Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

November 10, 2000  1993 - 2061                                                       le 10 novembre 2000

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Sa Majesté la Reine

Claude Simard

P.G. du Québec

c. (28037)

Jeanne D’Arc Auclair, et al. (Qué.)

Marwan Bachir

Aide juridique de Baie-Comeau

DATE DE PRODUCTION 31.7.2000

   et entre

Jean-Yves Auclair, et al.

Christian Maltais

Maltais, Gauthier

c. (28037)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)

Claude Simard

P.G. du Québec

DATE DE PRODUCTION 1.8.2000

Dr. Norman Sutherland

Ronald D. Manes

Torkin Manes Cohen & Arbus

v. (28169)

Murielle Forget (Ont.)

Susan M. Vella

Goodman and Carr

FILING DATE 29.9.2000

Wayne E. Strong

William R. Gale

Grosman, Grosman & Gale

v. (28170)

Neil M. Kisbee, et al. (Ont.)

Terrence J. O’Sullivan

Lax, O’Sullivan, Cronk

FILING DATE 29.9.2000

NOVEMBER 2, 2000 / LE 2 NOVEMBRE 2000

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Major

Beverly Hoover, and James Thomas Leslie Mills,

Executors of the Estate of John T. Murray Mills, deceased

v. (28151)

John Edwards and Nancy Edwards on behalf of themselves

and with leave of the Court on behalf of the class herein described (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Estates - Trusts and trustees - Limitation periods - Whether the two year limitation period created by s. 38(3) of the Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23, is extended by the provisions of ss. 43 and 44 of the Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.15, or at common law - Whether the scope of the application of the rule in Murphy v. Welsh; Stoddard v. Watson, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1069 should be reconsidered.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

NOVEMBER 6, 2000 / LE 6 NOVEMBRE 2000

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Major

Attorney General of Canada

v. (28210)

Stephen Joseph Harper (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural Law - Interlocutory Injunction - Elections - Federal legislation limiting third party spending during an election period - Interlocutory injunction granted enjoining Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections from enforcing impugned provisions - Whether review by this Court on an urgent basis is required because the interlocutory injunction granted by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench upheld by the Alberta Court of Appeal suspends the operation of provisions of the Canada Elections Act  during the period of a general election - Whether the interlocutory injunction, having been issued by an Albert court, is enforceable only in the Province of Alberta, thereby creating a lack of uniformity and uncertainty in the application of the Canada Elections Act  during the period of the general elections - Whether the grant of an interlocutory injunction, prior to the completion of a trial on the merits of the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions of the Canada Elections Act , fails to account for the public interest in the maintenance of democratically-enacted laws and the uniform application of such laws - Whether the decisions of the courts below create inconsistency in the law, since the grant of an interlocutory injunction suspending the operations of provisions of the Canada Elections Act  during the period of a general election is effectively a grant of final relief to the respondent, contrary to the principle enunciated by a majority of the Federal Court of Appeal in Gould v. Canada, [1984] 1 F.C. 1133 and endorsed by this Court ([1984] 2 S.C.R. 124).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

NOVEMBER 7, 2000 / LE 7 NOVEMBRE 2000

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Major

Gregory Bromby

v. (28076)

Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Qué.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that “the similar fact evidence was properly ruled admissible by the trial judge to prove appellant’s identity with respect to the crime charged” - Whether there two clearly distinct types of similar fact evidence, which are treated differently under the law - Whether distinct types of similar fact evidence have different standards of admissibility and fundamentally incompatible evidentiary purposes - What constitutes a “significant” similarity on the question of identity? - Can specific evidence of an accused’s relationship with the victims of the crimes being compared be used? - Did the Court of Appeal err in applying the “curative proviso” of s. 686(1) (b) of the Criminal Code ?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ernst & Young, Alan Lary and Fred Yada

v. (27948)

J.M. Webster, A.B. Hudson, M.D. Akerly, G.A. Porteous and J. Coombe (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence - Negligent misrepresentation - Respondents bringing action against Applicant accountants for negligent misstatement – Trial judge finding that Respondents had not satisfied evidentiary burden to prove damages and dismissing action - Whether approach to damages for loss of opportunity or chance applies to an action in tort for negligent misrepresentation - Appropriate standard of proof and onus of proof in tort action for negligent misrepresentation involving hypothetical past events -  Whether majority of Court of Appeal applied appropriate standard of appellate review to trial judge’s reasons for judgment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache et LeBel

Terry Tombran

v. (27969)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Whether the trial judge is under an obligation to explain to the jury the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence, and the extra hurdle of reasoning to be surmounted before a conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence - Whether the trial judge is obliged to direct the jury on how to assess circumstantial evidence, and ensure that the jury does not consider speculative and convoluted alternative theories designed to turn the circumstantial evidence of innocence into evidence of guilt.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Andrew John Clarkson

v. (28128)

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Extradition - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that articles 7(1)(b)(ii) and 7(3) of the Extradition Treaty between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands are not in violation of s.7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the extradition judge is not required or permitted to analyze the credibility or reliability of evidence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

M.T.

c. (28110)

Réjean Dubé, Directeur de la protection de la jeunesse du centre jeunesse de l'Estrie (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Code civil - Droit de la famille - Adoption - Déclaration d’admissibilité à l’adoption - Famille d’accueil - Visites supervisées - Sécurité et développement de l’enfant compromis - Importance de sécuriser et stabiliser l’enfant - Intérêt de l’enfant - Une déclaration d’admissibilité judiciaire à l’adoption est-elle légale lorsqu’elle est accueillie, sans analyser dans le jugement “a quo” les prescriptions exigées par l’article 559 C.c.Q. en relation avec la preuve soumise et de plus, en fondant le jugement sur un aveu ne faisant pas partie de la preuve et en ajoutant à l’article 561 C.c.Q. un fardeau de preuve plus important que la prescription de la loi ne l’exige? - L’intérêt de l’enfant exige-t-il que cet enfant soit judiciairement déclaré admissible à l’adoption avec les conséquences dramatiques y étant reliées lorsque le motif principal d’admissibilité à l’adoption est l’attachement de l’enfant à sa famille d’accueil, lorsque la preuve démontre que les motifs à l’origine de l’intervention de la direction de la protection de la jeunesse ne sont plus présents?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

CORAM:   Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Binnie et Arbour

KPMG

v. (27959)

Montreal Trust Company of Canada, in its capacity as trustee for the senior debentureholders of Bramalea Inc. and in its capacity as assignee of all choses in action of Bramalea Inc. (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial Law - Creditor and Debtor - Bankruptcy - Trusts - Monitors - Trustees, bare trustees and agents - Status of monitors and of trustees of security trusts - Trustee holds legal title to debentures under a trust indenture benefitting a large class of senior debentureholders - Company that issued debentures declared bankrupt - Bankrupt company’s former auditor appointed as monitor under terms of an engagement letter that forms part of a judicially approved creditors’ arrangement - Trustee commences action against monitor alleging misconduct as auditor and during appointment under engagement letter - Authority of trustee to commence action against monitor - Degree of beneficiary control over a trustee that results in trustee being regarded as agent - Application of Trident Holdings Ltd. v. Danand Investments Ltd. (1988), 64 O.R. (2d) 65 - Rights and obligations of senior debentureholders.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Cape Breton‑Victoria Regional School Board

v. (27962)

Graham Menzies (N.S.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Jurisdiction - Prerogative writs - Certiorari - Written notice of appeal to be given in accordance with s. 36 of the Education Act, S.N.S. 1995-96, c. 1. - Failure to comply with notice requirements - Effect of failure to comply - Whether the failure of a party to comply with the statutory notice requirements precludes an administrative tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the matter is an issue that should be considered by the Court.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Robin Edwin Hall

v. (28034)

Terri Lynn Melna and the Estate of Geraldine Lynn Hall (Man.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Estates - Wills - Holograph will - Determination of the meaning of the word “belongings” in holograph will - Whether the word “belongings” in holograph wills means all property or does the word have a limited meaning - Whether this Court’s interpretation of the meaning of the term “belongings” will assist the justice system in interpreting laymen wills and/or holograph wills.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

NOVEMBER 9, 2000 / LE 9 NOVEMBRE 2000

27891                    STANLEY FRED MORRILL ‑ v. ‑ MERVYN DUDLEY KRANGLE, AN INFANT BY HIS MOTHER AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM, PHAPPHIM KRANGLE, THE SAID PHAPPHIM KRANGLE, MURRAY JOHN KRANGLE (B.C.) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Statutes- Interpretation - Damages - Wrongful birth - Damages awarded for care of disabled child to age of majority - Contingency damages awarded in the event that the state would not assume financial responsibility for care after age of majority reached - Legislative amendments subsequent to trial extending the definition of “child” - Whether Court of Appeal could consider new definition in assessing the adult plaintiffs’ damage award for the future cost of care of the infant plaintiff after he reaches age 19 - Whether benefits payable under the B.C. Benefits (Income Assistance) Act were to be taken into account in assessing damages for future cost of care - Whether adult plaintiffs have a legal obligation to provide for child’s home care and support beyond the age of 19 - Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in interfering with the contingency award made at trial for cost of future care of the infant plaintiff after he reaches age 19.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27849                    SHIRLEY HARVEY, ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF ALICE STINSON ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (B.C.) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

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

Les demandes de prorogation de délai sont accueillies et la demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Civil - Section 15 Equality rights - Constitutional law - Constitution Act, 1982 , s. 52  - Declaratory relief - Standing to advance the claim - Whether the court of appeal erred in law by finding that the estate did not have standing to pursue a claim for declaratory relief under s. 52  of the Constitution Act, 1982 .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27993                    CHERIE GRONNERUD, BY HER LITIGATION GUARDIANS, GLENN GRONNERUD AND JUDITH ANN FARR ‑ v. ‑ HAROLD ROBERT (BUD) GRONNERUD, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF HAROLD RUSSELL GRONNERUD (Sask.) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted and the Public Trustee as Litigation Guardian of Cherie Gronnerud is added as a party under Rule 17(7).

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accueillie et le curateur public en sa qualité de tuteur à l’instance de Cherie Gronnerud est ajouté comme partie en vertu du par. 17(7) des Règles.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural Law - Civil Procedure - Appointments of Personal Guardians, Property Guardians and Litigation Guardians - Court appoints family members as Personal, Property and Litigation Guardians of disabled woman living in rural Saskatchewan - Litigation Guardians commence claim for matrimonial interest against property held by estate of woman’s deceased husband - Court of Appeal replaces Public Trustee as Property and Litigation Guardian - Responsibilities of litigation guardians - Matrimonial property law - Whether there is confusion or potential confusion in the law - Whether a wrong was done to the disabled woman.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27944                    GORDON RITCHIE, GRANT GLOWICKI AND CLIFFORD SHUSTER ‑ v. ‑ SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (B.C.) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the Respondent Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de l’intimée Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Landlord and tenant -  Penalty for fraudulently carrying away or concealing property - Store employees removing all merchandise from store when rent was in arrears - Store having granted security interest to bank on all merchandise it held for resale - Landlord obtaining judgment against store and employees for double the value of the merchandise removed, as contemplated by s. 13 of the Rent Distress Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 403 - Whether the operation of s. 13 of the Rent Distress Act conflicts with the operation of the Bank Act , S.C. 1991, c. 46  - Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that the definition of “his or her personal property” includes tangible goods which are legally the property of a bank under security granted under the Bank Act  - Whether Court of Appeal erred in relying on s. 3 of the Rent Distress Act in defining the words “personal property” in s. 13 of the Act without dealing with the constitutional conflict between the provisions of the Bank Act  giving security to the bank and the provisions of s. 3 giving a priority to the landlord over the bank security.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27865                    ROBERT HOGAN, DOROTHY HOGAN, DENIS BURKE, PAULINE WISEMAN, JOYCE SWYER, BRYAN BLACKMORE, DARLENE RIDEOUT, ELLEN CASEY, MARY PARSONS, CLARA LEONARD, WILLIAM BOWMAN, HELEN WHELAN, MADONNA O'SHEA, HAROLD POWER, MOST REVEREND JAMES H. MACDONALD, ARCHBISHOP OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF ST. JOHN'S, RIGHT REVEREND EDWARD J. BROMLEY, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE DIOCESE OF GRAND FALLS, MOST REVEREND RAYMOND J. LAHEY, BISHOP OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. GEORGE'S AND MOST REVEREND D. DOUGLAS CROSBY AND BISHOP OF THE DIOCESE OF LABRADOR CITY‑SCHEFFERVILLE ‑ v. ‑ ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEWFOUNDLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (Nfld.) (Civil)

CORAM:               L'Heureux‑Dubé, Bastarache and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional Law - Schools - Amendments to the Constitution - Role of plebiscites - Amendment to Term 17 of the Terms of Union between Canada and Newfoundland - Introduction of a single school system regardless of religious affiliation -  Whether protection of minority rights can operate to invalidate a constitutional amendment if governments fail to consult or negotiate with affected minority groups - Whether Constitution entrusts minority rights to the majority or protects rights unless another principle of the Constitution is at risk -  Whether Part V of the Constitution Act,  1982  is a complete code for amendment of the Constitution - Whether spending public funding to support one side of a plebiscite campaign to the exclusion of the other violates a duty of fairness or freedom of expression or equality under the law or freedom of religion - Whether Term 17 of the Terms of Union between Newfoundland with Canada constitutes a provision of the Constitution - Whether a government is under a contractual or fiduciary duty to abide by undertakings given to minorities or others in the course constitutional change or estopped from acting contrary to undertakings - Whether the Constitution Amendment, 1998 amended the Charter  - What remedies are available for violations of a duty of fairness, the Charter , or undertakings given to minority groups.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27901                    PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA ‑ v. ‑ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA AND IRÈNE MARINOS (FC) (Civil)

CORAM:               L'Heureux‑Dubé, Bastarache and LeBel 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

Labour law - Labour relations - Grievances - Adjudication - Jurisdiction - Judicial review - Standard of review - Respondent Marinos appointed to a correctional officer position for three 90-day periods - Respondent filing grievance following her dismissal - Definition of “employee” in Public Service Staff Relations Act  excluding “a person employed on a casual basis” - Adjudicator finding that Respondent was an “employee” and therefore had the right to present a grievance and refer it to adjudication - Federal Court of Appeal setting aside adjudicator’s decision on basis that she had no jurisdiction to hear the grievance - Whether Respondent “a person employed on a casual basis” - Whether words should be interpreted in light of s. 21.2 of Public Service Employment Act - Public Service Staff Relations Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. P-35, s. 2(1) (g) - Public Service Employment Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. P-33, s. 21.2 .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27914                    UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 832 ‑ v. ‑ MAPLE LEAF MEATS (Man.) (Civil)

CORAM:               L'Heureux‑Dubé, Bastarache and LeBel 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 - Labour Law - Arbitration - Judicial review - Employee subject to last chance arbitration award providing for zero tolerance for absenteeism - Employee injured on job and time lost exceeding time allowed in arbitration award - Employer dismissed employee - Arbitrator on arbitration dealing with dismissal finding that earlier arbitration award providing strict absenteeism limit valid and applicable -  Whether employee to be deemed to be absent from work so as to subject himself to dismissal - Whether an arbitrator has jurisdiction, when reinstating the employee, to impose an illegal condition which denies to the employee the ordinary protection afforded by law and by the collective agreement.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27931                    JOSE RONALD ALEXANDER PIMENTEL ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Man.) (Criminal)

CORAM:               L'Heureux‑Dubé, Bastarache and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Admissible evidence - Reasonable doubt - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by ruling that the Applicant’s verbal and written statements to police were admissible - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in ruling that the Applicant’s arrest was unlawful while holding that he was not subjected to arbitrary detention - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by applying the test of articulable cause (detention) instead of reasonable and probable grounds (arrest) - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by ruling that the Applicant was not detained before his arrest - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by finding that the verdict in this case was not unreasonable - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by ruling that the trial judge erred in refusing to allow certain expert evidence and in concluding that the Applicant used a “heavy” blanket while at the same time holding that without these errors the verdict would have been the same.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28014                    HUNG QUOC HOANG ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (B.C.) (Criminal)

CORAM:               L'Heureux‑Dubé, Bastarache and LeBel 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 - Procedural law - Jury panel - Challenge for cause - Evidence - Charge to jury - Whether there is conflict between appellate courts concerning whether judicial notice may be taken of the fact that potential jurors may be racially prejudiced - Whether trial judges need guidance on whether and in what circumstances a charge on the dangers inherent in cross-racial identification should be furnished to a jury.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27967                    MCKENZIE FOREST PRODUCTS INC. ‑ v. ‑ ADAM TILBERG, ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND BOARD OF INQUIRY (HUMAN RIGHTS CODE) (Ont.) (Civil)

CORAM:               L'Heureux‑Dubé, Bastarache and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent Ontario Human Rights Commission.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de l’intimée Commission ontarienne des droits de la personne.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law  - Jurisdiction - Judicial review - Human rights - Board of Inquiry - Interpretation - Subsection 39(2) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 - Whether the provisions in the Ontario Human Rights Code and the human rights legislation of several other provinces stating that the Commission shall have the carriage of the complaint before a tribunal appointed under said legislation assigns procedural priority as between the Commission and the other parties to a hearing or makes the Commission a necessary party to the hearing - What is the proper role of a provincial Human Rights Commission as a party before a tribunal appointed under its originating statute - Whether a provincial Human Rights Commission has the ability to terminate human rights proceedings in the public interest - Whether a tribunal appointed under a provincial Human Rights Code retains jurisdiction to continue with a hearing into the merits of a complaint where the statute provides that the Commission alone has carriage of the complaint before the tribunal and the Commission has withdrawn from the hearing and relinquished carriage of the proceedings?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27903                    PHILLIP ROSEN ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (F.C.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour 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 - Actions - Civil procedure - Pre-trial procedure - Interpretation - Statutes - Statutory instruments - Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98‑106, Rule 382(2)(a) - Whether Rule 382(2)(a) is contrary s. 39(1)  of the Federal Court Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. F‑7  - Whether Rule 382(2)(a) alters substantive law and is therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the Rules Committee - Whether Rule 382(2)(a) conflicts with Rule 3 of the Federal Courts Rules, 1998.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27874                    CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION ‑ v. ‑ THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF NORTH VANCOUVER (B.C.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour 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 - Zoning - Land Use Bylaws - Validity of zoning bylaw - Whether judicial review of the validity of a zoning bylaw is restricted to the face of the bylaw whenever the bylaw can be justified by a purpose theoretically permitted in the description of the bylaw - Whether judicial review of the validity of a zoning bylaw is restricted to the face of the bylaw even where the evidence uniformly shows that Council’s true purpose was unauthorized - Whether an allegation of jurisdictional error in the enactment of a bylaw requires the judicial investigation of Council’s true purpose, what is the appropriate standard of review?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27812                    RONALD JOHN BAAS ‑ v. ‑ GAIL LORRAINE JELLEMA (B.C.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour 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 - Motor Vehicles - Damages - Jury Trial - Whether the court of appeal redefined the role of the medical expert and substantially altered the constraints that have been placed upon the opinions that can be expressed by a medical expert - Whether the court of appeal’s decision allows a medical expert to provide comment or opinions as to the credibility of a party litigant - Whether the court of appeal’s decision sets aside time honoured parameters placed upon medical expert evidence - Whether the decision of the court of appeal disregarded personal bias on the part of a juror as affecting the validity of a jury trial.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27928                    THYSSEN CANADA LIMITED, SECURITAS BREMER ALLGEMEINE VERS. A.G. ‑ v. ‑ MARIANA MARITIME S.A. (F.C.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour 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

Maritime law - Carriage of goods ‑ Liability for damaged goods ‑ Bill of lading - Charter  parties - Incorporation of an arbitration clause - Foreign jurisdiction - Is a third party consignee, or endorsee as holder of a bill of lading, entitled to rely on the bill of lading as containing the entire contract of carriage governing the rights and obligations of the shipowner and the third party holder of the bill of lading pursuant to the Bills of Lading Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. B-5 ? - Is a court permitted to receive additional evidence to vary the terms, or add terms to a bill of lading so as to require a third party consignee, or endorsee of a bill of lading to arbitrate its claim against the shipowner under a Charter Party arbitration clause? - Is a court as a matter of contract, entitled to impose upon a third party consignee, or endorsee of a bill of lading, terms and conditions of a Charter Party to which both the shipowner and the third party bill of lading holder themselves are not parties? - Is a court permitted to interpret the words “Owners” and “Charters” in a Charter Party to which the shipowner and third party consignee, or endorsee of a bill of lading themselves are not parties, to qualify the Charter Party arbitration clause as an “agreement to arbitrate” pursuant to Section 7 of the Commercial Arbitration Code?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27885                    DANIEL LAPLANTE ‑ v. ‑ MICHEL FORTIN (Ont.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes - Interpretation - Whether a snowmobile is a motor vehicle within the meaning of s. 224 and Part IV of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8 - Determination of an issue of law before trial pursuant to Rule 21 of the Ontario Rules - Whether the court of appeal erred in finding that a snowmobile is not an “automobile” within the meaning of s. 224 and Part IV of the Insurance Act - Whether the court of appeal erred in finding that the definition of “motor vehicle” in the Highway Traffic Act, which expressly excludes a motorized snow vehicle supported the conclusion that a snowmobile is not encompassed by the phrase “motor vehicle” and hence excluded from the definition of “automobile” found in s. 224(1) of the Insurance Act.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

May 3, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

May 30, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

(Major J.)

Motion granted to extend time to file application for leave to appeal to May 3, 2000

27942                    B. FRÉGEAU & FILS INC. ‑ c. ‑ SOCIÉTÉ QUÉBÉCOISE D'ASSAINISSEMENT DES EAUX (Qué.) (Civile)

CORAM:               Les juges Gonthier, Binnie et Arbour

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Code civil - Droit commercial - Contrat d’entreprise - Réclamation pour travaux additionnels - Quittance comme fin de non recevoir - Erreur inexcusable - Contrat d’adhésion.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

28051                    HARRY MORISON LAY ‑ v. ‑ SARAH MARGARET PITMAN LAY (Ont.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour 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

Family law - Division of property - Divorce - Statutes - Interpretation - Sections 5(1) and 70.(3) of the Ontario Family Law Act,  R.S.O. 1990, c. 3 - Property exclusion under marriage contract - To what extent a marriage contract signed by the parties prior to the enactment of new rights and remedies, exempts the parties from the application of these subsequently legislated rights or remedies.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27927                    BLAIR T. LONGLEY ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE (B.C.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour 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 - Political contribution tax credits - Whether the lower courts erred in finding that the Respondent’s behaviour did not infringe upon the Applicant’s freedom of association - Whether the lower courts erred in finding that the Respondent’s statements did not defame the Applicant or in finding that the Applicant had no duty to repeat those statements to others - Whether the lower courts erred in their assessment of the quantum of compensatory or punitive damages - Whether the lower courts erred in assuming that, if Revenue Canada had been honest, nothing significant would have changed - Whether the lower courts erred in failing to make reasonable assumptions of simple probability regarding hypothetical facts concerning what would have happened but for Revenue Canada’s dishonesty - Whether the lower courts erred in reversing none of the burden of proof concerning what would have happened onto the Respondent -Whether the lower courts placed too high a burden of proof upon the Applicant - Whether the lower courts erred in failing to use common sense and refuse to make obviously reasonable inferences.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27915                    WILLIAM SCHIAVONE ‑ v. ‑ THE CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF CANADA (Ont.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural Law - Civil Procedure - Bankruptcy - Multiplicity of proceedings - Whether a Court in Bankruptcy erred by assuming jurisdiction to hear a matter that was properly  before another judge of the same Superior Court.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28000                    GOLDEN MAPLE LEAF INTERNATIONAL INC. ‑ v. ‑ BOWNE OF CANADA LTD. (Ont.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour 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 - Agency - mandate - Whether the scope of a solicitor’s authority to contract as his/her client’s agent is prescribed by the customary practice of the undertaking in question - Whether there are conflicting provincial decisions on the law of agency.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27802                    WILTON ANTHONY SMITH ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Ont.) (Criminal)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour 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

Criminal law - Evidence - Hearsay - Whether the admissibility of all hearsay evidence is to be adjudicated in accordance with the modern approach of assessing reliability and necessity.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27791                    CLÉMENT MUKOKO MBAKA MANKWE ‑ c. ‑ SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE  (Qué.) (Criminelle)

CORAM:               Les juges Gonthier, Binnie et Arbour

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel ‑ Procès ‑ Procédure ‑ Récusation motivée - Préjugés raciaux - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en décidant que le demandeur n’a pas établi, par le biais de la connaissance d’office, l’existence de possibilité réaliste de préjugés dans la communauté à l’encontre des personnes de race noire ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en décidant que le demandeur n’a pas démontré qu’il n’avait pas eu droit à l’assistance d’un avocat conformément à l’article 10 b )  de la Charte canadienne des droits   et libertés  et que, conséquemment, la preuve obtenue suite à cette violation n’avait pas à être exclue en vertu du par. 24(2)  de la Charte  ?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

27872                    GALERIE D'ART YVES LAROCHE INC., ÉDITION MULTI‑GRAPH LTÉE, GALERIE D'ART DU PETIT CHAMPLAIN INC., GALERIE D'ART LAROCHE, DENIS INC. ET SERGE ROSA ‑ c. ‑ CLAUDE THÉBERGE (Qué.) (Civile)

CORAM:               Les juges Gonthier, Binnie et Arbour

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée avec dépens en faveur des demandeurs quelle que soit l’issue du pourvoi.

The application for leave to appeal is granted with costs to the applicants in any event of the cause.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit des biens - Procédure - Charte canadienne  (civil) - Droit d’auteur - Fouilles et saisies - Saisie avant jugement - Législation - Interprétation - Contrefaçon - Procédé de reproduction sur toile - Peut-il y avoir de la contrefaçon au sens de la Loi sur le droit d’auteur  lorsqu’il n’y a aucune multiplication d’une oeuvre? -  Est-ce qu’un simple changement de support d’une oeuvre, en l’occurrence le transfert sur toile, peut constituer de la contrefaçon au sens de la Loi sur le droit d’auteur ? -  Est-ce qu’un usage légitime et légal d’une reproduction autorisée par un tiers peut être restreint par le défendeur? -  Est-ce que toute présumée violation d’un droit d’auteur quelconque prévu à la Loi sur le droit d’auteur  peut donner ouverture à la saisie en vertu de l’article 38(1)  de la Loi sur le droit d’auteur ? -   La saisie avant jugement pratiquée en vertu de l’article 38(1)  de la Loi sur le droit d’auteur , accompagnée de l’ordonnance «Anton Piller», contreviennent-elles à l’article 8 de la Charte canadienne des droits? - Article 38(1)  de la Loi sur le droit d’auteur , L.R.C. 1985, ch. C-42 .

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

27875                    BERNADETTE SMITH ‑ v. ‑ CO‑OPERATORS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (Ont.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted with costs to the applicant in any event of the cause.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée avec dépens en faveur de la demanderesse quelle que soit l’issue du pourvoi.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Insurance - Motor vehicles - Procedure - Limitation of actions - Interpretation - Whether s. 71 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Accidents After December 31, 1993 and Before November 1, 1996, O. Reg. 776/93,  requires that an insurer describe to its insured the dispute resolution procedure, including the limitation period involved in that procedure?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27826                    PAUL HOUSEN ‑ v. ‑ RURAL MUNICIPALITY OF SHELLBROOK NO. 493 (Sask.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Motor vehicles - Highways - Municipal law - Negligence - Liability of rural municipality for failing to post warning signs on local access road - Whether rural municipality has a statutory or common law duty of care to mark a hidden hazards with a road sign where nature and extent of hazard are not apparent to a motorist exercising reasonable care - Whether rural municipality, having made a policy decision to place warning signs of hazards, breached its duty of care to protect those using its roads by failing to implement the policy.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27996                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ‑ v. ‑ JAMES HANDY (Ont.) (Criminal)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law - Evidence - Similar Fact Evidence - Former wife’s testimony regarding respondent’s past sexual acts admitted into respondent’s trial for sexual assault causing bodily harm - Whether potential for collusion is a serious consideration when assessing probative value - Whether potential for collusion is a matter of weight or admissibility - Whether propensity reasoning is a proper basis for admitting similar fact evidence - Relevance of the degree of similarity between similar fact evidence and allegations underlying the charge.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30.10.2000

Before / Devant:   LE JUGE ARBOUR

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

À LA SUITE D’UNE DEMANDE du Procureur général de l’Ontario visant à obtenir l’autorisation d’intervenir dans l’appel susmentionné;

ET APRÈS AVOIR LU la documentation déposée;

L’ORDONNANCE SUIVANTE EST RENDUE:

1.             La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par le Procureur général de l’Ontario est accueillie; le requérant aura la droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire de 20 pages tout au plus.

La requête visant à présenter une plaidoirie est soumise à un juge de service à la suite de la réception et de l’examen de l’argumentation écrite des parties et des intervenants.

L’intervenant n’aura pas le droit de produire d’autres éléments de preuve ni d’ajouter quoi que ce soit au dossier des parties.

Conformément au par. 18(6) des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada, l’intervenant paiera à l’appelante et à l’intimé tous débours supplémentaires résultant de son intervention.

31.10.2000

Before / Devant:   ARBOUR J.

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

698114 Alberta Limited

    v. (28209)

The Town of Banff, et al. (Alta.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to November 17, 2000.

1.11.2000

Before / Devant:   L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Ontario

IN/DANS:              Daniel Matthew Nette

v. (27669)

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

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE 

UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General of Ontario  for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1)             The motion  for leave to intervene of the applicant Attorney General of Ontario is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

The request to present oral argument is deferred to a rota judge following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and interveners.

The intervener shall not be entitled to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties.

Pursuant to Rule 18(6) the intervener shall pay to the appellant and respondent any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondent by the intervention.

1.11.2000

Before / Devant:   L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Center for Research-Action on Race Relations

IN/DANS:              Janine Bailey, et al.

v. (27427)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, et al. (F.C.A.)

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the Center for Research-Action on Race Relations  for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1)             The motion  for leave to intervene of the applicant Center for Research-Action on Race Relations  is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

The request to present oral argument is deferred to a rota judge following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and interveners.

The intervener shall not be entitled to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties.

Pursuant to Rule 18(6) the intervener shall pay to the appellants and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellants and respondents by the intervention. 

2.11.2000

Before / Devant:   L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ J.

Motion to add or substitute parties

Apotex Inc.

     v. (28059)

Attorney General of Canada, et al. (F.C.A.)

Requête en jonction ou en substitution de parties

REFERRED / RÉFÉRÉE    The application on behalf of the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association (“CDMA”) to be added as a party applicant or in the alternative intervener is referred to the panel seized of the application for leave to appeal by Apotex Inc.

2.11.2000

Before / Devant:   ARBOUR J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR Stepping Stone

IN/DANS:              N.M.P. (young person)

v. (27936)

Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(N.S.)

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

ADJOURNED / AJOURNÉE

The applicant, Stepping Stone, was an intervener before the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal and supported the position of the accused, NMP whose appeal from conviction was dismissed by that Court.  NMP now seeks leave to appeal to this court pursuant to s. 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act.   In support of NMP’s application, Stepping Stones seeks leave to intervene on the application for leave to appeal.

The Rules of this Court that are relevant to this application are Rule 18, which deals with interveners, and Rule 24, which concerns the hearing of applications for leave. Rule 18(1) provides that any person interested in an appeal may apply to a judge for leave to intervene.  Rule 18(2) provides that a motion for intervention shall be filed and served within 60 days after the filing of the notice of appeal or the reference.  It is implicit in Rule 18(2) that the application for leave to intervene will not be addressed by this court until after leave to appeal has been granted.

In a Notice to the Profession concerning interveners dated August, 1999, this Court indicated that the deadline for applying for leave to intervene is sixty days from the filing of the notice of appeal or reference, pursuant to R. 18(2).  Once the sixty-day period has expired, the Registrar will submit to the rota judge all applications for intervention that have been filed within the deadline.  These applications will then be determined together as provided for in the Rules.  This Notice to the Profession indicates that the normal process is for all applications for intervention to be heard together, following the granting of leave to appeal by this court. 

Rule 24(5) further supports the view that applications for leave to intervene will not usually be considered until after leave to appeal has been granted.  It curtails interventions at an earlier stage by providing that: “[n]o person shall intervene on an application for leave or a motion before the Court unless ordered by a judge prior to the hearing of the application or motion, on such terms and conditions and with such rights and privileges as the judge may determine”.

This court has indicated that leave to intervene prior to the granting of leave to appeal will rarely be granted.  In R.J.R. MacDonald Inc. v. A.G. (Can.) (4 October 1993) the court granted leave to intervene to the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, on consent, in an application to stay certain proposed federal regulations pending an application for leave to appeal.  However, the court clearly indicated that granting leave at this stage of the proceedings was not the norm, stating: “let the record reflect that it is only in very exceptional circumstances that intervener status is granted in proceedings of this nature”.  In my view, this application does not present exceptional circumstances that would justify departure from the normal rule that applications for leave to intervene will only be considered once leave to appeal has been granted. 

For these reasons, I adjourn the application for leave to intervene pending the disposition of the application for leave to appeal.  If leave to appeal is granted in this case, the application for leave to intervene may be brought back before this court on notice to the parties to the proceedings.

2.11.2000

Before / Devant:   ARBOUR J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto Inc. and the Ontario Federation of Indian Frienship Centres

IN/DANS:              A.L.R.

v. (27659)

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

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE  

UPON APPLICATION by the Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto Inc. and the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres  for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion  for leave to intervene of the applicants Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto Inc. and the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres is granted and the applicants shall be entitled to serve and file a joint factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

The request to present oral argument is deferred to a rota judge following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the interveners.

The interveners shall not be entitled to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties.

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

6.11.2000

Before / Devant:   LE JUGE L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ

Motion to expedite the leave application and motion for a stay of execution

Sa Majesté la Reine du chef de la province du Nouveau-Brunswick, et al.

     c. (28206)

Le juge Jocelyne Moreau-Bérubé (N.-B.)

Requête visant à accélérer la décision sur la demande d’autorisation d’appel et requête en vue de surseoir à l’exécution

REFERRED to the Bench which will decide on the motion for leave to appeal / RÉFÉRÉES au banc qui décidera de la requête pour permission d’en appeler.

6.11.2000

Before / Devant:   L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ J.

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

Daniel Joseph Innocente

     v. (28207)

Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(N.S.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to March 1, 2001.

6.11.2000

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Westec Aerospace Inc.

     v. (27356)

Raytheon Aircraft Company (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire, le dossier et le recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to November 23, 2000.

6.11.2000

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Peter William Fliss

    v. (27998)

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

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to 30 days after leave to appeal has been decided.

6.11.2000

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the appellant’s response to the motion to quash

Her Majesty the Queen, et al.

    v. (27843)

Ajmer Braich, et al. (Crim.)(B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la réponse de l’appelante à la requête en annulation

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to November 1, 2000.

6.11.2000

CORAM:               Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

VIDEO CONFERENCE / VIDÉO CONFÉRENCE  – VANCOUVER

Motion to quash

Her Majesty the Queen

     v. (27843)

Ajmer Braich and Sukhminder Braich (Crim.)(B.C.)

Requête en annulation

Richard Peck, Q.C., for the respondent Ajmer Braich. (Vancouver)

William B. Smart, Q.C., for the respondent Sukhminder Braich. (Vancouver)

W.J. Scott Bell, for the appellant (Vancouver).

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

6.11.2000

CORAM:               Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

Motion to quash

Cleavon Francis, et al.

     v. (27615)

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, et al. (Ont.)

Requête en annulation

Urszula Kaczmarczyk, for the motion.

Jeffery Wilson and Constance Nakatsu, for the appellants.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

31.10.2000

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and  LeBel JJ.

Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd.

    v. (27060)

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union Local 558, et al. (Sask.)

Robert G. Richards, Q.C. and M. Jean Torrens, for the appellant.

Roderick Wiltshire, for the intervener the A.G. of Alberta.

Larry W. Kowalchuk, for the respondents.

John Baigent, for the intervener the Canadian Labour Congress.

David Sherriff-Scott, for the intervener the Canadian Civil Liberties.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Labour law - Picketing - Secondary Picketing - Injunction - Secondary picketing at common law - Whether the majority of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal erred in determining that secondary picketing was not illegal per se at common law.

Nature de la cause:

Droit du travail - Piquetage - Piquetage secondaire - Injonction - Piquetage secondaire en common law - La Cour d’appel de la Saskatchewan à la majorité a-t-elle commis une erreur en décidant que le piquetage secondaire n’était pas illégal en soi en common law?

31.10.2000

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

Mary Danyluk

     v. (27118)

Ainsworth Technologies Inc., et al. (Ont.)

Howard A. Levitt and J. Michael Mulroy, for the appellant.

John E. Brooks and Rita M. Samson, for the respondents.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Administrative law - Labour law - Issue estoppel - Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1990, E.14 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the doctrine of issue estoppel applied to the decision of an employment standards officer despite the failure of the employment standards officer to observe the principles of natural justice in the decision making process?

Nature de la cause:

Droit administratif - Droit du travail - Autorité de chose jugée - Loi sur les normes d’emploi, L.R.O. 1990, E-14 - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que la théorie de l’autorité de la chose jugée s’appliquait à la décision d’une agente des normes d’emploi malgré le défaut de celle‑ci d’observer les principes de la justice naturelle dans le cadre du processus de prise de décision?

1.11.2000

CORAM:               Le Juge en chef et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour et LeBel.

Sa Majesté la Reine du chef du Canada

    c. (27295)

Bernard Miller (Qué.)

  et entre

Monit International Inc.

    c. (27307)

Bernard Miller (Qué.)

Marie Nichols, c.r. et Claude Joyal, pour l’appelante Sa Majesté la Reine du Chef du Canada.

Paul A. Melançon et Hugues Duguay, pour l’appelante Monit International Inc.

Leonard E. Seidman et Sabrina Seal, pour l’intimé.

LE JUGE EN CHEF: (oralement)

Les appels sont rejetés avec motifs à suivre.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: (orally)

The appeals are dismissed with reasons to follow.

2.11.2000

CORAM:               Le Juge en chef et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour et LeBel.

Barreau du Québec

     c. (27152)

Simon Fortin, et al.  (Qué.)

François Folot, pour l’appelant.

Simon Fortin, Huguette Fortin et Lise Fortin, en personne.

Yvon Descoteaux, pour le mis en cause Le Club Juridique.

LE JUGE EN CHEF: (oralement)

Il n’est pas nécessaire d’entendre les intimés.  Quant au Club juridique, il n’a aucun droit d’être entendu vu l’ordonnance de la Cour d’appel, qui se lit comme suit:

Il convient cependant d’ordonner aux appelants de rayer de leur déclaration solennelle le nom du Club juridique et de rayer de leurs procédures Le Club juridique comme mis en cause.  Le Club juridique qui n’est même pas une personne morale n’a aucun droit d’être mis en cause dans ces dossiers sinon pour faire une espèce de publicité à ce Club juridique.

Le pourvoi est rejeté, motifs à suivre.

[Translation]

It is not necessary to hear the respondents.  As for Le Club juridique, it has no right to be heard in view of the order of the Court of Appeal, which reads as follows:

[translation]  The appellants will nonetheless be ordered to strike the name of Le Club juridique from their solemn declaration and to strike Le Club juridique as mis en cause from their pleadings.  Le Club juridique, which is not even a legal person, has no right to be impleaded in these matters other than as a form of publicity for this Club juridique.

The appeal is dismissed, reasons to follow.

7.11.2000

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

The Canadian Red Cross Society

     v. (27284)

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

Peter K. Boeckle and Christopher Morrison, for the appellant.

Bonnie A. Tough, Jill Lawrie, David Harvey and Cathy Beagan Flood, for the respondents.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Torts - Negligence - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in finding that causation was presumptively established upon proof that the Appellant had failed in its duty to implement adequate donor screening measures and that it was not open to the Appellant to dislodge that presumptive causal link - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in making the finding that the Appellant was negligent in donor screening as of September 1983.

Nature de la cause:

Responsabilité délictuelle - Négligence - La Cour d’appel de l’Ontario a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que la causalité était établie par présomption sur preuve que l’appelante avait manqué à son obligation de mettre en oeuvre des mesures adéquates de sélection des donneurs et que l’appelante ne pouvait pas réfuter cette présomption de lien de causalité? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en tirant la conclusion que l’appelante avait été négligente dans la sélection des donneurs à partir de septembre 1983?

7.11.2000

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

The Canadian Red Cross Society

    v. (27285)

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

     and between

The Canadian Red Cross Society

    v. (27285)

A.A.M., et al. (Ont.)

Christopher Morrison and Peter K. Boeckle, for the appellant.

David Harvey, Bonnie A. Tough and Leah Rachin, for the respondents Osbornes.

Kenneth Arenson, for the respondents M.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Torts - Negligence - Whether the lower courts erred in determining the standard of care owed by the Appellant in screening blood donors - Whether the lower courts erred in determining that the Appellant had failed to meet the standard of care with respect to screening blood donors.

Nature de la cause:

Responsabilité délictuelle - Négligence - Les cours d’instance inférieure ont-elles commis une erreur en déterminant la norme de diligence incombant à l’appelante dans la sélection des donneurs de sang? - Les cours d’instance inférieure ont-elles commis une erreur en concluant que l’appelante n’avait pas respecté la norme de diligence relative à la sélection des donneurs de sang?

NOVEMBER 9, 2000 / LE 9 NOVEMBRE 2000

27666                    KINGSLEY MICHAEL SUTTON ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (N.B.) (Criminal)

2000 SCC 50 / 2000 CSC 50

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci,

Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.            

The appeal is dismissed and the Court of Appeal’s order for a new trial is confirmed.

Le pourvoi est rejeté et l’ordonnance de la Cour d’appel enjoignant la tenue d’un nouveau procès est confirmée.

26830                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. J.-L.J. (Que.) (Crim.) 2000 SCC 51 / 2000 CSC 51

CORAM:               L'Heureux-Dubé, McLachlin, Iacobucci

Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

The appeal is allowed and the conviction entered by the trial judge is restored.

Le pourvoi est accueilli et la déclaration de culpabilité inscrite par le juge du procès est rétablie.

27154                    MARY GLASS, HIN F. KO, MABEL W. KO, ROY WESTWICK, GWYNETH M. WESTWICK, KERRY‑LYNNE FERRIS, STEPHEN W. FINDLAY, NORAH C. FINDLAY, JERRY JANES, DIANA JANES, GREGORY PAPPAS, TASIE PAPPAS, SOLON S. WANG, PETER M. LEE, HERBERT M. LEWIS, ALEXANDER KALINOWSKI, KATARINA KALINOWSKI, JOHN W. WHITEFOOT, SHEILA M. WHITEFOOT, LISBET MACKAY, PIERRE DOW, MONA MCKINNON, WONG L. LEE, MANLOONG LEE, JOHN M. GLAISERMAN, JUAN L. G. CAM, ELIZABETH C. CAM, EVELYN M. MURRAY, WILLIAM T. ZIEMBA, JAMES R. THOMPSON, ANN B. THOMPSON, YUM C. LAU, IRENE LAU, JAMES Y. P. KING, TJIN K. TAN, EIJI MURAKAMI, MIYAKO MURAKAMI, THOMAS W. F. FUNG, AMY M. L. CHAN, GERTRUDE HENNEKEN, HANS T. HENNEKEN, HOWARD G. ISMAN, MARJORIE E. ISMAN, STANLEY EVANS, DOROTHEY EVANS,KHI YOENG TJIN, WEN TIEN TAI, KUI‑HSIANG HUANG, PHYLLIS WEINSTEIN, PATRICIA LAI, WILFRED E. PATTON, JEAN M. PATTON, ATTILIO GIRARDI, MARY GIRARDI, IRMA E. BOULTER, GEORGE S. BOULTER, JOHN G. CRAGG, OLGA B. CRAGG, HOWARD E. CADINHA, ARLENE B. CADINHA, MARIA C. ORMOND, DOUGLAS R. EYRL, JUDITH F. EYRL, CHEUNG K. CHOI, CHAN P. K. CHOI, CELIA KAAN, CECIL S. C. KAAN, RAMON Y. KAN, HELENA KAN, LESLIE BARA, OTTILIA BARA, ALFRED K. LEE, ESTHER K. LEE, DIANA W. C. SUNG, DONALD C. GRAHAM, WINNIFRED A. GRAHAM, RONALD J. MACKEE, ALEXANDER H. WONG, STELLA L. WONG, EDWARD B. HUYCK, DOROTHY A. HUYCK, FREDERICK S. EDY, ELLEN V. EDY, VICTOR H. HILDEBRAND, JOHN E. EGAN, CHI K. CHING, SIU Y. CHAN, LAVENDER CHU, FREDERICK CHU, GEORGE E. RUSH, ANNE L. RUSH, HERTA J. NEUMANN, CORNELIUS NEUMANN, JAMES A. FORSYTHE, DIANE R. FORSYTHE, PETER J. FUNK, ELIZABETH FUNK, ELFRIEDE MACHEK, ADELHEID MACHEK, LILLIAN P. TOEWS, HUI C. KEUNG, PATRICIA H. K. S. WAH, VADILAL J. MODI, MIRA V. MODI, CHARLES H. SHNIER, ELAINE C. SHNIER, AGNES P. C. SHEN, CAROL M. LAU, DENNIS LAU, MARJORIE MCCLELLAND, ARTHUR NEE, LAURA T. NEE, DONALD W. SCHEIDEMAN, KATHRYN M. SCHEIDEMAN, WILLIAM N. KING, ALLAN J. HUNTER, GRACE K. HUNTER, GRACE NG, IRVING GLASSNER, NOREEN G. GLASSNER, PRISCILLA FRATKIN, NANCY B. BERNER, GREGORY HRYHORCHUK, DARCY L. HRYHORCHUK, ASTLEY E. SMITH, BETTY ANN SMITH AND LILY R. ENG ‑ v. ‑ MUSQUEAM INDIAN BAND AND CHIEF JOSEPH RALPH BECKER, ERNIE CAMPBELL, WAYNE SPARROW, LEONA M. SPARROW, NOLAN CHARLES, MARY CHARLES, JOHNNA CRAWFORD, GAIL Y. SPARROW, MYRTLE MCKAY, LARRY GRANT AND HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (F.C.) (Civil) 2000 SCC 52 / 2000 CSC 52

CORAM:               McLachlin C.J. and L'Heureux‑Dubé, Gonthier,

Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

The appeal is allowed with costs, the Chief Justice and L’Heureux-Dubé, Iacobucci and Arbour JJ. dissenting.  The cross-appeal is dismissed with costs. 

L’appel est accueilli avec dépens, le Juge en chef et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Iacobucci et Arbour étant dissidents.  L’appel incident est rejeté avec dépens.

NOVEMBER 10, 2000 / LE 10 NOVEMBRE 2000

27213                    PATRICK CHARLEBOIS ‑ c. ‑ SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE  (Qué.) (Criminelle)

2000 SCC 53 / 2000 CSC 53

CORAM:               Les juges Gonthier, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour et LeBel.

Le pourvoi est rejeté.  Le juge Arbour est dissidente.

The appeal is dismissed, Arbour J. dissenting.

26699                    MARK EDWARD RUSSELL v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Alta.) (Crim.)

2000 SCC 55 / 2000 CSC 55

CORAM:               Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

The appeal is dismissed.

Le pourvoi est rejeté.

27279                    ARTHUR AVETYSAN - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Nfld.)(Crim.)

2000 SCC 56 / 2000 CSC 56

CORAM:               Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

The appeal is allowed and a new trial is ordered, Bastarache J. dissenting.

Le pourvoi est accueilli et la tenue d’un nouveau procès est ordonnée.  Le juge Bastarache est dissident.

27075                    ALAIN BEAUCHAMP ‑ c. ‑ SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE  (Qué.) (Criminelle)

2000 SCC 54 / 2000 CSC 54 (Reasons only / Motifs seulement)

Kingsley Michael Sutton - v. - Her Majesty the Queen (N.B.) (Criminal)(27666)

Indexed as:  R. v. Sutton / Répertorié:  R. c. Sutton

Neutral citation:  2000 SCC 50. / Référence neutre:  2000 CSC 50.

Judgment rendered November 9, 2000 / Jugement rendu le 9 novembre 2000

Present:  McLachlin C.J. and L’Heureux‑Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

Criminal law – Charge to jury -- Misdirections -- Court of Appeal setting aside accused’s acquittal and ordering new trial -- Crown and defence agreeing that trial judge made errors in his formulation of test for determining admissibility of co-conspirator hearsay evidence -- Whether Crown established that verdict would not necessarily have been the same had errors not occurred.

The accused was acquitted of narcotics offences.  On appeal, the Crown alleged errors in the trial judge’s direction to the jury concerning the admissibility of co-conspirator hearsay evidence.  The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown’s appeal, set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial.

Held:  The appeal should be dismissed.

The parties agreed that two clear misdirections occurred in the trial judge’s formulation of the test for determining the admissibility of co-conspirator hearsay evidence.  Either of the trial judge’s errors could have led to the accused’s acquittal.  The Crown has established with reasonable certainty that, had the jury been properly charged, the verdict would not necessarily have been the same.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeal’s order for a new trial should be confirmed.

APPEAL from a judgment of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal (1999), 140 C.C.C. (3d) 336, 222 N.B.R. (2d) 78, [1999] N.B.J. No. 540 (QL), allowing the Crown’s appeal from the accused’s acquittal on charges of trafficking in cocaine and possession of the proceeds of crime, and ordering a new trial.  Appeal dismissed.

Margaret Gallagher, for the appellant.

S. David Frankel, Q.C., and James C. Martin, for the respondent.

Solicitor for the appellant:  Margaret Gallagher, Saint John.

Solicitor for the respondent:  The Attorney General of Canada, Vancouver.

__________________

Présents:  Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges L’Heureux‑Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour et LeBel.

Droit criminel – Exposé au jury -- Directives erronées -- Acquittement de l’accusé annulé et nouveau procès ordonné par la Cour d’appel -- Ministère public et  défense reconnaissant que le juge du procès avait commis des erreurs dans son exposé sur le critère relatif à l’admissibilité de la preuve par ouï‑dire d’un coauteur d’un complot -- Le ministère public a‑t‑il établi que le verdict n’aurait pas été nécessairement le même si les erreurs n’avaient pas été commises?

L’accusé a été acquitté relativement à des infractions en matière de stupéfiants.  En appel, le ministère public a prétendu que le juge du procès avait commis des erreurs dans ses directives au jury concernant l’admissibilité de la preuve par ouï‑dire d’un coauteur d’un complot.  La Cour d’appel a accueilli l’appel du ministère public, annulé le verdict d’acquittement et ordonné la tenue d’un nouveau procès.

Arrêt:  Le pourvoi est rejeté.

Les parties ont reconnu que le juge du procès a donné deux directives clairement erronées dans son exposé sur le critère servant à juger de l’admissibilité de la preuve par ouï‑dire d’un coauteur d’un complot.  L’une des erreurs du juge du procès aurait pu mener à l’acquittement de l’accusé.  Le ministère public a établi avec un degré raisonnable de certitude que le verdict n’aurait pas été nécessairement le même si le jury avait reçu des directives appropriées.  Par conséquent, l’ordonnance de nouveau procès de la Cour d’appel doit être confirmée.

POURVOI contre un arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Nouveau-Brunswick (1999), 140 C.C.C. (3d) 336, 222 R.N.-B. (2^e) 78, [1999] A.N.B. n^o 540 (QL), qui a accueilli l’appel formé par le ministère public contre l’acquittement de l’accusé relativement à des accusations de trafic de cocaïne et de possession des produits de la criminalité et qui a ordonné la tenue d’un nouveau procès.  Pourvoi rejeté.

Margaret Gallagher, pour l’appelant.

S. David Frankel, c.r., et James C. Martin, pour l’intimée.

Procureur de l’appelant:  Margaret Gallagher, Saint John.

Procureur de l’intimée:  Le procureur général du Canada, Vancouver.

Sa Majesté la Reine c. J.-L.J. (Qué.) (Criminelle)(26830)

Indexed as:  R. v. J.‑L.J. / Répertorié:  R. c. J.‑L.J.

Neutral citation:  2000 SCC 51. / Référence neutre:  2000 CSC 51.

Judgment rendered November 9, 2000 / Jugement rendu le 9 novembre 2000

Present:   L’Heureux‑Dubé, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

Criminal law ‑‑ Evidence ‑‑ Expert evidence – Admissibility ‑‑ Mohan criteria – Accused charged with sexual assaults on two young male children ‑‑ Expert witness testifying that accused’s personality incompatible with any predisposition to commit such offences ‑‑ Whether trial judge erred in excluding expert evidence.

The accused was charged with a series of sexual assaults on two young male children. He tendered the evidence of a psychiatrist to establish that in all probability a serious sexual deviant had inflicted the abuse, including anal intercourse, and no such deviant personality traits were disclosed by the accused in various tests including penile plethysmography.  After a voir dire, the trial judge excluded the expert evidence because it purported to show only lack of general disposition and was not saved by the “distinctive group” exception recognized in Mohan.  The accused was convicted.  A majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the accused’s appeal and ordered a new trial on the basis that the expert evidence was wrongly excluded.

Held:  The appeal should be allowed and the conviction restored.

The trial judge’s discharge of his gatekeeper function in the evaluation of the demands of a full and fair trial record, while avoiding distortions of the fact‑finding exercise through the introduction of inappropriate expert testimony, deserves a high degree of respect.  In this case, the trial judge was not persuaded that the Mohan requirements had been met.

Novel science is subject to “special scrutiny”.  In this case the psychiatrist was a pioneer in Canada in trying to use the penile plethysmograph, previously recognized as a  therapeutic tool, as a forensic tool.  Moreover, if expert evidence were accepted that the offence was probably committed by a member of a “distinctive group” from which the accused is excluded, it would be a short step to the conclusion on the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence.  This was another reason for special scrutiny. 

The “distinctive group” exception sought to be applied here requires that it be shown that the crime could only, or would only, be committed by a person having distinctive personality traits that the accused does not possess.  The personality profile of the perpetrator group must identify truly distinctive psychological elements that were in all probability present and operating in the perpetrator at the time of the offence.  The Mohan requirement that this profile be “standard” was to ensure that it is not put together on an ad hoc basis for the purpose of a particular case.  Beyond that, the issue whether the “profile” is sufficient depends on the expert's ability to identify and describe with workable precision what exactly distinguishes the distinctive or deviant perpetrator from other people and on what basis the accused can be excluded.  The expert evidence tendered in this case was unsatisfactory on both points.  The definition of the “distinctive” group of individuals with a propensity to commit the “distinctive crime” was vague.  While the reference in Mohan to a “standard profile” should not be taken to require an exhaustive inventory of personality traits, the profile must confine the class to useful proportions.  Furthermore, the witness did not satisfy the trial judge that the underlying principles and methodology of the tests administered to the accused were reliable and, importantly, applicable.  Even giving a loose interpretation to the need for a “standard profile”, and passing over the doubts that only a pedophile would be capable of the offence, the evidence of the error rate in the tests administered to the accused was problematic.  The possibility that such evidence would distort the fact‑finding process was very real.  Consideration of the cost‑benefit analysis supports the trial judge's conclusion that the testimony offered as many problems as it did solutions, and it was therefore within his discretion to exclude it.  The majority of the Court of Appeal erred in interfering with the exercise of that discretion.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal, [1998] R.J.Q. 2229, 130 C.C.C. (3d) 541, [1998] Q.J. No. 2493 (QL), allowing the accused’s appeal from his conviction for sexual offences and ordering a new trial.  Appeal allowed.

Carole Lebeuf and Stella Gabbino, for the appellant.

Pauline Bouchard and Sharon Sandiford, for the respondent.

Solicitor for the appellant:   The Attorney General’s Prosecutor, Montréal.

Solicitors for the respondent:  Silver, Morena, Montréal.

 _________________

Présents:  Les juges L’Heureux‑Dubé, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie et Arbour.

Droit criminel – Preuve – Preuve d’expert – Admissibilité – Critère de l’arrêt Mohan – Accusé inculpé d’avoir agressé sexuellement deux garçonnets ‑‑ Expert témoignant que la personnalité de l’accusé ne permet pas de conclure qu’il est prédisposé à commettre de telles infractions ‑‑ Le juge du procès a-t-il commis une erreur en excluant la preuve d’expert?

L’accusé a été inculpé d’avoir commis une série d’agressions sexuelles sur deux garçonnets.  Il a fait témoigner un psychiatre dans le but d’établir que, selon toute probabilité, l’auteur des mauvais traitements qui comprenaient des relations sexuelles anales était une personne atteinte d’une déviance sexuelle grave, et que divers tests administrés à l’accusé, dont une pléthysmographie pénienne, ne révélaient aucun trait de personnalité déviant de la sorte.  À la suite d’un voir-dire, le juge du procès a exclu la preuve d’expert pour le motif qu’elle paraissait démontrer seulement une absence de prédisposition générale disposition et n’était pas sauvegardée par l’exception du «groupe distinctif» reconnue dans l’arrêt Mohan.  L’accusé a été déclaré coupable.  La Cour d’appel à la majorité a accueilli l’appel de l’accusé et ordonné la tenue d’un nouveau procès pour le motif que la preuve d’expert avait été exclue à tort.

Arrêt:  Le pourvoi est accueilli et la déclaration de culpabilité est rétablie.

Le fait que le juge du procès a évité que la recherche des faits soit faussée par la présentation d’un témoignage d’expert inapproprié, en exerçant sa fonction de gardien dans l’évaluation des exigences de procès juste et équitable, mérite beaucoup de respect.  Dans la présente affaire, le juge du procès n’était pas convaincu que les exigences de l’arrêt Mohan étaient respectées.

Une nouvelle théorie ou technique scientifique doit être «soigneusement examinée».  En l’espèce, le psychiatre a fait oeuvre de pionnier au Canada en essayant d’utiliser, en tant qu’outil médicolégal, la pléthysmographie pénienne auparavant reconnue comme étant un outil thérapeutique.  De plus, si on acceptait une preuve d’expert que l’infraction a probablement été commise par un membre d’un «groupe distinctif» dont l’accusé est exclu, on serait très près de la conclusion sur la question fondamentale de la culpabilité ou de l’innocence.  Cela justifiait d’autant plus un examen minutieux.

L’exception du «groupe distinctif» que l’on cherche à appliquer dans la présente affaire exige qu’il soit démontré que le crime ne serait ou ne pourrait être commis que par une personne ayant des traits de personnalité distinctifs que l’accusé ne possède pas.  Le profil de personnalité du groupe auquel appartient l’auteur de l’infraction doit relever des éléments psychologiques véritablement distinctifs qui, selon toute probabilité, étaient présents et en action chez ce dernier au moment de la perpétration de l’infraction.  L’exigence de l’arrêt Mohan que ce profil soit un profil «type» avait pour objet d’éviter qu’il soit établi de manière ponctuelle en fonction de chaque cas particulier.  En outre, la réponse à la question de savoir si le «profil» est suffisant dépend de la capacité de l’expert de déterminer et décrire avec une précision réaliste ce qui, au juste, fait que l’auteur distinctif ou déviant du crime diffère des autres personnes, et du motif pour lequel l’accusé peut être exclu.  La preuve d’expert qui a été produite en l’espèce était insuffisante à ces deux égards.  La définition du groupe «distinctif» de personnes qui ont une propension à commettre ce «crime distinctif» était vague.  Même si la mention d’un «profil type» dans l’arrêt Mohan ne devrait pas être interprétée comme exigeant un inventaire exhaustif des traits de personnalité, le profil doit ramener la catégorie à des proportions utiles.  En outre, le témoin n’a pas convaincu le juge du procès que les principes et la méthode qui sous‑tendent les tests administrés à l’accusé étaient fiables et, qui plus est, applicables.  Même en donnant une interprétation large à la nécessité d’un «profil type» et en faisant abstraction des doutes que seul un pédophile serait capable de commettre l’infraction en cause, la preuve du taux d’erreur des tests administrés à l’accusé était problématique.  La possibilité qu’une telle preuve fausse le processus de recherche des faits était très réelle.  La prise en considération de l’analyse du coût et des bénéfices appuie la conclusion du juge du procès que ce témoignage a apporté autant de problèmes que de solutions, et le juge avait donc le pouvoir discrétionnaire de l’exclure.  La Cour d’appel à la majorité a commis une erreur en intervenant dans l’exercice de ce pouvoir discrétionnaire.

POURVOI contre un arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Québec, [1998] R.J.Q. 2229, 130 C.C.C. (3d) 541, [1998] A.Q. n^o 2493 (QL), qui a accueilli l’appel de l’accusé contre sa déclaration de culpabilité d’infractions d’ordre sexuel et ordonné la tenue d’un nouveau procès.  Pourvoi accueilli.

Carole Lebeuf et Stella Gabbino, pour l’appelante.

Pauline Bouchard et Sharon Sandiford, pour l’intimé.

Procureur de l’appelante:  Le substitut du Procureur général, Montréal.

Procureurs de l’intimé:  Silver, Morena, Montréal.