, de son mariage antérieur, des enfants dont il n’y a pas lieu de tenir compte dans les questions soulevées en l’espèce.

Au moment du procès, l’appelant comptait 32 années de service auprès du Conseil d’éducation de Carleton. Pendant tout ce temps, il a contribué au Régime de retraite des enseignants. Au procès, le litige a porté sur la valeur de tous les avoirs et dettes aux fins d’inclusion ou de déduction dans les états des biens familiaux de chaque partie. Le juge du procès a statué sur toutes les questions relatives aux biens et aux aliments. Les seules questions encore en litige an appel portaient sur l’évaluation et le prélèvement sur la pension. L’appelant se pourvoit contre la décision du juge du procès, confirmée à l’unanimité en appel, concernant la date de retraite retenue, la méthode d’évaluation de la pension et la méthode de paiement de la portion du paiement d’égalisation attribuable à la pension.

Deux experts ont été cités au procès, chacun faisant valoir une méthode différente d’évaluation de la pension, qui produisait des résultats très divergents. L’actuaire de l’appelant a établi à 151 480 $ la valeur de la pension en utilisant la méthode du calcul au prorata au moment de la séparation, alors que l’actuaire de l’intimée, utilisant la méthode de la valeur ajoutée au moment de la séparation, a établi la valeur de la pension à 372 041 $. Le juge du procès a choisi la dernière valeur, ce qui a eu pour effet que, après comparaison de leurs biens familiaux nets, l’appelant devait à l’intimée un paiement d’égalisation de 147 649,50 $. Le juge Rutherford a ordonné que le paiement d’égalisation soit exécuté en partie par un transfert à l’intimée du droit de l’appelant dans le foyer conjugal, le paiement du solde de 87 584,50 $ étant étalé sur dix ans, avec intérêts sur le solde impayé. De plus, l’appelant a été enjoint de payer à l’intimée la somme de 2 500 $ par mois à titre d’aliments.

Origine:                                                                  Ontario

N^o du greffe:                                                          26345

Arrêt de la Cour d'appel:                                     Le 3 octobre 1997

Avocats:                                                                William J. Sammon et Jirina Bulger pour l'appelant

Frank C. Tierney pour l’intimée

26555    N.H. and D.H. v. H.M., M.H. and The Director of Child, Family and Community Services

Family Law - Indians - Custody - Adoption - Infants  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning the trial decision on the basis of the following factors: 1) “blood” ties getting preference over adoptive ones; and 2) “native culture tipping the scale” in a mixed family background.

The following proceedings concern the permanent custody of I.H., born March 8, 1995.  The competing claimants are the Appellants, D.H. and N.H., his maternal adoptive parents of Connecticut, and the Respondent, H.M., his maternal biological grandfather, of Vancouver.  I.H.’s mother, M.H., does not advance a plea for custody but rather supports the claim brought by the Respondent H.M., her biological father. The alleged father is African-American but has refused to acknowledge paternity.

The child’s mother is an aboriginal Canadian. She and her sister were adopted by the Appellants in 1980.  At that time, the Appellants were working and living in Montreal, but later moved to Connecticut, where they still reside in a large home on five acres of land.  D.H. is a journalist while N.H. is employed in a software company.  Neither are of aboriginal background though they have established contact with native groups in New England in the hopes of exposing I.H. to this culture. 

In April 1995, shortly after the birth of her son, M.H. discovered her biological parents in Vancouver, with the help of the Appellants.  She left her son in the care of the Appellants while she stayed in Vancouver for a few months.  The main burden of the care of I.H. was borne by the Appellants for the first eight months of the baby’s life. When she returned in late summer, she indicated that she wished to visit her sister in a nearby city with her son and instead travelled to Vancouver and moved in with the Respondent. The Respondent is an aboriginal and has resided in Vancouver for several years.  In addition to M.H. and her sister, he has two other daughters, one whom he raised himself, and the other, whom he is currently raising with the help of the daugther’s mother.  The family is in receipt of income assistance.  I.H. has resided in that home for the last two years and appears to be well integrated into the family unit. 

The Appellants deduced the mother’s whereabouts and contacted the Connecticut Department of Children and Families which in turn liaised with the B.C. Ministry of Children and Families. I.H. was apprehended by the Ministry in mid-November, 1995, and was placed in foster care.  On February 15, 1996, Dillon J. awarded interim sole custody of I.H. to the Respondent.  The child’s mother was granted the right to supervised access while the Appellants were given the right to five day access visits. The Appellants were awarded custody of I.H. on September 26, 1997, with reasonable access to the mother.  That decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal, when it awarded custody of the child to the Respondent.

Origin of the case:                                                British Columbia

File No.:                                                 26555

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     February 4, 1998

Counsel:                                                                Julius H. Grey for the Appellants

James G. Martin for the Respondent H.M.

Derrick Daniels for the Respondent M.H.

Ruth Hamilton for the Respondent Director

26555    N.H. et D.H. c. H.M., M.H. et Le directeur, Child, Family and Community Services

Droit de la famille — Indiens — Garde — Adoption — Enfants mineurs — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en écartant la décision de première instance pour les motifs suivants : 1) les liens « du sang » ont préséance sur les liens d’adoption; et 2)  « le caractère déterminant de la culture autochtone » dans le contexte d’une famille mixte?

Les procédures qui suivent portent sur la garde permanente de I.H., né le 8 mars 1995. Les parties qui s’opposent sont, d’une part, les appelants, D.H. et N.H., ses grands-parents maternels adoptifs du Connecticut, et, d’autre part, l’intimé H.M., son grand-père maternel biologique de Vancouver. La mère de I.H., M.H., ne présente pas de demande de garde, appuyant plutôt la demande de l’intimé H.M., son père biologique. Le père présumé est un Afro-américain qui a refusé de reconnaître la paternité.

La mère de l’enfant est une aborigène canadienne. Elle et sa soeur ont été adoptées par les appelants en 1980. À cette époque, les appelants travaillaient et vivaient à Montréal, mais ils ont plus tard déménagé au Connecticut où ils demeurent encore dans une grande maison sise sur un terrain de cinq acres. D.H. est journaliste alors que N.H. travaille dans une société de services et de conseil en informatique. Ni l’un ni l’autre ne sont de descendance aborigène, bien qu’ils aient établi des contacts avec des groupes autochtones en Nouvelle-Angleterre dans l’espoir de mettre I.H. en contact avec cette culture.

En avril 1995, peu de temps après avoir donné naissance à son fils, M.H. a découvert ses parents biologiques à Vancouver avec l’aide des appelants.  Elle a laissé son fils aux soins des appelants pendant un séjour de quelques mois à Vancouver.  Les appelants ont fourni la majeure partie des soins donnés à I.H. pendant ses premiers huit mois.  À son retour vers la fin de l’été, M.H. a affirmé qu’elle désirait se rendre avec son fils visiter sa soeur dans une ville voisine, mais elle s’est alors plutôt rendue à Vancouver où elle s’est installée chez l’intimé.  L’intimé est un aborigène et il résidait à Vancouver depuis plusieurs années.  En plus de M.H. et de sa soeur, il a deux autres filles, l’une qu’il a élevée lui-même et l’autre qu’il élève actuellement avec l’aide de J.S., la mère de celle-ci.  La famille est prestataire de l’aide sociale.  I.H. réside dans ce foyer depuis deux ans et paraît s’être bien intégré à l’unité familiale.

Les appelants ont tiré des conclusions quant à l’endroit où se trouvait la mère et ont communiqué avec le Connecticut Department of Children and Families, qui, à son tour, a pris contact en C.‐B. avec le Ministry of Children and Families.  Le ministère a appréhendé I.H. à la mi-novembre 1995 et l’a placé dans un foyer nourricier.  Le 15 février 1996, le juge Dillon a accordé de façon intérimaire l’entière garde d’I.H. à l’intimé.  La mère de l’enfant a obtenu un droit d’accès supervisé et les appelants un droit à des visites de cinq jours.  Les appelants ont obtenu la garde d’I.H. le 26 septembre 1997, assujetti à un droit d’accès raisonnable pour la mère.  Cette décision a été infirmée par la Cour d’appel, qui a accordé la garde de l’enfant à l’intimé.

Origine :                                                 Colombie-Britannique

N^o du greffe :                                                         26555

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel :                                   Le 4 février 1998

Avocats :                                                               Julius H. Grey pour les appelants

James G. Martin pour l’intimé H.M.

Derrick Daniels pour l’intimée M.H.

Ruth Hamilton pour l’intimé le directeur

26430    Patricia Carolyn Hickey v. Walter Donald Hickey

Family law - Maintenance - Variation of spousal and child support - Ten year old spousal and child support order varied due to Respondent’s income and eroding effect of inflation - Court of Appeal not considering Child Support Guidelines or changes to Income Tax Act regarding deductibility of child support - Whether Court of Appeal erred in reducing child support and spousal support - Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding the amendments to the Income Tax Act regarding deductibility of child support had no effect on the order pronounced by the Court of Appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reducing the quantum of spousal support and child support retroactive to June 27, 1996, resulting in a credit to the Respondent in the amount of $14,4000.

The Appellant and Respondent were married in 1971, separated in 1986, and divorced on January 12, 1987.  There are two children of the marriage: Susan, born on October 22, 1977, who now lives independently of both parties, and Walter, born March 21,1980, who continues to reside with the Appellant.  The terms of a separation agreement executed by the parties in 1986 were incorporated into the terms of judgment for corollary relief, and included provision for both spousal and child support.  Both children resided with the Appellant following the separation, until March of 1996, when Susan obtained accommodation of her own.

The Appellant had been employed as a legal secretary in the early years of the marriage, but after the birth of their daughter, she remained home on a full time basis to raise the children, until the time of separation.  She  returned to school and university.  In 1995, she graduated with a degree in nutrition and now operates a small business in that field, from which she derives income of less than $6,000 per annum.  The Respondent’s income is derived solely from his business, and tends to fluctuate.  For the 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997 taxation years, he earned $210,155, $218,997.34, $133,992, and $100,000 respectively.

Upon separation, the parties divided all of their assets in such a way that the Appellant received the matrimonial home, which was free of debt, and cash of $120,000, for a total of almost $300,000.  The Respondent retained  the value of shares he owned in his business, which were worth $400,000 at the time of separation, and a cottage property.  The Respondent’s assets have increased in value since the date of separation to over $1,000,000; while those of the Appellant have increased to approximately $405,000.

In 1996, the Respondent applied to vary the terms of the divorce judgment to delete support for Susan as she was no longer a child of the marriage.  This issue was resolved on consent.  The Appellant cross applied for an increase in child support for Walter, and an increase in spousal support, on the grounds that inflation had eroded the support payments in the ten years since separation.  The  Chambers Judge granted the Appellant’s motion.  On appeal, the Court of Appeal  reduced child support and spousal support, both retroactive to June 27, 1996.  The retroactive aspect of the order produces a debt owing by the Appellant to the Respondent of $14,400.

Origin of the case:                                                Manitoba

File No.:                                                 26430

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     October 21, 1997

Counsel:                                                                Randall A. Horton for the Appellant

Brian A. Pauls for the Respondent

26430  Patricia Carolyn Hickey c. Walter Donald Hickey

Droit de la famille — Aliments — Modification des pensions alimentaires versées au conjoint et aux enfants — Ordonnance de pensions alimentaires au conjoint et aux enfants décernée 10 ans plus tôt modifiée pour tenir compte du revenu de l’intimé et de la dévaluation causée par l’inflation — La Cour d’appel n’a pas pris en considération les Child Support Guidelines ou les modifications apportées à la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu quant à la déductibilité de la pension alimentaire versée à un enfant — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en réduisant les pensions alimentaires versées aux enfants au conjoint? — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que les modifications apportées à la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu quant à la déductibilité de la pension alimentaire versée à un enfant n’avaient aucune incidence sur l’ordonnance décernée par la Cour d’appel? — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en réduisant rétroactivement au 27 juin 1996 le montant des pensions alimentaires versées au conjoint et aux enfants, créant ainsi un crédit de 14 400 $ en faveur de l’intimé.

L’appelante et l’intimé se sont mariés en 1971, se sont séparés en 1986 et ont divorcé le 12 janvier 1987.  Deux enfants sont issus du mariage: Susan, née le 22 octobre 1977, qui vit maintenant indépendamment des deux parties, et Walter, né le 21 mars 1980, qui vit encore avec l’appelante.  Les modalités d’une convention de séparation conclue entre les parties en 1986 ont été incorporées aux dispositions du jugement statuant sur les mesures accessoires et portaient tant sur la pension alimentaire versée au conjoint que sur les pensions alimentaires versées aux enfants.  Les deux enfants ont vécu avec l’appelante à la suite de la séparation, jusqu’en mars 1996, lorsque Susan a pris son propre logement.

Dans les premières années du mariage, l’appelante a travaillé comme secrétaire juridique, mais après la naissance de Susan, elle est restée à la maison à temps plein pour élever les enfants, jusqu’au moment de la séparation.  Elle est retournée à l’école et à l’université.  En 1995, elle a obtenu un diplôme en nutrition et elle exploite maintenant une petite entreprise dans ce domaine, une activité qui lui procure un revenu inférieur à 6 000 $ par année.  Le revenu de l’intimé est tiré en entier de son entreprise et a tendance à fluctuer.  Pour les années d’imposition 1994, 1995, 1996 et 1997, il a eu respectivement un revenu de 210 155 $, 218 997,34 $, 133 992 $ et 100 000 $.

Lors de la séparation, les parties ont divisé tous leurs biens de manière à ce que l’appelante reçoive la maison familiale, qui était entièrement payée, et une somme en argent de 120 000 $, soit une valeur totale de 300 000 $.  L’intimé a gardé les actions qu’il possédait dans son entreprise, qui valaient 400 000 $ au moment de la séparation, et un chalet.  Les biens de l’intimé ont pris de la valeur depuis  la date de la séparation et sont maintenant estimés à plus de 1 000 000 $; pendant ce temps, les biens de l’appelante ont atteint approximativement la valeur de 405 000 $.

En 1996, l’intimé a demandé que les dispositions du jugement de divorce soient modifiées, de manière à ce que la pension alimentaire de Susan soit annulée, vu qu’elle n’était plus un enfant du mariage.  Cette question a été réglée par consentement.  L’appelante a présenté une demande reconventionnelle sollicitant une augmentation de la pension alimentaire versée pour Walter et une augmentation de la pension alimentaire qui lui était versée, au motif que l’inflation avait dévalué les pensions alimentaires versées au cours des dix années qui s’étaient écoulées depuis la séparation.  Le juge en chambre a accueilli la requête de l’appelante.  En appel, la Cour d’appel a réduit la pension alimentaire versée aux enfants et la pension alimentaire versée au conjoint, rétroactivement au 27 juin 1996.  L’effet rétroactif de l’ordonnance crée à l’appelante une dette de 14 400 $ en faveur de l’intimé.

Origine :                                 Manitoba

N^o du greffe :                                         26430

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel :                   Le 21 octobre 1997

Avocats :                                               Randall A. Horton pour l’appelante

Brian A. Pauls pour l’intimé

26646  Her Majesty the Queen v. Daniel Jolivet

Criminal Law - Evidence - Section 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code  - Crown failing to call certain witnesses - Late disclosure of evidence - Investigation into the circumstances surrounding the jurors’ walk around the Palais de Justice during the deliberations.

The Respondent was charged with four counts of first degree murder.  Following his jury trial, he was found guilty of two first degree murders and two second degree murders.  At the beginning of the trial, the defence received a list of witnesses for the Crown.  The list included the name of Gérald Bourgade, who had already testified at the preliminary inquiry.  The Crown referred to his testimony in its opening address to the jury, during the hearing, and in an objection during the cross-examination of Riendeau.  During discussions held in the absence of the jury, the defence indicated that it wished to comment on this omission by the Crown.  The trial judge let it be known that he would not allow the defence to speak to the issue.  Following Riendeau’s testimony, the Crown wanted to call Nicole Lalonde.  The defence asked the court to prohibit the Crown from calling this witness on the ground of the late disclosure of her evidence.  The judge refused, but postponed the date of her testimony for three days and allowed the respondent to cross-examine Riendeau again.

After the jury had been deliberating for two days, the trial judge asked four officers of the Sûreté du Québec and three special constables to escort the jurors outside the Palais de Justice for a bit of fresh air.  In response to an article in the Journal de Montréal, the Court held an investigation into this incident, and the clerk testified that from inside the Palais, she thought she saw a juror speak to a police officer.  She could not, however, swear that a conversation took place.  The police officers deny this allegation.  The trial judge held that there was no reason to stay the trial at that stage.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the verdict of guilty and ordered that a new trial be held, Robert J.A. dissenting on the application of section 686(1)(b)(iii) Crim.C.  The appellant appealed as of right and raised the following question:

Did the majority of the Court of Appeal err in law in holding that the curative provision in section 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code  did not apply to the trial judge’s error which resulted in the defence being prevented from commenting on the prosecution’s failure to call its witnesses?

The respondent filed a cross-appeal and raised the following questions:

1.                             Did the Court of Appeal of Quebec err in law in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the jury had contact with four unsworn officers of the Sûreté du Québec during the deliberations?

2.                             Did the Court of Appeal of Quebec err in law in failing to find that the trial judge erred in law when he did not exclude the testimony of Nicole Lalonde from the evidence due to the fact that the prosecutor had not disclosed the evidence?

Origin of the case:                                Court of Appeal of Quebec

File No.:                                                 26646

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:     April 14, 1998

Counsel:                                                Henri-Pierre Labrie for the Appellant

Alain Brassard for the Respondent