Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

January 15, 1999  1 - 69 (INDEX)                                                        le 15 janvier 1999

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Peter Owen McMaster

Leslie Maunder

Falconer, Macklin

v. (26851)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Beverly Brown

Ministry of the A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 22.12.1998

Bradley Richard Gibb

Jay Spare

George Bonn Law Office

v. (26962)

Her Majesty the Queen (Sask.)

Richard Quinney

Director of Public Prosecutions

FILING DATE 7.12.1998

Lise Dufour et al.

Marius Ménard

Proulx Ménard Milliard

c. (26986)

Centre hospitalier St-Joseph-de-la-Malbaie (Qué.)

André Joli-Coeur

Joli-Coeur, Lacasse, Lemieux & ass.

DATE DE PRODUCTION 20.11.1998

Jordan Ward et al.

Jordan Ward

v. (26991)

The Government of Saskatchewan (Sask.)

Daniel A. Shapiro, Q.C.

Brayford Shapiro

FILING DATE 11.12.1998

Claude Deslauriers

Claude Deslauriers              

c. (26993)

Roch Labelle, ès qualité de syndic et al. (Qué.)

Pierre C. Gagnon

Lavery, De Billy

DATE DE PRODUCTION 18.11.1998

The Corporation of the Town of Ajax

Richard J. Charney

Heenan Blaikie

v.  (26994)

National Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers Union of Canada (CAW - Canada) and its Local 222 Charterways Transportation Limited et al. (Ont.)

Barry D. Chercover

Green & Chercover

FILING DATE 27.11.1998

Association des entrepreneurs en intercommunication du Québec et al.

Yves Turgeon

Byers Casgrain

c. (26995)

Gilles Gaul, ès qualité de Commissaire de la construction et al. (Qué.)

DATE DE PRODUCTION 27.11.1998

Murdoch MacKay et al.

Sidney Green, Q.C.

v. (26997)

Her Majesty the Queen in the right of the Province of Manitoba (Man.)

W.G. McFetridge

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 25.11.1998

John Gordon Ferguson

Nigel P. Kent

Clark, Wilson

v. (26998)

Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of British Columbia (B.C.)

Richard J. Meyer

Min. of the Attorney General

FILING DATE 30.11.1998

Katherine Isobel McIndoe

Nancy Cameron

v. (26999)

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

Fred C. Lowther

MacLean Nicol

FILING DATE 27.11.1998

Banque nationale du Canada

Serge Gloutnay

Desjardins Ducharme Stein Monast, s.e.n.c.

c. (27000)

Le sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec (Qué.)

Pierre Séguin

Veillette & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION 27.11.1998

Guillaume Kibale

Guillaume Kibale

c. (27001)

Sa Majesté la Reine du chef de l’Ontario et al. (Ont.)

Louise Hurteau

Min. du procureur général de l’Ontario

DATE DE PRODUCTION 30.11.1998

The Begetikong Anishnabe (also known as the “Ojibways of Pic River”)

David C. Nahwegahbow

Nahwegahbow, Nadjiwan

v. (27002)

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Ron Irwin (F.C.A.)

Geoffrey S. Lester

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 23.11.1998

Le juge Richard Therrien, J.C.Q.

Jean-C. Hébert

c. (27004)

Le ministre de la Justice et procureur général du Québec (Qué.)

Robert Mongeon

DATE DE PRODUCTION 23.11.1998

La Fraternité des policiers et policières de Longueuil Inc.

                Serge Gagné

Fédération des policiers du Québec

c. (27005)

Ville de Longueuil et al. (Qué.)

Louis-Philippe Bourgeois

Dunton Rainville senc

DATE DE PRODUCTION 30.11.1998

Pacific National Investments Ltd.

C. Edward Hanman

Cox, Taylor

v. (27006)

The Corporation of the City of Victoria et al. (B.C.)

Guy E. McDannold

Staples, McDannold, Stewart

FILING DATE 1.12.1998

Fédération des infirmières et infirmiers du Québec (FIIQ) et als

Giuseppe Sciortino

Melançon, Marceau, Grenier et Sciortino

c. (27007)

Procureur général du Québec (Qué.)

Jean-François Jobin

Bernard Roy & Assoc.

DATE DE PRODUCTION 4.12.1998

Serge Dionne

Ronald A. Marion

Blackadder, Green, Marion, Halinda and Wood

v. (27009)

Ethel Kuhlmann (Ont.)

Gerald A. Swaye, Q.C.

FILING DATE 3.12.1998

Albertine et Pierre Benge et al.

Pierre Benge

c. (27010)

Hôpital général de Toronto et al. (Ont.)

Eric R. Hoaken

Borden & Elliot

DATE DE PRODUCTION 8.12.1998

Robert Lavigne

Robert Lavigne

v. (27011)

Human Resources Development (formerly Health and Welfare Canada) et al. (F.C.A.)

Raymond Piche   

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 9.12.1998

Michel Gagné

J.H. Denis Gagnon

Dunton Rainville senc

c. (27012)

Commission municipale du Québec et al. (Qué.)

André Fauteux

Bernard, Roy & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION 4.12.1998

Kingsley Lughas

Kingsley Lughas

v. (27014)

The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation (Man.)

Terry B. Kumka

Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation

FILING DATE 3.12.1998

Tin Wis Resort Ltd.

Jack Woodward

Woodward & Company

v. (27015)

Assessor of Area #05 - Port Alberni (B.C.)

John E.D. Savage

Crease Harman & Company

FILING DATE 7.12.1998

Municipalité de St-Lin et al.

J.H. Denis Gagnon

Dunton Rainville senc

c. (27016)

Procureur général du Québec et al. (Qué.)

Benoît Belleau

Bernard, Roy & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION 4.12.1998

Her Majesty the Queen

Clyde R. Bond

A.G. of Canada

v. (27017)

Vera Lynn Dew (Man.)

G. Greg Brodsky, Q.C.

Walsh, Micay and Company

FILING DATE 9.12.1998

Joseph Reed

Joseph Reed

v. (27018)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Cal Deedman        

Min. of the Attorney General

FILING DATE 20.11.1998

Gemex Developments Corp.

Thomas L. Spraggs

Spraggs & Co. Law Corporation

v. (27019)

Assessor of Area #12 - Coquitlam (B.C.)

John E.D. Savage

Crease, Harman & Company

FILING DATE 23.11.1998

Pegi Horne et al.

Philip H. Horgan

v. (27021)

Bombardier, Inc. et al. (Ont.)

J. Holloway

Baker & McKenzie

FILING DATE 14.12.1998

Le ministère de la santé et des services sociaux

Patrice Claude

Bernard, Roy & Associés

c. (27022)

Centre hospitalier Mont-Sinaï et al. (Qué.)

Gilles Poulin

Adessky, Poulin

DATE DE PRODUCTION 14.12.1998

Harbanse Singh Doman

Marvin R.V. Storrow, Q.C.

Blake, Cassels & Graydon

v. (27026)

The Superintendent of Brokers, now known as the Executive Director et al. (B.C.)

Joseph Arvay, Q.C.

Arvay, Finlay

FILING DATE 11.12.1998

Ronald Coughlin

John S. McNeil, Q.C.

Fellowes, McNeil

v. (27027)

William F. Comery et al. (Ont.)

Borden & Elliott

FILING DATE 11.12.1998

Marie-Louis Lessard

Marie-Louis Lessard

c. (27028)

Société québécoise d’assainissement des eaux (Qué.)

Jacques Hurlet

Bélanger Sauvé, s.e.n.c.

DATE DE PRODUCTION 15.12.1998

Cudd Pressure Control Inc.

David A. Ward

Davies Ward & Beck

v. (27029)

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

Robert McMechan

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 16.12.1998

The Paddon Hughes Development Co. Ltd.

John Bishop Ballem

Ballem MacInnes

v. (27030)

Pancontinental Oil Ltd. et al. (Alta.)

James Rose, Q.C.

Fraser Milner

FILING DATE 17.12.1998

Russell James Bennett

Leonard T. Doust, Q.C.

McCarthy Tétrault

v. (27031)

The Superintendent of Brokers, now known as the Executive Director et al. (B.C.)

Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C.

Arvay Finlay

FILING DATE 14.12.1998

Astrid Elfreda Flaska

Ian M. Hull

Hull & Hull

v. (27032)

Donald Hindson et al. (Ont.)

Jordan M. Atin

FILING DATE 17.12.1998

Northwood Pulp and Timber Limited

Warren J. A. Mitchell, Q.C.

Thorsteinssons

v. (27033)

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

Roger Taylor

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 17.12.1998

Prem Malhotra

Prem Malhotra

v. (27034)

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

Christopher Parker

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 17.12.1998

Errol McHayle

Errol McHayle

v. (27035)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 18.12.1998

Dr. Eric Leu et al.

Neil M. Abramson

Tremayne-Lloyd Partners

v. (27037)

Health One Inc. (Ont.)

J. Anthony Caldwell

Fogler, Rubinoff

FILING DATE 21.12.1998

Thomas Wesley Rathwell

David J. Hughes

Barnes, Sammon

v. (27039)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Rosella Cornaviera

Min. of the A.G.

FILING DATE 21.12.1998

Lineal Group Inc.,  carrying on business under the name “Samsonite Furniture”

Bruce C. North, Q.C.

Phillips & Phillips

v. (27040)

The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al. (Ont.)

D. Robb English

Garfinkle, Biderman

FILING DATE 21.12.1998

Muriel Mary Rain

Robert A. Joly

v. (27041)

Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

Ken E. Tjosvold

Agent of the A.G.

FILING DATE 23.12.1998

Société d’hypothèque Banque Nationale

Serge Gloutnay

Desjardins Ducharme Stein Monast, s.e.n.c.

c. (26988)

Le sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec (Qué.)

Pierre Séguin

Veillette & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION 11.12.1998

Elliot C. Wightman et al.

Serge Gaudet

Heenan Blaikie

c. (26989)

Peter N. Widdrington (Qué.)

Raynold Langlois

Langlois Gaudreau

DATE DE PRODUCTION 16.12.1998

Edmonton Journal, a division of Southam Inc.

Frederick S. Kozak

Reynolds, Mirth, Richards & Farmer

v. (27036)

Attorney General of Alberta (Alta.)

Ken E. Tjosvold

Alberta Justice

FILING DATE 18.12.1998

T.B.-C.

Julius H. Grey

Grey Casgrain

v. (27044)

D.F. et al. (Que.)

Johanne Rhéaume-Lightner

Rhéaume-Lightner & Katz

FILING DATE 23.12.1998

Paul E. Brown

Darrell W. Roberts, Q.C.

Roberts & Griffin

v. (27046)

Alan E. Cole et al. (B.C.)

Richard R. Sugden, Q.C.

Sugden, McFee & Roos

FILING DATE 23.12.1998

Craig Newton Hurford

Brian V. Vardigans

Nova Scotia Legal Aid

v. (27008)

Her Majesty the Queen (N.S.)

David Meadows

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 4.12.1998

DECEMBER 18, 1998 / LE 18 DÉCEMBRE 1998

                                                              CORAM:   Cory, Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ. /

Les juges Cory, Iacobucci et Bastarache

                                                                                                     A.K.

                                                                                                c. (26790)

                                                                                                      H.S.

- et -

Procureur général du Québec et Procureur général du Canada (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit familial -  Code civil - Droit constitutionnel - Droit international - Interprétation - Divorce - Compétence - Jugement étranger - Reconnaissance et exécution - Jugement de divorce prononcé en Algérie - Préalablement au prononcé du jugement de divorce mais postérieurement à l'action intentée par le demandeur en Algérie, l'intimée intente au Québec des procédures en séparation de corps et en divorce -  Rejet par la Cour supérieure du Québec de la requête du demandeur pour obtenir la reconnaissance du jugement de divorce rendu en Algérie -  La Cour supérieure conclut que c’est le tribunal canadien qui a juridiction car le demandeur n’a pas résidé en Algérie durant l’année précédant l’introduction de la demande en divorce, déclare inapplicable en matière de divorce l’article 3167 C.c.Q., et conclut que le jugement étranger est incompatible avec l’ordre public tel qu’il est entendu dans les relations internationales (art. 3155, al. 5 C.c.Q.) - La Cour d’appel considérant que le moyen fondé sur l’art. 3155, al 4 C.c.Q. doit être retenu et que le juge de première instance a eu raison de rejeter en définitive la requête en reconnaissance du jugement étranger, sans statuer sur le moyen fondé sur l’inapplicabilité en matière de divorce de l’article 3167 C.c.Q., rejette l’appel du demandeur - L’article 3167 C.c.Q. est-il constitutionnellement valide et applicable et dans l’affirmative, la Cour d’appel auraient-elles dû reconnaître la compétence du tribunal algérien, état dont les deux parties possèdent la nationalité, pour statuer sur la demande en divorce du demandeur (art. 3155, al. 1 C.c.Q.)? - La Cour supérieure a-t-elle été saisie du litige avant le tribunal algérien au sens de l’article 3155, al. 4 C.c.Q.? - Les effets du jugement du tribunal algérien sont-ils manifestement incompatibles avec l’ordre public, tel qu’entendu dans les relations internationales (art. 3155, al. 5 C.c.Q.)?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

DECEMBER 21, 1998 / LE 21 DÉCEMBRE 1998

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

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges McLachlin et Iacobucci

A.L.B.

v. (26879)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Reverse onus - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by applying a reverse onus to s. 351(1)  of the Criminal Code  (possession of break-in instruments) - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the Crown to amend the information on appeal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ryan Jacob

v. (26885)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Whether the trial judge erred in his charge to the jury on reasonable doubt - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that s. 651(3)  of the Criminal Code  (order of closing addresses) is of no force or effect - Whether the Applicant should have been entitled to challenge potential jurors for racial bias.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                         William D. Hulme

v. (26915)

The Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Master and servant - Constructive dismissal - Whether, on the facts of this case, the Applicant was constructively dismissed - Whether the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors which affected his assessment of the facts on critical issues.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Lorrie Tsaoussis, by her Litigation Guardian, The Children's Lawyer,

Carol Metcalf personally, and Angela Tsaoussis, by her

Litigation Guardian, Carol Metcalf

v. (26945)

Juanita M. Baetz (Ont.)

AND BETWEEN

Lorrie Tsaoussis, by her

Litigation Guardian, Carol Metcalf

v. (26945)

Juanita M. Baetz (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Damages - Motor Vehicles - Procedural law - Civil Procedure - Court approved settlement of minor’s claim - Whether the Court of Appeal erred regarding the test for setting aside court approved settlement - Whether there are conflicting appellate authorities - Whether the Court of Appeal erred regarding the parens patriae doctrine - Whether the Court of Appeal erred regarding the doctrine of reasonable discoverability.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache

                                                                      Neil Knight & PowerRich Corporation

                                                                                                v. (26859)

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

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

Michael Sean Foote

                                                                                                v. (26895)

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

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

                                                                                  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. (26739)

                                                                              Dr. Romano Deghenghi (Qué.)

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

                                                                       Shannon Sullivan et Maureen Sullivan

                                                                                                c. (26771)

                                                                                Camp Carowanis Inc. (Qué.)

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

                                                                               Rene Lin and Ingrid S.M. Lin

                                                                                                v. (26827)

                                                                         The Toronto-Dominion Bank (Ont.)

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

CORAM:   Cory, Major and Binnie JJ. /

Les juges Cory, Major et Binnie

                                                                                         Chamkaur Kainth

                                                                                                v. (26832)

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

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

Daniel Equizi

v. (26907)

Algoma Steel Inc. (Ont.)

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

                                                                               Don Bodkin Leasing Limited

                                                                                                v. (26791)

                                                                         The Toronto-Dominion Bank (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial Law - Banks/banking operations ‐ Contracts ‐ Forged cheques and fraudulent payment directions ‐ Verification of account agreement requires examination of monthly bank statement and cancelled cheques to give notice of errors or objections within thirty days ‐ Rules of construction applicable to verification clause - Whether claims for money had and received or claims for negligence covered by clause - Whether conduct of parties altered obligations - Whether verification agreement should have been construed strictly - Whether bank released from liability for independent torts if verification agreement only refers to claims in respect of the items recorded in bank statements - Whether Court of Appeal accorded proper deference to material findings of fact- Whether appellate decisions conflict

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                               Ural Direk

                                                                                                v. (26836)

Anthony Dixon, Cardinal Car and Truck Rental Inc.,  458132 Ontario Limited, carrying on business as Dave Wood  Mazda and Dave Wood Mazda Ltd. (Ont.)

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

                                                                                     Douglas A. Woodward

                                                                                                v. (26865)

                                                                                          Stelco Inc. (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Contract - Employment - Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in upholding the trial judge’s decision that a non-competition covenant contained in a retirement benefits contract was legally enforceable.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

JANUARY 7, 1999 / LE 7 JANVIER 1999

26788                    ERIN DANCER HOLDING CORP., AS TRUSTEE FOR ERIN DANCER HOLDINGS JOINT VENTURE, A CO-TENANCY, KENLEY ESTATES INC. AS TRUSTEE FOR KENLEY ESTATES JOINT VENTURE, A CO-TENANCY, WILDFUR INVESTMENTS INC. AS TRUSTEE FOR BAYVIEW HILL PHASE II CO-TENANCY, A CO-TENANCY, CUPOLA PROPERTIES LTD., A CO-TENANCY, KINGSGLEN DEVELOPMENTS INC. AS TRUSTEE FOR DEVELOPMENTS JOINT VENTURE, A CO-TENANCY, AND AVONGREEN ESTATES INC. AS TRUSTEE FOR AVONGREEN ESTATES JOINT VENTURE, A CO-TENANCY - v. - THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL AND THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL (Ont.)

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

Statutes - Interpretation - Interpretation of a repealed by-law provision that allowed partial refunds of building permit fees if actual costs of construction proved to be less than the prescribed values used to assess fees - Whether the words “if the applicant disagrees with such prescribed value”  and “prescribed value” referred to only proposed buildings and not completed buildings - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the by-law such that builders had to have provided notices of objection to prescribed values when paying their permit fees in order to have retained their rights to reimbursements after construction.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26754                    MICHAEL KHANNA - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that evidence with respect to the defence of self defence was inadmissible - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that it was not necessary for the trial judge to have reviewed the defence evidence in his charge to the jury - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the assault conviction was not unreasonable - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a stay of proceedings was not warranted.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

April 30, 1996

Ontario Court (General Division) (Locke J.)

Motion to stay proceedings dismissed

October 29, 1996

Ontario Court (General Division) (Locke J.)

Conviction:  assault

May 28, 1998

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Krever, Osborne and Doherty JJ.A.)

Conviction appeal dismissed; sentence appeal allowed; absolute discharge substituted

July 23, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

26744                    MANAC INC. CORP. - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (F.C.A.)(Que.)

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

Taxation - Statutes - Interpretation - Meaning of “similar properties” under s. 111(5)(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 2 (5th Suppl .) - Does the integration of the activities of a manufacturer and one of its suppliers necessarily result, for tax purposes, in a business different from that of the supplier - For the purposes of s. 111(5)(a)(ii), are the particular panels used in the manufacturing of trailers properties “similar” either to the trailers, because of their common functionality, or to the other types of panels manufactured by the Applicant, which are also employed in the manufacturing of trailers - Is s. 111(5)(a)(ii) rendered inoperable where a corporation, which develops and sells panels used strictly in the manufacturing of trailers, is amalgamated with a corporation which develops and sells trailers and continues to carry on precisely the same development activity, but with no internal notional “sale” of the panels - What meaning should be given to the expression “substantially all” the income in s. 111(5)(a)(ii).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26792                    STEPHEN MICHAEL STARK - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(B.C.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

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

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Right to counsel - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling admissible the Applicant’s videotaped statement to police - Whether the right to counsel is limited to an initial consultation with duty counsel even where duty counsel also advises a co-accused - Evidence - Fresh evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in denying the Applicant’s motion to adduce fresh evidence - Whether the actus reus of the offence coincided with the mens rea - R. v. Cooper, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 146.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26622                    NARESH KAUSHAL - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)

CORAM:               Cory, Major and Binnie 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 - Whether trial judge was required to give a limiting instruction to the jury that although they had heard evidence of numerous assaults spanning an eighteen month period, the indictment alleged only a single assault and consequently, they were required to be unanimous in their verdict as to which of the numerous assaults was proven beyond reasonable doubt - Whether “single transaction” rule obviates the need for any limiting instruction - Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the evidence of numerous assaults which occurred over an eighteen month period constituted a “single transaction” - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that Crown was entitled to adduce evidence of a witness’s prior inconsistent statements and prior consistent statements in examination in chief for the purpose of bolstering the credibility of the witness and undermining anticipated cross-examination of defence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26793                    TRENGROVE DEVELOPMENTS INC. (94-2663(GST)G), ASTRA-BLOVE BUILDING GROUP INC. (94-2633(GST)G), ASTRA-MAR INVESTMENTS INC. (94-2634(GST)G), ATTERIDGE CONSTRUCTION LTD. (94-2635(GST)G), BAYFIELD BUILDING CORPORATION (94-2637(GST)G), BLAIRWOOD VALLEY HOMES INC. (94-2638(GST)G), BRADWICK DEVELOPMENTS LTD. (94-2639(GST)G), BRYDONVIEW ESTATES INC. (94-2640(GST)G), CLAIRIDGE BUILDING CORPORATION (94-2641(GST)G), CORAL ACRES ESTATES INC. (94-2642(GST)G), DUNDENE FOREST DEVELOPMENTS INC. (94-2643(GST)G), EATONWOOD ESTATES INC. (94-2644(GST)G), ELDERCREST ESTATES INC. (94-2645(GST)G), ERIN DANCER HOLDING CORP. (94-2646(GST)G), FIELDPORT ESTATES INC. (94-2647(GST)G), FLORAL SHIRT INVESTMENTS CORPORATION (94-2648(GST)G), HOME-OAK INVESTMENTS INC. (94-2649(GST)G), HOME SPORT INC. (94-2650(GST)G), KINGSGLEN DEVELOPMENTS INC. (94-2651(GST)G), MARLIN-WATSON HOME CORP. (94-2652(GST)G), PEAKMOUNT DEVELOPMENTS LTD. (94-2659(GST)G), PRINCESTAR HOMES LTD. (94-2660(GST)G), RAVENCLIFF ESTATES INC. (94-2661(GST)G), SHURPHIL HOLDINGS CORP. (94-2662(GST)G), SIMONGATE ESTATES INC. (94-2667(GST)G), SPICTAN HOLDINGS INC. (94-2666(GST)G), SWAN VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS INC. (94-2665(GST)G), TWELVE-JAN INVESTMENTS INC. (94-2670(GST)G), TWO STEP HOLDINGS INC.(94-2669(GST)G), AND UNIDENTON HOLDING CORP. (94-2668(GST)G) - 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 - Statutes - Interpretation - Whether the value of the Goods and Services Tax Rebate or the Federal Sales Tax New Housing Rebate that is assigned by the purchaser of a newly constructed home to the builder constitutes part of the builder’s total consideration for the sale of the home and is subject to GST - Whether the Tax Court of Canada erred in law by applying a doctrine of “more rigorous scrutiny of taxpayer activities” on the basis of a purposive analysis of the relevant fiscal legislation - Sections 121 , 154  and 254  of the Excise Tax Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15 , Part IX, as amended.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26956                    EDWARD CHARLES RICHARDSON a.k.a. EDWARD CHUM RICHARDSON - v. - JUDITH RICHARDSON a.k.a. JUDITH VELAZQUEZ DE RICHARDSON (B.C.)

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

Family law - Divorce - Division of property - Maintenance - Family assets - Distribution of family assets - Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, Chapter 128, Part V - Divorce Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 - Whether the lower courts disposed of the case properly?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26816                    DR. KEITH MONDESIR - v. - MANITOBA ASSOCIATION OF OPTOMETRISTS (Man.)

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

Administrative law - Investigation into professional misconduct of an optometrist - Reasonable apprehension of bias concerning member of the complaints committee - Whether the existence of a reasonable apprehension of bias at the investigative stage of the administrative process warrants the granting of a prohibition order preventing the complaint from proceeding to a second-stage discipline committee for hearing.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26906                    ISABELLE RIJNTJES - v. - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD OF NOVA SCOTIA (N.S.)

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

Labour law - Workers’ Compensation - Administrative law - Judicial review - Standard of review - Jurisdiction - Statutes - Interpretation - Workers’ Compensation Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 508 (the former Act) - Workers’ Compensation Act, R.S.N.S. 1994-95, c. 10 (the current Act) - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s. 24 of the former Act - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to find that s. 24 of the former Act limits the jurisdiction of the WCAT - Whether the Court of Appeal erred regarding the standard of review.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26845                    JOHN R. McCOLL - v. - THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF GRAVENHURST (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

Administrative law - Judicial review - Applicant dismissed as chief administrative officer and clerk of Respondent town after a hearing - Replacement hired - Hearing declared invalid - Matter remitted to Respondent town for new hearing - New hearing held - Whether a statutory body required to hold a hearing prior to the dismissal of a public officer can lawfully dismiss the individual, hire a replacement, and then hold a hearing to consider whether the individual ought to be re-hired - Whether the minimal standard for bias set out in Old St. Boniface Residents Association Inc. v. Winnipeg (City), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1170 and Save Richmond Farmland Society v. Richmond (Township), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1213 is the wrong standard to apply in that it cannot be reconciled with the “high standard of justice” demanded by this Court when the right to continue one’s professional employment is at stake, as set out in Kane v. Board of Governors of the University of British Columbia, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1105 and Knight v. Indian Head School Division No._19, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 653.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26614                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - v. - ELIZABETH ROBERTSON (Crim.)(Nfld.)

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

Criminal law - Procedure - Sentencing - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that two previous convictions against the Respondent entered on the same day should be counted as one conviction for the purposes of imposing a severer sentence - Coke principle - R. v. Skolnick, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 47.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26759                    HUSSMANN CANADA INC. - v. - ALFRED LEONETTI and JOHN HALSEY (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

Labour law - Master/Servant - Wrongful dismissal - Employment contract - Members of bargaining unit accepting offer of promotion to supervisory positions on strength of employer’s assurances that they could return to bargaining if new positions did not “work out” - Employer downsizing Canadian operation - Respondents terminated without opportunity to return to bargaining unit - Employer paying Respondents nine months’ salary in lieu of notice - Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the promise made by the employer to Respondents was applicable for remaining working lives of Respondents instead of in accordance with principle that terms of employment contract may be terminated by either party on reasonable notice.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26931                    J.B.B. - v. - DIRECTOR OF CHILD WELFARE FOR THE PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND and J.A.B., AN INFANT BY HIS COUNSEL, TIMOTHY J. CHALKER, Q.C. (Nfld.)

CORAM:               Cory, Major and Binnie 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

Family law - Children - Evidence - Whether lower courts erred in assessment of credibility of witnesses - Whether Court of Appeal erred in determining child was injured by ingestion of a caustic substance - Whether Supreme Court of Newfoundland permitted under the law to delegate to the Director of Child Welfare the decision to re-integrate J. to the Appellant - Was order of Barry J.“res judicata” - Whether lower courts erred in determining J.B. is a child is need of protection from the Appellant.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26804                    PHILIP MUISE - v. -WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD OF NOVA SCOTIA (N.S.)

CORAM:               Cory, Major and Binnie 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

Statutes - Interpretation - Interpretation Act - Labour law - Workers’ Compensation - Workers’ Compensation Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 508 - Workers’ Compensation Act, S.N.S. 1994-95, c. 10 - Natural justice - Common law presumptions - Non-interference with vested rights - Retroactivity - Retrospectivity - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its consideration and application of the common law presumptions against retroactivity and retrospectivity and the presumption of non-interference with vested rights - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its consideration of background information and in the conclusions drawn therefrom, and whether the principles of natural justice have been breached - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion regarding the Tribunal erring in a patently unreasonable manner.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

August 25, 1997

Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation  Appeals Tribunal (Smillie, Appeal Commissioner)

Applicant’s appeal seeking payment of temporary total disability benefits allowed

May 12, 1998

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

(Bateman, Chipman and Roscoe JJ.A.)

Respondent’s appeal allowed; matter remitted to the Tribunal for a rehearing

August 10, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

September 22, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

Motion for an extension of time to file reply filed

26782                    STEPHEN POSEN, EXECUTOR AND TRUSTEE OF THE LAST WILL TESTAMENT OF GLENN GOULD, DECEASED, AND GLENN GOULD LIMITED - v. -STODDART PUBLISHING CO. LIMITED, THE CANADA TRUST COMPANY, EXECUTOR AND TRUSTEE OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF JOCK CARROLL, DECEASED, and ANGUS CARROLL (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 - Copyright - Appropriation of personality - Whether a person who consents to allowing his photograph to be taken for the purposes of a magazine article grants to the photographer the right to use the photographs subsequently for any and all purposes for the financial gain of the photographer - Whether the holder of copyright in photographs may use the photographs without regard to the rights of privacy and rights of publicity of the celebrity - Whether and to what extent the appropriation of personality is permitted in the context of the celebrity as the subject of the work - What is the scope of protection afforded to individuals whose image is used by others for commercial gain.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26825                    BORIS ORLOV - v. - METRO TORONTO POLICE (O.P.P.), SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA AND U.C.I. AS A PART OF THE SECURITY SYSTEM (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 - Statement of claim struck out - Can Canadian legislation or Supreme Court of Canada stop conspiracy against the Applicant?  - Can above mentioned legislation give or  provide Applicant judicial protection or freedom for him, because he is now a prisoner in Canada?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

March 13, 1997

Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)

(Sheard J.)

Motion by Respondents for an order striking out the Statement of Claimed and dismissing the Applicant’s action allowed; Applicant’s action dismissed

August 14, 1998

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Finlayson, Goudge, and Feldman, JJ.A.)

Applicant’s appeal dismissed

September 2, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

26773                    GUARDIAN INSURANCE COMPANY - v. - ONTARIO TREE FRUITS LIMITED (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

Commercial Law - Insurance - Contracts - Interpretation of an exclusion clause in an insurance contract - Meaning of “seized” in a clause excluding loss or damage to property seized for breach of any law or by order of any public authority.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

October 27, 1993

Ontario Court (General Division) (Potts J.)

Action for damages dismissed

May 11, 1998

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(McMurtry C.J., Laskin and Rosenberg JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed

August 7, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

26797                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES - v. - MICHAEL HUGH MASON, BY HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN PATRICIA LYNN MASON, PATRICIA LYNN MASON PERSONALLY, ALLAN MITCHELL MASON, ANNE MARIE BRADSTREET and MARY MARGARET MASON (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

Statutes - Interpretation - Health Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.6 - Ontario Health Insurance Plan- Torts - Respondent insured by OHIP injured in facility operated by Crown - Respondents maintaining subrogated claim for services rendered to injured Respondent and paid for by OHIP - Where a right of subrogation exists, can an insurer maintain a claim on behalf of a named insured who cannot assert such a right on its own behalf - Can an insurer maintain a subrogated claim in the name of the insured against a defendant who has already paid the insured for such claim - Is OHIP a real plaintiff in this action and, as such, being the provincial Crown, can it maintain a subrogated action against itself - Can the Court enforce a claim which is not maintainable at law, because the Court believes that doing so would promote a “desirable objective”?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

May 30, 1996

Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)

(Boland J.)

Declaration that OHIP is entitled in law to advance a subrogated claim against the Applicant through Michael Hugh Mason

May 5, 1998

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Krever, Doherty and Laskin JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

July 28, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

26809                    MID CANADA MILLWORK LTD., AND SANFORD WEISS - v. - DELANO BUILDING PRODUCTS LTD., MICHAEL SHAMRAY, and 3082512 MANITOBA LTD. (Man.)

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

Commercial law - Inexperienced business person sharing confidential information with another business person in an attempt to convince that person to join him as a full partner in acquiring a business opportunity - Not extracting an express promise that the second person will not use the information to secretly acquire the opportunity for himself - Whether first person’s resultant vulnerability to having the opportunity secretly acquired by the second person “gratuitously incurred” such that no fiduciary duty prevents the second party from secretly acquiring the opportunity - Can a person acquire enforceable confidentiality rights over information belonging to another party by virtue of lawfully acquiring possession of the information and sharing it in confidence with a third party? - Is it contrary to good conscience in Canada, such that a constructive trust will be imposed as occurred in Soulos v. Korkontzilas, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 217, for a party to retain the benefit of a business opportunity obtained by lying to a potential joint venture partner?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

3.12.1998

Before / Devant:   CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER

Motion to state a constitutional question

BY/PAR:  Attorney General of Alberta

Reference re: The Firearms Act (Alta.)(26933)

Requête pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE  Notices of intention to intervene are to be filed no later than January 29, 1999.

(1)  For purposes of these questions,

(a) “Firearms Act” means the Firearms Act, chapter 39 of the Statutes of Canada, 1995;

(b) “ordinary firearm” means “firearm” as defined insection 2 of the Criminal Code  (Canada) , as amended by section 138 of the Firearms Act, except that it does not include a “ prohibited firearm” or a “restricted firearm” as those terms are defined in section 84  of the Criminal Code  (Canada) , as enacted by section 139 of the Firearms Act;

[traduction] (1)  Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent aux présentes questions.

a) «Loi sur les armes à feu» s’entend de la Loi sur les armes à feu, chapitre 39 des Lois du Canada, 1995;

b) «arme à feu ordinaire» s’entend de l’«arme à feu» définie à l’art. 2  du Code criminel  du Canada , modifié par l’art. 138 de la Loi sur les armes à feu, à l’exclusion de l’«arme à feu prohibée» et de l’«arme à feu à autorisation restreinte», définies à l’art. 84  du Code criminel  du Canada  édicté par l’art. 139 de la Loi sur les armes à feu;

(c) “licensing provisions” means those portions of the Firearms Act relating to the mandatory regime of licensing for those persons who own or possess or wish to own or possess an ordinary firearm, including, without limitation, sections 5 to 10, 54, 55, 56, 58, 61, 64, 67, 68, and 70, and the related enforcement provisions of the Criminal Code  (Canada) , as enacted by section 139 of the Firearms Act;

c) «dispositions relatives à la délivrance des permis» s’entendent des parties de la Loi sur les armes à feu relatives au régime de délivrance des permis obligatoires qui est applicable aux propriétaires ou aux possesseurs d’armes à feu ordinaires ou à ceux qui veulent le devenir, et notamment, des art. 5 à 10, 54, 55, 56, 58, 61, 64, 67, 68 et 70, ainsi que des dispositions d’application connexes du Code criminel  du Canada  édictées par l’art.139 de la Loi sur les armes à feu;

(d) “Registration provisions” means those portions of the Firearms Act relating to the mandatory regime or registration for an ordinary firearm, including, without limitation, section 13 to 16, 54, 60, 61, 66, 69, 71, 82 to 94, 112 and 115, and the related enforcement provisions of the Criminal Code  (Canada) , as enacted by section 139 of the Firearms Act.

d) «dispositions relatives à l’enregistrement» s’entendent des parties de la Loi sur les armes à feu relatives au régime d’enregistrement obligatoire des armes à feu ordinaires, et notamment, des art. 13 à 16, 54, 60, 61, 66, 69, 71, 82 à 94, 112 et 15, ainsi que des dispositions d’application connexes du Code criminel  du Canada  édictées par l’art. 139 de la Loi sur les armes à feu;

ii              (1) Do the licensing provisions, insofar as they relate to an ordinary firearm, constitute an infringement of the jurisdiction of the Legislature of Alberta with respect to the regulation of property and civil rights pursuant to subsection 92(13)  of the Constitution Act, 1867 ?

ii              (1)  Dans la mesure où elles se rapportent aux armes à feu ordinaires, les dispositions relatives à la délivrance des permis empiètent-elles sur la compétence en matière de propriété et de droits civils que le par. 92(13)  de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867  confère à la législature de l’Alberta?

(2) If the answer to the question posed in subsection (1) is “yes”, are the licensing provisions ultra vires the Parliament of Canada insofar as they regulate the possession or ownership of an ordinary firearm?

(2)  Si la réponse donnée à la question posée au paragraphe (1) est affirmative, les dispositions relatives à la délivrance des permis excèdent-elles la compétence du Parlement du Canada dans la mesure où elles réglementent la possession ou la propriété des armes à feu ordinaires?

ii              (1) Do the registration provisions, as they relate to an ordinary firearm, constitute an infringement of the jurisdiction of the Legislature of Alberta with respect to the regulation of property and civil rights pursuant to subsection 92(13)  of the Constitution Act, 1867 ?

(2) If the answer to the question posed in subsection (1) is “yes” are the registration provisions ultra vires the Parliament of Canada insofar as they require registration of an ordinary firearm?

(3)           (1) Les dispositions relatives à l’enregistrement applicables aux armes à feu ordinaires empiètent-elles sur la compétence en matière de propriété et de droits civils que le par. 92(13)  de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867  confère à la Législature de l’Alberta?

(2)  Si la réponse donnée à la question posée au paragraphe (1) est affirmative, les dispositions relatives à l’enregistrement excèdent-elles la compétence du Parlement du Canada dans la mesure où elles exigent l’enregistrement des armes à feu ordinaires?

14.12.1998

Before / Devant:   BINNIE J.

Motion to add parties

George Hines

     v. (26506)

Ontario Human Rights Commission (Ont.)

Requête en jonction de parties

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

The City of Toronto is to be added as a party respondent to the leave application and to file previously served material in response to the leave application.   There are to be no costs of the motion.

16.12.1998

Before / Devant:    BINNIE J.

Motion to extend the time in which to apply for leave to appeal

Jeannine M. Kapelus

    v. (26920)

University of British Columbia et al. (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai pour déposer la demande d’autorisation d'appel

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

The applicant Jeannine M. Kapelus applies under Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal the verdict of a British Columbia jury allowing her claim for wrongful dismissal, but for compensation that she considers inadequate.   Her appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal was dismissed with costs.  In support of this application the applicant files the affidavit of Gordon A. Kapelus, her husband, who explains that he inadvertently miscalculated the time prescribed for filing a leave application under s. 58(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C., 1985.   The applicant has not filed any material to suggest what points of national importance might be raised in the leave application.

I have read the reasons for decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal dated June 30, 1998 which conclude that “no reason has been established for us to set aside the jury’s verdict or any part of it”.

While I would ordinarily be inclined to relieve the applicant from a missed deadline brought about by erroneous advice from her legally trained husband, there is no indication in the material that a leave application, if made, would raise any questions that would be capable of being characterized as being of national importance.  Moreover, the applicant advises that there are unresolved issues regarding disposition of the trial costs by the trial judge and she wishes to reserve her position on the leave application until such time as she can make a “single submission to this Honourable Court”.  She thus asks for an extension of time to 60 days following the final disposition of the issue of trial costs by the courts below.   The disposition of the trial judge may lead to a further appeal on the issue of costs to the British Columbia Court of Appeal.  The request for an open-ended order delaying the leave application to a point in time 60 days beyond the happening of a series of uncertain events is not satisfactory.

The appropriate practice would have been for the applicant to file her leave application at the same time as her application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal.  (See Notice to the Profession dated January 1996.)   Adoption of this practice would have given some closure to at least that portion of the dispute already dealt with by the Court of Appeal.   It would also give this Court an idea of the merits of the proposed appeal, which is a relevant consideration in extending time.   See Imhoff v. R. (24543, 29 March 1996).

In the absence of any demonstration that the circumstances of this case are capable of giving rise to issues of national importance, and in light of the applicant’s unwillingness to commit herself to any calendar date by which the leave application would be made, the motion to extend time will be dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs.

16.12.1998

Before / Devant:   BINNIE J.

Motion for directions

Shell Canada Ltd.

    v.  (26596)

Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

Demande pour obtenir des directives

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

The appellant Shell Canada seeks a ruling that the respondent, having failed to seek leave to cross-appeal under Rule 29 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada (the “Rules”), is precluded from attacking the finding of the Court of Appeal that the “gain” realized in a New Zealand - United States currency transaction entered into by the appellant is a capital gain.

This appeal concerns the proper tax treatment of a sophisticated financing transaction, known as a “weak currency financing scheme”, undertaken by the appellant.   In 1988, the appellant required about $100 million (U.S.) for general corporate purposes.   The market rate for a direct borrowing of U.S. dollars was 9.1%.  Instead of borrowing U.S. dollars directly, however, the appellant entered into two agreements.   The first agreement (the “Borrowing Contract”), involved the appellant borrowing $150 million (N.Z.) at an interest rate of 15.4% per annum (which was found to be the market rate for borrowing New Zealand dollars).   The second agreement (the “Purchasing Contract”), involved the appellant using the New Zealand funds to purchase $100 million U.S. dollars at the market price.

In order to fulfill the appellant’s requirement for New Zealand dollars, the Purchasing Contract provided for the appellant to purchase enough New Zealand dollars to satisfy the interest payments under the Borrowing Contract and for the appellant to purchase $150 million (N.Z.) for $79 million (U.S.) on the date when the principle came due under the Borrowing Contract.   The difference in the cost of the $150 million (N.Z.) at the time the Borrowing Contract was entered ($100 million (U.S.)) and at the time the principle was to be repaid ($79 million (N.Z.)) resulted in a $21 million (U.S.) “gain” to the appellant.

In computing its tax liability, the appellant deducted the 15.4% interest it had paid under the Borrowing Contract and characterized the $21 million (U.S.) gain as a capital gain.

The respondent reassessed the appellant by allowing only the cost of directly borrowing U.S. dollars (9.1%) as an interest expense and characterized the “gain” as income.

The appellant appealed to the Tax Court where the court found in favour of the appellant and allowed the full 15.4% to be deducted as an expense.  The Tax Court also characterized the gain as a capital gain.

The Court of Appeal reversed the Tax Court’s finding with respect to the interest deduction applying an “economic substance over form” doctrine which essentially dictated that the Borrowing Contract and Purchasing Contract be considered together.   This in turn led the Court of Appeal to a determination that the 15.4% interest rate expense claimed failed to comply with three of the requirements that must be satisfied for a claimed expense to qualify as “interest” under the Income Tax Act: it was not interest, it was not used for the purpose of earning income and it was not reasonable.   Therefore, the Court of Appeal disallowed any interest expense claimed above 9.1% - the direct cost of borrowing U.S. dollars.   It is on that issue that the appellant sought and obtained leave to appeal in this Court.

The Court of Appeal did, however, agree with the Tax Court that the gain of $21 million (U.S.) should be considered a capital gain.   The respondent has indicated that it intends to keep that issue alive on the appeal to this Court.  The appellant disputes the respondent’s right to do so.

Rule 29 provides as follows:

29.           (1)  A respondent who seeks to set aside or vary the whole or any part of the disposition of the judgment appealed from shall apply for leave to cross-appeal within 30 clear days after the service of the application for leave, in the case of an appeal for which leave is required, or 30 clear days after the service of the notice of appeal, in all other cases.

. . .

(3) A respondent who seeks to uphold the judgment on a ground or grounds not raised in the reasons for the judgment appealed from may do so in the respondent’s factum without applying for leave to cross-appeal, and the appellant may serve and file a factum in reply in accordance with Rule 41.  (emphasis added)

The gist of the Rule is that where a respondent wishes to vary the judgment appealed from, that respondent must apply for leave to cross-appeal that part of the judgment.   Where, however, the respondent seeks to uphold the judgment of the lower court on a ground not raised in the reasons of the judgment appealed from, no leave to cross-appeal is required.  R. v. Keegstra, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 381 at 400.

The respondent’s argument on the capital gain issue would not, if accepted, uphold the judgment of the Court of Appeal.  According to that judgment, the appellant may claim an interest expense of 9.1% per annum on the principal amount borrowed under the Borrowing Contract in the computation of its taxable income.   The respondent says that if the appeal against that ruling succeeds, the respondent ought to be free to argue that the tax burden thus reduced should nevertheless be restored in whole or in part by recharacterizing the gain on the Borrowing Contract as income rather than capital.

In my view, the respondent would be required to obtain leave to cross appeal before raising this issue at the hearing of the appeal.

In the first place the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal dated February 18, 1998 refers the matter back to the Minister “to be reassessed in accordance with Reasons for judgment herein”.  The Minister’s authority is thus closely circumscribed by the reasons as well as the outcome of the appeal to that court.

Secondly, there is no reason to believe (and the respondent has not offered any proof) that the net effect of reclassifying the $21 million gain as income would be the same as the net effect on the appellant’s tax burden of the reasons for judgment of the Court of Appeal.   If the tax burden calculated under the respondent’s alternative argument differs from the tax burden calculated under the Court of Appeal’s judgment, then recharacterizing the gain as income rather than capital would not uphold even the outcome, much less the reasons for judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal.

Accordingly, if the respondent wishes to keep the capital gains issue alive in this Court, she cannot do so without leave.  The proper procedure would be to now serve and provide the Court with the proposed leave application with respect to the cross-appeal, accompanied by an application for an extension of time within which to file same, as set out in the Notice to the Profession dated January, 1996.  The leave panel may then determine whether it is appropriate to have all aspects of the “weak currency financing scheme” before the Court on the main appeal.

18.12.1998

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Société d’hypothèque Banque Nationale

     c. (26988)

Le sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec (Qué.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Délai prorogé au 11 février 1999.

21.12.1998

Before / Devant:   BASTARACHE J.

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the book of authorities of an intervener and motion for additional time to present oral argument

BY/PAR:                A.G. of Quebec / P.G. du Québec

IN/DANS:              Her Majesty the Queen et al.

   v. (26174)

Angelo Del Zotto et al. (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et produire le cahier de jurisprudence et de doctrine d’un intervenant et requête en prorogation du temps accordé pour la plaidoirie

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

La requête de l’intervenant le procureur général du Québec pour obtenir une ordonnance prorogeant le délai pour signifier et produire son cahier de jurisprudence et de doctrine au 10 décembre 1998 et pour obtenir une ordonnance l’autorisant à présenter des plaidoiries totalisant 30 minutes plutôt que 15 minutes est accordée.

22.12.1998

Before / Devant:   LE JUGE IACOBUCCI

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

Commission scolaire de Rivière-du-Loup

      c. (27003)

Syndicat de l’enseignement du Grand-Portage (Qué.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Délai prorogé au 1 février 1999.

23.12.1998

Before / Devant:    LE JUGE BASTARACHE

Requête visant à produire de nouveaux éléments de preuve

Maurice Boucher

    c. (26969)

Yves Galarneau et al. (Qué.)

Motion for permission to file new evidence

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

La demande relative au dépôt d’une nouvelle preuve est rejetée.  Une prorogation de délai de 60 jours pour produire la demande de permission d’en appeler de la décision de la Cour d’appel est accordée.

23.12.1998

Before / Devant:   BASTARACHE J.

Motion to extend the time in which to apply for leave to appeal

Shiu Dular

    v. (26992)

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Man.)

Requête en prorogation du délai  pour déposer la demande d’autorisation d'appel

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to January 25, 1999.

30.12.1998

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum and record of the appellants Robert Lovelace et al.

Robert Lovelace et al.

    v. (26165)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire et le dossier des appelants Robert Lovelace et al.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to January 13, 1999.

30.12.1998

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

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

Thornhill Aggregates Ltd. et al.

     v. (26818)

Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge (B.C.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to December 18, 1998.

14.12.1998

Christopher Ronald Arrance

   v. (26802)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

15.12.1998

The Public School Boards’ Association of Alberta et al.

    v. (26701)

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Alberta et al. (Alta.)

17.12.1998

Vincent Scalera

     v. (26695)

M.J. Oppenheim in his quality as Attorney in Canada for the Non-Marine Underwriters, members of Lloyd’s of London (B.C.)

DECEMBER 24, 1998 / LE 24 DÉCEMBRE 1998

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - v.-  SHAWN CARL CAMPBELL  - and between - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - v.- IVICA EKMECIC - and between - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - v.- PERCY DWIGHT WICKMAN - and - THE ALBERTA PROVINCIAL JUDGES’ ASSOCIATION - and - THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MANITOBA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN, THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGES, THE CONFÉRENCE DES JUGES DU QUÉBEC, THE SASKATCHEWAN PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION, THE CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND THE CANADIAN JUDGES CONFERENCE (Alta.) (24831)

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

BY THE COURT:

The Alberta Provincial Judges’ Association (“Association”) has submitted a motion for directions relating to our decision in Provincial Court Judges  (No. 1), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3.  In that case, the Court provided for, inter alia, a  period of time ending on September 18, 1998 during which in effect judicial salary commissions in Canada were to be established.  The Association’s motion for directions was submitted in accordance with the Court’s decision in Provincial Court Judges (No. 2), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 3, and the extension granted on September 15, 1998, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 443, the principal effect of which was to extend the transition period to the earlier of a further two months and the day Bill C-37 receives Royal Assent.  Briefly stated, the motion for directions of the Association requests the Court to rule in principle on whether its findings in Provincial Court Judges (No. 1) require the Province of Alberta to pay the reasonable expenses of the Alberta judiciary incurred in participating in the commission process or in any proceedings which call upon the Province of Alberta to justify its decision not to accept one or more of the recommendations of the judicial salary commission.

Upon reading the submissions and supporting material of the parties and interveners, the Court is of the opinion that the motion for directions should be dismissed without costs in that it does not arise from the implementation of the judgment of the Court in Provincial Court Judges (No. 1) or in Provincial Court Judges (No. 2).  In this respect, see the views expressed by Roberts J. in Newfoundland Assn. of Provincial Court Judges v. Newfoundland (1998), 160 D.L.R. (4^th) 337 (Nfld. S.C.), at p. 372.

As was stated by the Chief Justice in Provincial Court Judges  (No. 1), supra, at para. 173:

Although s. 11(d) does not require it, the commission’s objectivity can be promoted by ensuring that it is fully informed before deliberating and making its recommendations.  This can be best achieved by requiring that the commission receive and consider submissions from the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature.  In Ontario, for example, the Provincial Judges’ Remuneration Commission is bound to consider submissions from the provincial judges’ association and the government (Courts of Justice Act, Schedule, para. 20).  Moreover, I recommend (but do not require) that the objectivity of the commission be ensured by including in the enabling legislation or regulations a list of relevant factors to guide the commission’s deliberations.

Although not constitutionally requiring the participation of judges or judges’ association in the commission process (or litigation relating thereto), it is worth repeating that the Court in Provincial Court Judges (No. 1) decided that judicial compensation commissions were to be independent, effective and objective as described therein.  Furthermore, Lamer C.J. at para. 287 stated:

Under no circumstances is it permissible for the judiciary to engage in negotiations over remuneration with the executive or representatives of the legislature.  However, that does not preclude chief justices or judges, or bodies representing judges, from expressing concerns or making representations to governments regarding judicial remuneration.

The composition and the procedure established for hearings before the independent, effective and objective commissions may vary widely.  So will the approach to the payment of the representational costs of the judges.  In some instances the resolution of the payment of representational costs will be achieved by agreement.  Often the commission will have to determine the issue subject to an appeal to the court.  In those circumstances the position adopted in the reasons of Roberts J. in Newfoundland Assn. of Provincial Court Judges, supra, may be appropriate, a matter upon which we need not comment in this motion.  Suffice it to say, whatever may be the approach to the payment of costs it should be fair, equitable and reasonable.

[Traduction]

PAR LA COUR:

L’Alberta Provincial Judges’ Association (l’«Association») a présenté une requête sollicitant des directives relativement à notre décision dans l’Affaire des juges des cours provinciales (n^o 1), [1997] 3 R.C.S. 3.  Dans cette affaire, la Cour a, entre autres mesures, fixé une période, prenant fin le 18 septembre 1998, ayant pour but de permettre dans les faits l’établissement de commissions de rémunération des juges au Canada.  L’Association a présenté sa requête sollicitant des directives conformément à la décision de notre Cour dans l’Affaire des juges des cours provinciales (n^o 2), [1998] 1 R.C.S. 3, et à la prorogation de délai accordée le 15 septembre 1998, [1998] 2 R.C.S. 443, prorogation dont l’effet principal a été de prolonger la période de transition de deux mois supplémentaires ou jusqu’à la date de la sanction royale du projet de loi C‐37 si cet événement survenait avant.  En résumé, dans sa requête, l’Association demande à la Cour de statuer en principe sur la question de savoir si, suivant les conclusions qu’elle a prononcées dans l’Affaire des juges des cours provinciales (n^o 1), la province d’Alberta est tenue de payer les frais raisonnables engagés par les juges de l’Alberta pour participer aux travaux de la commission ou à toute procédure judiciaire au cours de laquelle la province d’Alberta est appelée à justifier son refus d’accepter une ou plusieurs des recommandations de la commission de rémunération des juges.

Après avoir lu les observations des parties et des intervenants ainsi que les documents présentés au soutien de celles‐ci, la Cour est d’avis que la requête sollicitant des directives doit être rejetée, sans dépens, parce qu’elle ne découle pas de la mise en oeuvre des arrêts de notre Cour Affaire des juges des cours provinciales (n^o 1) ou Affaire des juges des cours provinciales (n^o 2).  À cet égard, voir les vues exprimées par le juge Roberts dans Newfoundland Assn. of Provincial Court Judges v. Newfoundland (1998), 160 D.L.R. (4^th) 337 (C.S.T.‐N.), à la p. 372.

Comme a dit le Juge en chef dans l’Affaire des juges des cours provinciales (n^o 1), précitée, au par. 173:

Même si l’al. 11d) ne l’exige pas, l’objectivité de la commission peut être favorisée si l’on fait en sorte qu’elle soit bien informée avant de délibérer et de faire des recommandations.  La meilleure façon d’y arriver est d’exiger que la commission reçoive et étudie les observations de la magistrature, de l’exécutif et de l’assemblée législative.  En Ontario, par exemple, la Commission de rémunération des juges provinciaux est tenue de prendre en considération les observations de l’association des juges provinciaux et du gouvernement (Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires, Annexe, art. 20).  De plus, je recommande (sans en faire une obligation) que l’on assure l’objectivité de la commission en intégrant dans la loi ou le règlement la constituant une liste de facteurs pertinents afin de la guider dans ses délibérations.

Bien qu’elle n’ait pas déclaré que la Constitution exigeait la participation des juges ou associations de juges aux travaux des commissions (ou aux litiges s’y rapportant), il convient de rappeler que, dans l’Affaire des juges des cours provinciales (n^o 1), notre Cour a statué que les commissions de rémunération devaient être des organismes indépendants, efficaces et objectifs, de la manière décrite dans cette décision.  De plus, le juge en chef Lamer a déclaré ceci, au par. 287:

Il n’est en aucune circonstance permis aux juges d’engager avec l’exécutif ou des représentants de la législature des négociations concernant leur rémunération.  Toutefois, cela n’empêche pas les juges, les juges en chef ou les organisations représentant les juges de faire part au gouvernement concerné de leurs préoccupations concernant le caractère adéquat de la rémunération des juges, ni de présenter des observations à cet égard.

Il est possible que la composition des commissions indépendantes, efficaces et objectives lors des audiences et la procédure suivie à ces occasions varient considérablement.  Il en sera de même des solutions retenues à l’égard du paiement des frais  engagés par les juges pour s’y faire représenter.  Dans certains cas, cette question sera résolue par voie d’accord.  Souvent, la commission devra trancher la question, sous réserve d’appel en justice.  Dans de tels cas, la position adoptée dans les motifs du juge Roberts dans Newfoundland Assn. of Provincial Court Judges, précité, pourrait convenir, point que nous n’avons pas besoin de commenter dans le cadre de la présente requête.  Qu’il suffise de dire que, quelle que soit la solution retenue quant au paiement des frais en question, elle devrait être juste, équitable et raisonnable.

AGENDA for the week beginning January 18, 1999.

ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 18 janvier 1999.

Date of Hearing/                           Case Number and Name/    

Date d'audition                             Numéro et nom de la cause

1999/01/18                                  Motions - Requêtes

1999/01/19                                  L.C. et al. v. Brian Joseph Mills et al. (Crim.)(Alta.)(26358)

1999/01/20                                  Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada et al. v. Angelo Del Zotto et al. (Crim.)(F.C.A.)(26174)

1999/01/21                                  Donald G. Zink v. Graybec Immobilier Inc. et al. (Que.)(26314)

1999/01/22                                  Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario v. Nesbitt, Burns Inc. et al. (Ont.)(26422)

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.

26358    L.C. and The Attorney General of Alberta v. Brian Joseph Mills