Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

November 3, 2000  1923 - 1992 (INDEX)                                             le 3 novembre 2000

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

The Attorney General of Nova Scotia

Edward A. Gores

A.G. of Nova Scotia

v. (28179)

Susan Walsh et al. (N.S.)

Katherine A. Briand

Nova Scotia Legal Aid

FILING DATE 5.9.2000

Christopher James Clay

Paul Burstein

Burstein & Paine

v. (28189)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Morris Pistyner

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 17.10.2000

Raymond John Kowalchuk

Allan M.G. Botan

Levine, Levene, Tadman

v. (28200)

Venkateswara Rao Adduri, et al. (Man.)

Helga D. Van Iderstine

Aikins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson

FILING DATE 16.10.2000

Marie-Louis Lessard

Marie-Louis Lessard

c. (28201)

Corporation municipale de Courcelles (Qué.)

Roland Veilleux

DATE DE PRODUCTION 17.10.2000

Corrpro Canada, Inc.

Rod J. Wasylyshyn

Ogilvie and Company

v. (28202)

Edmonton Centre West Ltd., et al. (Alta.)

Bryan M. Sarabin

Bishop & McKenzie

FILING DATE 17.10.2000

La province du Nouveau-Brunswick

Cedric L. Haines

P.G. du Nouveau-Brunswick

c. (28206)

Le juge Jocelyne Moreau-Bérubé, et al. (N.-B.)

Anne E. Bertrand

Bertrand & Bertrand

DATE DE PRODUCTION 24.10.2000

Attorney General of Canada

Thomas W. Wakeling

Fraser Milner Casgrain

v. (28210)

Stephen Joseph Harper, et al. (Alta.)

A.D. Hunter, Q.C.

Gowling Lafleur Henderson

FILING DATE 30.10.2000

David Jonathan Wild

Terrence L. Robertson, Q.C.

Harper Grey Easton

v. (26384)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Robert A. Mulligan

A.G. of British Columbia

FILING DATE 25.10.2000

All Seasons Display Inc. et al.

David J. Whitelaw

Whitelaw & Twining

v. (28185)

Michael Mylett et al. (B.C.)

Paul W. Walker

Guild, Yule & Company

FILING DATE 10.10.2000

Ronald Biron

Viateur Bergeron, c.r.

Bergeron, Gaudreau, Laporte

c. (28203)

Lévesque Beaubien Geoffrion Inc.  (Qué.)

Jean-Pierre Rémillard

Dunton Rainville

DATE DE PRODUCTION 19.10.2000

Andrew James Maxwell

Joseph J. Blazina

McCullough Parsons

v. (28204)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Gregory J. Fitch

A.G. of British Columbia

FILING DATE 18.10.2000

Jones Power Co. Limited et al.

Mark A. Gelowitz

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP

v. (28205)

Mitsui & Co. (Point Aconi) Ltd. (N.S.)

David A. Miller

Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales

FILING DATE 20.10.2000

Louis Metzner

Charles G. Stein

Ratcliff & Company

v. (28208)

Martha Metzner (B.C.)

Martha Metzner

FILING DATE 20.10.2000

Abtar Singh Bains

Geoffrey B. Gomery

Nathanson, Schachter & Thompson

v. (28211)

Ragbier Singh Bhandar (B.C.)

Donald A. Farguhar, Q.C.

Pearlman & Lindholm

FILING DATE 16.10.2000

OCTOBER 30, 2000 / LE 30 OCTOBRE 2000

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Major

Emmanuel Solis

v. (27947)

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.)(Man.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Civil - Sections 6 , 7 , 12  and 15  of the Charter  - Immigration - Permanent resident - Applicant found to be a danger to the public pursuant to subparagraph 46.01(1)(e)(iv), paragraph 53(1)(d) and subsection 70(5) of the Immigration Act - Whether the word “citizen” in s. 6  of the Charter  has a meaning independent from statute - Whether an opinion under subsection 70(5) of the Immigration Act constitutes cruel and unusual treatment in violation of s. 12  of the Charter  - Whether the international human right norm is recognized in Canada which provides that long term residents of a country with substantial family connections to the county who have committed criminal offences have a right to remain in the country despite their criminality where removal would be disproportionate to the objective of removal - Whether this norm is protected in either sections 6 , 7 , 12  or 15  of the Charter  or the Immigration Act.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

John Edwards and Nancy Edwards on behalf of themselves

and with leave of the court on behalf of the class herein described

v. (28108)

The Law Society of Upper Canada (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence - Whether a negligence suit against a statutory regulator lies for failure to conduct an adequate investigation into the conduct of a lawyer licensed by the regulator - Whether a careless investigation by a regulatory professional body is necessarily characterized as “judicial” so as to immunize the body from a negligence suit - Whether it is plain, obvious, and beyond reasonable doubt that a regulatory body owes no duty of care to clients of a member the body has actual notice of alleged misconduct on the part of the member and if so, whether policy considerations granting immunity to the regulator from civil suit negative the duty of care - Whether a statutory regulator is immune from a negligence suit in matters relating to its investigative function.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

George Desnomie

v. (27972)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Indians - Sections 87  and 90  of the Indian Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. I-5 - Whether the Applicant’s employment income is “situated on a reserve” and exempt from taxation - Application of the “connecting factors” test set forth in Williams v. Her Majesty the Queen, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 877 and whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in its application of the law  - Whether there is a conflict between this case and Folster v. Her Majesty the Queen (1997), 97 DTC 5315 (FCA) - Whether there is confusion in the case law concerning the application of the Williams case - Whether  the Federal Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that the Applicant’s income came within the meaning of s. 90(1) (b) of the Indian Act .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Nicholas Y. Bonamy

v. (28003)

Correctional Service Canada (F.C.A.) (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Inmate transfer request - Did the Federal Court of Appeal err in determining that the Trial Division was correct in concluding that the Third Level Grievance Board had taken into account those matters that it was required by law to consider and had placed no reliance on irrelevant considerations or acted in bad faith? 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache et LeBel

Daniel Gaudreault

c. (28040)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Détermination de la peine - Une peine d’interdiction de conduire à perpétuité est-elle manifestement déraisonnable relativement à l’article 259(1)  du Code criminel ?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURALE

Alain Fortin

c. (28066)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Procès - Le juge de première instance a-t-il erré dans ses directives sur la règle de l’unanimité des verdicts à rendre et a-t-il induit par le fait même les jurés en erreur quant à leurs obligations, fermant la porte à un éventuel désaccord? - Le juge de première instance a-t-il erré en permettant que soit utilisé en preuve contre l’accusé des discussions concernant un faux contrat de meurtre présenté par le délateur à l’accusé douze ans après les événements en litige, élément non pertinent et hautement préjudiciable à l’accusé? - Le juge de première instance a-t-il erré en ne permettant aux jurés de ne rendre que deux verdicts quant à l’accusation de meurtre au premier degré, soit coupable de meurtre au premier degré ou non coupable, usurpant ainsi les fonctions du jury en le privant de la possibilité de ne pas croire le délateur sur une partie de son témoignage?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURALE

André Ouellet

c. (28064)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Faillite -  Le déroulement du deuxième procès sur les accusations de fraude, en novembre 1998, a-t-il donné toutes les garanties d'obtenir justice ? - Le jugement du 17 décembre 1998, sur le verdict du deuxième procès, contient-il de nombreuses faussetés et erreurs de droit et de fait? - La permission d'appeler du 5 mai 1999 était-elle tellement restrictive qu'elle niait, à toute fin pratique, le droit d'appel ? - Le jugement du 16 mai 2000, a-t-il omis de traiter des vraies questions en litige ?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURALE

A.H.

c. (27854)

Institut Philippe Pinel, Paul‑André Lafleur, Dr. Lucie Legault,Dr. Fréderic Millaud, Dr.Jacques Voyer et

Dr. Benoit Dassylva

-et-

Hôtel-Dieu de Sorel, Dr. Yves Dion (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Procédure civile - Procédure préalable au procès - Interprétation - Art. 402 du Code de procédure civile, L.R.Q., c. C-25 - Requête pour obtenir la communication des dossiers médicaux du demandeur - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en refusant la requête pour permission d’en appeler du demandeur ordonnant ainsi la communication des dossiers médicaux du demandeur aux intimés, portant ainsi atteinte aux droits fondamentaux du demandeur garantis par les articles 5 et 9 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., c. C-12?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

A.H.

c. (27937)

Me Claude Melançon

- et -

Institut Philippe Pinel de Montréal, Dr. Paul-André Lafleur, Dr. Lucie Legault,

Dr. Frédéric Millaud, Dr. Benoit Dassylva, Dr. Yves Dion (Qué.)

CORAM:   Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Binnie et Arbour

Ian Fergus Hunter

v. (26580)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal  Law ‑ Narcotics - Statutory interpretation - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and law by not considering the unacceptable vagueness of the law with regards to what constitutes viable cannabis seeds.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ernst Zundel

v. (27977)

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, The Attorney General of Canada and The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (F.C.A.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Immigration Law - Citizenship - Applicant applied for Canadian citizenship - Minister of Citizenship and Immigration made a report indicating that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the Applicant would engage in activity that constituted a threat to the security of Canada - Whether the Minister’s Report is a nullity in that it fails to allege circumstances amounting to a “threat to the security of Canada” within the meaning of section 2  of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act  - Whether the Minister’s Report is a nullity in that it fails to include reasonable grounds for the allegation as required by the statute - Whether the sufficiency of the Minister’s Report involves a question of jurisdiction which may be raised at any time during the hearings - Whether the case is of public and national importance as it raises the issue of the sufficiency of a Minister’s Report under section 19  of the Citizenship Act  - Whether the requirements for sufficiency of a Minister’s report is an issue of national importance, given that the Minister’s report is an extremely important document for any person accused of being a threat to the national security of Canada, and given the secrecy of hearings before Security Intelligence Review Committee, where an applicant is given only summaries of evidence in most cases, with no right of cross-examination of witnesses  - Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. C-23, s. 2  - Citizenship Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29, s. 19 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., Sagaz Industries Inc. and Joseph Kavana

v. (27820)

671122 Ontario Limited formerly Design Dynamics Limited (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Master and servant - Vicarious liability - Procedural law - Trial - Evidence - Re-opening of trial to admit fresh evidence -  What is the proper test for determining whether, outside of traditional “master and servant” or “employment” relationships, a relationship exists that gives rise to vicarious liability for intentional torts? - May vicarious liability be imposed absent control? - What is the proper test for re-opening a civil trial to admit fresh evidence? - Should the trial judge reopen a trial after judgment but before formal judgment has been entered without assessing the credibility of the fresh evidence, and based only on the determination that the evidence, if believed, might probably change the result? - Is the reasonable diligence requirement met where a party makes a tactical decision not to call a witness at trial, and the witness changes his story after the trial decision is released?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Carol Duguid

v. (27973)

Bank of Montreal (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Creditor and debtor - Contracts - Suretyship - Undue influence - Bank bringing action against wife as co-signor of her husband’s investment loan - Whether relationship of husband and wife triggers presumption of undue influence when wife stands surety for debts of her husband - Whether a bank is placed under a duty to inquire when a wife stands surety for her husband’s debts - Whether existence of sexual and emotional ties between husband and wife provides sufficient evidence for a presumption of undue influence to arise.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION / DEMANDE DE RÉEXAMEN

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

Glen Sebastian Burns, et al. v. United States of America (B.C.)(Criminal) (By Leave) (26211)

NOVEMBER 1, 2000 / LE 1 NOVEMBRE 2000

28017                    WYN RHYS‑JONES ‑ v. ‑ ELIZABETH KATHLEEN RHYS‑JONES (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 with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family law - Maintenance - Variation of 1977 support order made under previous divorce legislation - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Ontario courts did not have a jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s application to vary the support order made in favour of the Respondent against the Applicant in divorce proceedings between these parties, pronounced in1977 in the Supreme Court of Ontario pursuant to the 1968 Divorce Act , s. 11(1) .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

NOVEMBER 2, 2000 / LE 2 NOVEMBRE 2000

28049                    FATHI OMARI ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (B.C.) (Criminal)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law - Procedural Law - Whether applicant denied Charter right to retain and instruct counsel; Whether Crown used  part of a police report for the benefit of the Crown, without admitting all of the report to the detriment of the applicant; Whether full text of police report should have been tendered as proof of violation of s. 8  of the Charter; Truthfulness of an affidavit filed by defence counsel; Failure of summary conviction court of appeal to address issues.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28036                    L.K.W. ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Ont.) (Criminal)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

The application for an 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 - Discharge of juror - Evidence - Instructions to jury - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in deciding not to replace a juror who had been excused and in electing to proceed with only eleven jurors - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in applying for proviso having found that the trial judge erred in failing to give the appropriate limiting instruction as to the use that could be made of the Applicant's criminal record - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in applying the proviso having found that the trial judge erred in failing to give the appropriate limiting instruction as to the use that could be made of prior inconsistent statements - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in applying the proviso having found that the trial judge erred in failing to give the appropriate limiting instruction as to the use of evidence relating to other counts on the indictment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27975                    PETER JOHN STARK ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Ont.) (Criminal)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

The motion to file supplementary materials is granted.  The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La requête visant le dépôt de documents supplémentaires est accordée.  La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Jail-house informant - Fresh evidence - Is the approach taken by the Ontario Court of Appeal to the determination of whether there exists a state agency relationship in accordance with the approach in Broyles? - Where the Respondent files fresh evidence which conflicts with an Applicant’s fresh evidence, to what extent is an appellate court to resolve the conflict when deciding whether the fourth branch of the Palmer test has been met?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27957                    BRUCE HOLDBROOK ‑ v. ‑ DAVID EMENEAU, EMENEAU CONSTRUCTION LIMITED, CASTLEROCK ENTERTAINMENT INC. AND NEEDFUL PRODUCTIONS LTD. (N.S.) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the Respondents Castlerock Entertainment Inc., Needful Productions Ltd. and Emeneau Construction Limited.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens aux intimés Castlerock Entertainment Inc., Needful Productions Ltd. et Emeneau Construction Limited.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Insurance - Motor vehicles - Interpretation - Explosion caused by individual attempted to commit suicide by dousing the passenger seat of a truck with gasoline and lighting match - Engine not running - Fire and loss of commercial building - Whether the coverage provision in the Standard Automobile Policy ought to be construed according to its literal meaning and that the words “ordinary” should not be read into the provisions so as to restrict coverage - When an automobile is used for the purpose of suicide, whether the words of the Standard Automobile Policy coverage do not justify a distinction based upon whether or not the engine is running at the time of the suicide - Whether the coverage provision in the Standard Automobile Policy ought to be construed broadly and liberally.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27869                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ‑ v. ‑ WILLIAM A. DUDNEY (FC) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major 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 - Assessment - Income Tax Act  - Whether the court of appeal erred in law in determining that the premises of PanCan were not a location through which the respondent carried on his business - Whether the court of appeal erred in law in determining that the premises of PanCan were not a ‘fixed base regularly available’ to the respondent within the meaning of Article XIV of the Canada-United States Income Tax Convention (1980) - Whether the court of appeal erred in law in  determining the factors which it deemed necessary criterion for those premises to constitute a ‘fixed base regularly available’ to the respondent within the meaning of Article XIV of the Convention.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28095                    K.D.J. ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (B.C.) (Criminal)

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

Criminal law - Young offenders - Transfer of proceedings - Aboriginal offenders - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider aboriginal background as a relevant factor in a transfer hearing under the Young Offenders Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. Y-1 ?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26627                    LAWRENCE S. ETIENNE, MARY ELIZABETH KELSO ‑ v. ‑ JOHN L. REMUS, GONZALO PERALES (Ont.) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

The application for reconsideration is dismissed with costs.

La demande de réexamen est rejetée avec dépens.

24.10.2000

Before / Devant:   LE REGISTRAIRE

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Délai prorogé au 11 octobre 2000.

24.10.2000

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum of the intervener Reebok Canada

Mattel Canada Inc., et al.

    v. (27174)

Her Majesty the Queen, et al. (F.C.A.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE      Time extended by an additional two weeks.

24.10.2000

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the response of the respondent Chinh Troung Lam

Her Majesty the Queen

     v. (28084)

A. Bau Diu, et al. (Crim.)(Ont.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to October 18, 2000.

24.10.2000

Before / Devant:   ARBOUR J.

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

Great Pacific Pumice

     v. (28085)

District of Squamish (B.C.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to August 23, 2000.

25.10.2000

Before / Devant:    ARBOUR J.

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

Christopher James Clay

     v. (28189)

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

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to October 17, 2000.

25.10.2000

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Greyhound Canada Transportation Corp.

     v. (28097)

Mariusz Brzozowski and Kazimierz Kowaslki, et al. (B.C.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to October 6, 2000.

25.10.2000

Before / Devant:   ARBOUR J.

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

Stephen M. Byer

     v. (27894)

The Inspector General of Financial Institutions (Que.)

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

ALLOWED IN PART / ACCUEILLIE EN PARTIE The application for leave to appeal is to be served and filed before November 24, 2000.

27.10.2000

Before / Devant:   LE REGISTRAIRE

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire et le dossier de l’appelante

Sa Majesté la Reine

    c. (27652)

Réjean Parent (Crim.)(Qué.)

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum and record of the appellant

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Délai prorogé au 6 octobre 2000.

27.10.2000

Before / Devant:    THE REGISTRAR

Motion to file a lengthy factum by the respondents/appellants on cross-appeal in its  present format of 57 pages

Martin Richard McKinley, et al.

     v. (27410)

BC TEL, et al. (B.C.)

Requête visant le dépôt d’un long mémoire de 57 pages dans sa forme actuelle par les intimés/appelants au pourvoi incident

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   

27.10.2000

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Mansour Ahani

     v. (27792)

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, et al. (F.C.A.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to November 21, 2000.

27.10.2000

Before / Devant:    THE REGISTRAR

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

Manickavasagam Suresh

    v. (27790)

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, et al. (F.C.A.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to November 21, 2000.

30.10.2000

Before / Devant:   ARBOUR J.

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

Attorney General of Canada

     v. (28210)

Stephen Joseph Harper (Alta.)

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

REFERRED / RÉFÉRÉES

The application for a stay is adjourned to the panel seized of the application for leave to appeal, such application to be expedited to Monday, November 6, 2000.  The respondent is to serve and file its response to the stay and leave application by Friday, November 3, 2000 and the applicant’s reply, if any, to be served and filed by 12:00 p.m. (noon) on Monday, November 6, 2000.

30.10.2000

Before / Devant:   BINNIE J.

Motion for extension of time and leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Attorney General for Ontario

IN/DANS:              Ian Vincent Golden

v. (27547)

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

Requête en prorogation de délai et en autorisation d'intervenir

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General of Ontario, for an extension of time and for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1.                  The motion for an extension of time and 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.

19.10.2000

Bank of Montreal

    v. (27766)

Enchant Resources Ltd., et al. (Alta.)

26.10.2000

Douglas Glifford Cogswell

    v.  (28063)

Her Majesty the Queen (N.B.)

(leave)           

30.10.2000

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

Travailleurs et travailleuses unis de l’alimentation et du commerce, local 500, et al.

      c. (27121)

Ivanhoe Inc., et al. (Qué.)

Serge Benoit, Monique Lagacé et Jean-Marc Brodeur, pour les appelants/intimés Invanhoe Inc., et al.

Robert Laurin, pour l’appelant/intimé Travailleurs et travailleuses unis de l’alimentation et du commerce.

Benoît Belleau, pour l’intimé Tribunal du travail.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Labour law - Administrative law - Certification - Judicial review - Operation by another in part of an undertaking - Janitorial services - Transfer of rights and obligations under s. 45 of the Labour Code, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C‑27 - Retrocession and successive operation by others of an undertaking - Transfer of certification for janitorial employees under s. 45 when Ivanhoe initially transferring operation of undertaking to another - Termination of contract - Ivanhoe then assigning janitorial services to four new contractors - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to intervene and quash the lower court decisions holding that s. 45 applied to contracts for services, thus returning to the functional concept of an undertaking, which was dismissed in U.E.S., Local 298 v. Bibeault, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048, and Lester (W.W.) (1978) Ltd. v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, Local 740, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 644 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling that applying s. 45 to cases of retrocession and successive operation by others does not violate the principle of continuity - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s. 41 of the Labour Code in such a way as to prevent Ivanhoe from having the union membership examined and its certification cancelled - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to transfer the collective agreement negotiated with the initial operator or, alternatively, the previous agreement with Ivanhoe to the new contractors.

Nature de la cause:

Droit du travail ‑ Droit administratif - Accréditation - Contrôle judiciaire - Concession partielle d’une entreprise - Entretien ménager - Transmission des droits et obligations selon l’art. 45 du Code du travail, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. C-27 - Rétrocession et concessions successives d’entreprise - Transfert de l’accréditation visant les employés affectés à l’entretien ménager lors d’une première concession d’entreprise par Ivanhoe inc., conformément à l’art. 45 - Fin du contrat - Ivanhoe confiant ensuite à quatre nouveaux entrepreneurs l’entretien ménager - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en refusant d’intervenir pour casser les décisions des instances inférieures qui ont conclu à l’application de l’art. 45 à des contrats de fourniture de services, revenant ainsi à la notion fonctionnelle de l’entreprise qui avait été rejetée dans U.E.S., local 298 c. Bibeault, [1988] 2 R.C.S. 1048, et dans Lester (W.W.)(1978) Ltd. c. Association unie des compagnons et apprentis de l’industrie de la plomberie et de la tuyauterie, section locale 740, [1990] 3 R.C.S. 644? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en décidant que l’application de l’art. 45 à des cas de rétrocession et de concessions successives ne viole pas le principe de continuité? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en interprétant l’art. 41 C.tr. de façon à refuser à Ivanhoe la possibilité de faire vérifier les effectifs syndicaux et de révoquer, à son endroit, l’accréditation du syndicat? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en refusant de transférer chez les nouveaux entrepreneurs la convention collective négociée chez le premier concessionnaire ou, subsidiairement, celle qui avait antérieurement été conclue avec Ivanhoe?

30.10.2000

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

Ville de Sept-Îles

    c. (27291)

Le Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, Section locale 2589, et al. (Qué.)

Claude Bureau, pour l’appelante.

Gaston Nadeau et Richard Gauthier, pour l’intimé Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique.

Benoît Belleau, pour l’intimé Tribunal du travail.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Labour law – Administrative law – Certification – Judicial review – Partial operation by another of an undertaking – Removal of household garbage –  Transfer of rights and obligations under section 45 of the Labour Code, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C‑27 – Whether mere subcontract awarded without transfer of employees, technology, equipment or anything else, apart from functions, amounts to the operation by another of an undertaking under section 45 of the Labour Code – Whether employer having no latitude or independent management power and being legally subordinate in performing duties assigned by subcontract are relevant factors in determining whether section 45 of the Labour Code applies – Whether decisions of the Labour Court holding that mere transfer of right to operate is sufficient to constitute the transfer of an undertaking within the meaning of section 45 of the Labour Code are contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court as resuscitating the functional economic vehicle theory rejected in U.E.S., Local 298 v. Bibeault, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048 – Whether mere transfer of the right to operate without other authority can constitute an organization of activities or a portion of an undertaking sufficiently distinguishable to be severable from the whole, within the meaning of Lester (W.W.) (1978) Ltd. v. United Association of Journeyman and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, Local 740, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 644 – Whether the legislative amendment of section 46 of the Labour Code subsequent to Bibeault permits lower tribunals to ignore the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

Nature de la cause:

Droit du travail - Droit administratif - Accréditation - Contrôle judiciaire - Concession partielle d’une entreprise - Enlèvement d’ordures ménagères - Transmission des droits et obligations selon l’article 45 du Code du travail, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. C-27 - L'octroi d'un simple contrat de sous-traitance, sans transfert d'employés, de technologie, d'équipement ou de quoi que ce soit, hormis des fonctions, peut-il constituer une concession d'entreprise en vertu de l'article  45 du Code du travail? -  L'absence de latitude et de pouvoir de gestion autonome de même que la subordination juridique de l'entrepreneur dans l'accomplissement des tâches confiées en sous-traitance sont-ils des facteurs pertinents dans la détermination de l'application de l'article 45 du Code du travail? - La jurisprudence du Tribunal du travail, à l'effet que l'unique cession d'un droit d'exploitation est suffisant pour constituer une cession d'entreprise au sens de l'article 45 du Code du travail, va-t-elle à l'encontre des enseignements de la Cour suprême en ce qu'elle ressuscite la théorie fonctionnelle de l'entreprise rejetée dans l'arrêt U.E.S., local 298 c. Bibeault, [1988] 2 R.C.S. 1048? - Le simple transfert d'un droit d'exploitation sans autre attribut peut-il constituer un ensemble organisé d'activités ou une partie de l'entreprise susceptible d'être distinguée d'un tout capable d'une existence autonome au sens de l'arrêt Lester (W.W.)(1978) Ltd. c. Association unie des compagnons et apprentis de l’industrie de la plomberie et de la tuyauterie, section locale 740, [1990] 3 R.C.S. 644? - La modification législative de l'article 46 du Code du travail, postérieure à l'arrêt Bibeault, autorise-t-elle les tribunaux inférieurs à faire fi des enseignements de la Cour suprême?

NOVEMBER 3, 2000 / LE 3 NOVEMBRE 2000

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

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

Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.        

The application for a rehearing and all ancillary motions are dismissed.

La demande de nouvelle audition et les requêtes accessoires sont rejetées.

AGENDA for the week beginning November 6, 2000.

ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 6 novembre 2000.

The Court will not be sitting on the week beginning November 13, 2000

La Cour ne siègera pas la semaine commençant le 13 novembre 2000

Date of Hearing/                     File/        Case Number and Name/    

Date d'audition                        Dossier  Numéro et nom de la cause

2000/11/06                                                Motions / Requêtes

2000/11/07                                27284      The Canadian Red Cross Society v. Douglas Walker as Executor of the Estate of Alma Walker, deceased, et al. (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

2000/11/07                                27285      The Canadian Red Cross Society v. Lois Osborne et al. and The Canadian Red Cross Society v. A.A.M. et al.  (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

2000/11/08                                27363      Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, et al. v. Attorney General for Ontario, et al. (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

2000/11/09                                27168      British Columbia College of Teachers v. Trinity Western University, et al. (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

2000/11/10                                27415      Spire Freezers Limited, et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen (FC) (Civil) (By Leave)

2000/11/10                                27561      Philip Douglas Backman v. Her Majesty the Queen (FC) (Civil) (By Leave)

NOTE: 

This agenda is subject to change.  Hearing dates should be confirmed with 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.

27284      The Canadian Red Cross Society v. Douglas Walker et al

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.

Alma Walker was admitted to hospital on September 28, 1983 to give birth to her first child.  Due to complications, she underwent a caesarian section. On October 1, 1983, she received two units of red blood cells. One of them had been collected by the CRCS at its permanent clinic in the Manulife Centre, Toronto on September 12, 1983 from a donor identified as Robert M. It was later determined to be HIV contaminated. In November, 1990, Mrs. Walker became ill and routine blood tests revealed that she was HIV-positive. Follow-up investigation traced the source of the infection to the unit of blood supplied by Robert M. Mrs. Walker died of AIDS on August 17, 1993 at 31 years of age. As Mrs. Walker died before trial, her estate continued her action.

Robert M. testified under Rule 36. He was within the high risk category for transmitting HIV. In his eight years in Toronto, he estimated that he had had 1,000 homosexual encounters. He did not subscribe to local newspapers and took no interest in current events, politics or news that involved the gay community.  He lived and worked in the gay community in Toronto. He was a regular blood donor while in Toronto, and, upon moving to Montreal in 1983, continued to donate until he was told to stop in January, 1987. He was not aware of the warnings that gay men should not donate blood, and said that he would have questioned them because he was healthy. There is no direct evidence that he had HIV on September 12, 1983. He made five donations after the CRCS began using its May, 1984 pamphlet, which he said he had not seen.

Robert M. said that, if he had been given this pamphlet on September 12, 1983, he would have told the nurse he was homosexual and asked her what to do. He made one donation after the CRCS began using a more specific pamphlet introduced in January, 1986. It read, in relevant part, “Please do not give blood – if you are a male and have had sex with another male since 1977.”

During the relevant time frame, and specifically in September, 1983, the CRCS failed to take adequate or any measures to screen out persons known to pose a high risk of transmitting HIV. In March, 1983, the American Red Cross began using a pamphlet designed to prevent persons at high risk of transmitting HIV from donating blood at its blood donor clinics. It described the symptoms of AIDS. As of January 12, 1984, there was general recognition in the American medical and scientific community that AIDS was transmissible through blood or blood products.

At trial, the CRCS accepted that it owed a duty of care to users and recipients of blood and blood products which obliged it to take reasonable steps to protect the safety of the blood and products it supplied to the public. The trial judge found that the CRCS was not liable for Mrs. Walker’s AIDS. The Court of Appeal allowed the Respondent’s appeal. Applying Hollis v. Dow Corning Corp., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 634, they set aside the trial judgment, and granted judgment in favour of the Respondents against the CRCS for damages in the amount agreed upon by the parties and costs.

Origin of the case:                                                Ontario

File No.:                                                 27284

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     March 10, 1999

Counsel:                                                                Peter K. Boeckle for the Appellant

Bonnie A. Tough for the Respondent

27284 La Société Canadienne de la Croix Rouge c. Douglas Walker et al

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?

Le 28 septembre 1983, Alma Walker a été admise à l’hôpital pour donner naissance à son premier enfant. En raison de complications, elle a subi une césarienne. Le 1^er octobre 1983, elle a reçu deux unités de globules rouges. L’une d’elles avait été recueillie par la SCCR à sa clinique permanente du Manulife Centre à Toronto le 12 septembre 1983 d’un donneur identifié comme étant Robert M. On a ensuite établi que cette unité était contaminée par le VIH. En novembre 1990, M^me Walker est devenue malade et des analyses sanguines de routine ont révélé qu’elle était séropositive pour le VIH. Une enquête complémentaire a déterminé que la source de l’infection était l’unité de sang fournie par Robert M. M^me Walker est décédée du SIDA le 17 août 1993 à l’âge de 31 ans. Étant donné que M^me Walker est décédée avant le procès, sa succession a poursuivi l’action.

Robert M. a témoigné en application de la règle 36. Il faisait partie de la catégorie à risque élevé pour la transmission du VIH. Il a estimé qu’au cours des huit années qu’il a passées à Toronto, il avait eu 1 000 relations sexuelles homosexuelles. Il n’était pas abonné aux journaux locaux et ne s’intéressait pas aux actualités, à la politique et aux nouvelles concernant la communauté gaie. Il vivait et travaillait dans la communauté gaie à Toronto. Il donnait du sang régulièrement lorsqu’il vivait à Toronto et il a continué d’en donner après avoir déménagé à Montréal en 1983 jusqu’à ce qu’on lui dise d’arrêter en 1987. Il n’était pas au courant des mises en garde selon lesquelles les hommes gais ne devaient pas donner de sang, et il a dit qu’il les aurait remises en question parce qu’il était en santé. Aucune preuve directe n’indique qu’il avait le VIH le 12 septembre 1983. Il a fait cinq dons après que la SCCR eut commencé à utiliser sa brochure de mai 1984, n’ayant pas vu cette dernière selon ses dires.

Robert M. a dit que si on lui avait donné cette brochure le 12 septembre 1983, il aurait dit à l’infirmière qu’il était homosexuel et lui aurait demandé quoi faire. Il a fait un don de sang après que la SCCR eut commencé à utiliser la brochure plus précise introduite en janvier 1986. La partie pertinente de cette brochure se lisait : « Veuillez ne pas donner de sang - si vous êtes un homme et que vous avez eu des relations sexuelles avec un autre homme depuis 1977 ».

À l’époque pertinente, et plus particulièrement en septembre 1983, la SCCR n’a pas pris de mesures ou de mesures adéquates pour sélectionner les personnes qui constituaient un risque connu de transmission du VIH. En mars 1983, la Croix rouge américaine a commencé à utiliser une brochure visant à empêcher les personnes à risque élevé de transmission du VIH de donner du sang à ses cliniques de don de sang. Ce feuillet décrivait les symptômes du SIDA. En date du 12 janvier 1984, il était généralement reconnu au sein de la communauté médicale et scientifique américaine que le SIDA était transmissible par le sang et les produits du sang.

Au procès, la SCCR a convenu qu’elle avait une obligation de diligence envers les usagers et les personnes recevant du sang et des produits du sang, ce qui l’obligeait à prendre des mesures raisonnables pour faire en sorte que le sang et les produits qu’elle fournissait au public étaient sécuritaires. Le juge de première instance a conclu que la SCCR n’était pas responsable du SIDA dont avait souffert M^me Walker. La Cour d’appel a accueilli l’appel interjeté par l’intimé. Appliquant l’arrêt Hollis c. Dow Corning Corp., [1995] 4 R.C.S. 634, la Cour d’appel a infirmé le jugement de première instance et a rendu jugement en faveur des intimés contre la SCCR, accordant les dommages-intérêts convenus par les parties ainsi que les dépens.

Origine :                                 Ontario

N^o du greffe :                                         27284

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel :                   Le 10 mars 1999

Avocats :                                               Peter K. Boeckle pour l’appelante

Bonnie A. Tough pour l’intimé

27285                    THE CANADIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY v. LOIS OSBORNE ET AL and THE CANADIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY v. A.A.M. ET AL

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.

Ronald Charles Osborne was admitted to hospital in late December, 1984 and received a plasma exchange using fresh frozen plasma. Blood products from a donor identified as Everett were included in the plasma given to Mr. Osborne on January 7, 1985. Everett had donated that blood on December 17, 1984. Mr. Osborne was diagnosed with HIV and AIDS in August, 1990. He died in June, 1993 at 58 years of age. Prior to his death, he sued the CRCS claiming, inter alia, that the CRCS failed to implement appropriate blood donor screening procedures and that its failure resulted in the donation of blood which was HIV-positive. As Mr. Osborne died before trial, his estate continued his action.

Everett also gave blood on March 25, 1985. The infant Respondent A.M.M. received blood from that donation on March 27, 1985 when he was about 3½ years old and contracted HIV.

Everett was a long-time blood donor and regarded himself in good health. On December 17, 1984 and March 25, 1985, no one knew that Everett had HIV. Everett had had swollen lymph nodes since approximately 1975, but he did not know that swollen lymph nodes are a sign or symptom of HIV infection.  Although he had engaged in sexual relations with between 200 and 400 men between 1974 and 1982, he gave up that lifestyle in 1982 and did not regard himself as a sexually active homosexual when he donated blood in December,1984.

In early 1983, the American blood authorities adopted a symptom-specific approach to screen donors. In March, 1983, the American Red Cross prepared a pamphlet which identified “sexually active homosexual or bisexual men with multiple partners” as a high risk group. Until May, 1984, the questionnaire used by the CRCS made no reference to AIDS or HIV, advising the reader that the donor should be in good health before donating blood and posing a series of health-related questions.

The trial judge found the CRCS negligent but not liable for failing to provide accurate information as to the risk of contracting transmission-associated AIDS. He found it liable for failing to have adequate screening measures in place on December 17, 1984 and March 25, 1985 when Everett made the donations received by Mr. Osborne and the infant Respondent A.M.M. He awarded Mr. Osborne prejudgment interest from the date he became aware of his infection, and awarded solicitor and client costs after August 9, 1996. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as to liability with respect to both the Osborne and M. cases, but allowed the CRCS’s appeal as to the applicability of solicitor and client costs in the Osborne case.

Origin of the case:                                                Ontario

File No.:                                                                 27285

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     March 10, 1999

Counsel:                                                                                Peter K. Boeckle for the Appellant

Bonnie A. Tough for the Osborne Respondents

Kenneth Arenson for the M. Respondents

27285                    LA SOCIÉTÉ CANADIENNE DE LA CROIX ROUGE c. LOIS OSBORNE ET AL et LA SOCIÉTÉ CANADIENNE DE LA CROIX ROUGE c. A.A.M. ET AL

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?

Ronald Charles Osborne a été admis à l’hôpital vers la fin de décembre 1984, et il a reçu un plasmaphérèse où du plasma frais congelé a été utilisé. Des produits du sang provenant d’un donneur identifié comme étant Everett ont été inclus dans le plasma donné à M. Osborne le 7 janvier 1985. Everett avait donné ce sang le 17 décembre 1984. M. Osborne a fait l’objet d’un diagnostic de VIH et de SIDA en août 1990. Il est décédé en juin 1993 à l’âge de 58 ans. Avant son décès, il a poursuivi la SCCR, prétendant notamment que cette dernière avait omis de mettre en oeuvre une procédure de sélection des donneurs de sang et que cette omission avait entraîné le don de sang séropositif au VIH. Étant donné que M. Osborne est décédé avant le procès, sa succession a poursuivi l’action.

Everett a également donné du sang le 25 mars 1985. L’intimé l’enfant A.M.M. a reçu du sang provenant de ce don le 27 mars 1985, alors qu’il était âgé d’environ trois ans et demi et a contracté le VIH.

Everett donnait du sang depuis longtemps et se considérait en santé. Le 17 décembre 1984 et le 25 mars 1985, personne ne savait que Everett avait le VIH. Everett avait les ganglions lymphatiques enflés depuis 1975, mais il ne savait pas que cela constituait un signe ou un symptôme de l’infection au VIH. Même s’il avait eu des relations sexuelles avec 200 à 400 hommes entre 1974 et 1982, année où il a abandonné ce style de vie, il ne se considérait pas comme un homosexuel actif sexuellement lorsqu’il a donné du sang en décembre 1984.

Au début de l’année 1983, les autorités américaines dans le domaine du sang ont adopté une démarche orientée en fonction des symptômes relativement à la sélection des donneurs. En mars 1993, la Croix rouge américaine a préparé une brochure identifiant « les homosexuels actifs sexuellement et les hommes bisexuels ayant plusieurs partenaires » comme un groupe à risque élevé. Jusqu’en mai 1984, le questionnaire utilisé par la SCCR ne portait aucune mention du SIDA ou du VIH, informant le lecteur qu’il devait être en santé pour donner du sang et posant un ensemble de questions relatives à la santé.

Le juge de première instance a conclu que la SCCR avait été négligente, mais qu’elle n’était pas responsable pour avoir omis de fournir des renseignements précis relativement au risque de contracter le SIDA par voie de transmission sanguine. Il a conclu à sa responsabilité pour ne pas avoir eu de mesures de sélection en place le 17 décembre 1984 et le 25 mars 1985, dates auxquelles Everett avait donné le sang reçu par M. Osborne et par l’intimé enfant A.M.M.  Il a accordé à M. Osborne les intérêts antérieurs au jugement à partir de la date où il a su qu’il était infecté ainsi que les dépens avocat-client dus après le 9 août 1996. La Cour d’appel a rejeté l’appel relatif à la responsabilité dans les affaires Osborne et M., mais elle a accordé l’appel interjeté par la SCCR quant à l’application des dépens avocat-client dans l’affaire Osborne.

Origine :                                                 Ontario

N^o du greffe :                                         27285

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel :                   Le 10 mars 1999

Avocats :                                               Peter K. Boeckle pour l’appelante

Bonnie A. Tough pour les intimés Osborne

Kenneth Arenson pour les intimés M.

27363      Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association et al v. The Attorney General of Ontario and Ontario Public School Boards’ Association et al v. The Attorney General of Ontario

Constitutional Law - Schools - Whether Part IX Division B, Part IX Division F, and, in particular, sections 257.7, 257.12, 257.19 and 257.106 of the Education Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. E‑2 as amended by the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 31 prejudicially affect rights held under s. 93(1)  of the Constitution Act, 1867  - Whether sections 231, 232 and 234 of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E‑2 as amended by the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 31, and the education Funding Formula enacted pursuant to s. 234 of the Education Act and presently embodied in O.Reg. 287/98 and O.Reg. 214/99, prejudicially affect rights held under s. 93(1)  of the Constitution Act, 1867  - Whether Part IX, Division D of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E‑2 as amended by the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 31 prejudicially affects rights held under s. 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867?- If the answer is in the affirmative with respect to Roman Catholic separate school rights, are those provisions, or any of them, also invalid with respect to public school supporters and public school boards, by virtue of either s. 93  of the Constitution Act, 1867 , or constitutional convention - Whether section 257.12(1)(b) of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E‑2 as amended by the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 31 contravenes the preamble, s. 53 , or s. 54  of the Constitution Act, 1867 .

The Education Quality Improvement Act, S.O. 1997, c. 31, (“the EQIA”) was enacted December 1, 1997, and amended the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2, by imposing a new funding model on school boards in Ontario, limiting the powers of school boards to control their budgets and expenditures, and fundamentally changing the governance and funding of education in Ontario.   Two applications challenging the EQIA were initiated in the Ontario Court (General Division) and heard together.  One was initiated Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association group of Appellants.  The other was initiated by the Ontario Public School Boards' Association group of Appellants.

Cumming J. of the Ontario Court (General Division) held that the EQIA is unconstitutional insofar as it removes or affects the right or privilege to tax from the Roman Catholic Community with respect to their denominational schools and that the Education Act, as amended, is of no force insofar as it relates to or affects the separate school system in respect of the right or privilege to tax with respect to denominational schools that is guaranteed by s. 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867 .

The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the Attorney General for Ontario from Cumming J.'s decision declaring the EQIA and the Education Act, as amended, of no force and effect insofar as it removes the right to tax from the Roman Catholic community.  It dismissed an appeal by the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association from the decision that the EQIA and the funding model do not violate s. 93(1)  of the Constitution Act, 1867 .  It also dismissed the Ontario Public School Boards' Association’s appeal from the decisions that the  EQIA does not violate the s. 93(1) rights of public schools, that the EQIA is not invalidated on the basis of the doctrine of constitutional convention, and that the EQIA is not an impermissible delegation of the power to impose school taxes by regulation.

Origin of the case:                                Ontario

File No.:                                 27363

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:     April 27, 1999

Counsel:                                                Paul JJ. Cavulluzzo and Fay C. Faraday for the Appellants English Catholic Teachers’ et al

Janet E. Minor and Robert Charney for the Respondent A.G.

Brian Kelsey for the Appellants OPSCB

Michael Hines for the Appellants OPSCB, Toronto District Board and Kemp

Maurice Green for the Appellants OSSTF, Edwards and Churchill

Elizabeth Shilton for the Appellants Elementary Teachers’

Janet E. Minor and Robert Charney for the Respondent A.G.

27363      Association des enseignants catholiques de langue anglaise de l’Ontario et al c. Le Procureur général de l’Ontario et Ontario Public School Boards’ Association et al c. Le Procureur général de l’Ontario

Droit constitutionnel - Écoles - Est-ce que les sections B et F de la partie IX et, en particulier, les articles 257.7, 257.12, 257.19 et 257.106 de la Loi sur l’éducation, L.R.O. 1990, ch. E.2, modifiée par la Loi de 1997 sur l’amélioration de la qualité de l’éducation, L.O. 1997, ch. 31, portent atteinte aux droits garantis par le par. 93(1)  de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 ? - Est-ce que les articles 231, 232 et 234 de la Loi sur l’éducation, L.R.O. 1990, ch. E.2, modifiée par la Loi de 1997 sur l’amélioration de la qualité de l’éducation, L.O. 1997, ch. 31, et la formule de financement de l’éducation établie conformément à l’art. 234 de la Loi sur l’éducation et prévue par le Règl. de l’Ont. 287/98 et le Règl. de l’Ont. 214/99 portent atteinte aux droits garantis par le par. 93(1)  de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 ? - Est-ce que la section D de la partie IX de la Loi sur l’éducation, L.R.O. 1990, ch. E.2, modifiée par la Loi de 1997 sur l’amélioration de la qualité de l’éducation, L.O. 1997, ch. 31, porte atteinte aux droits garantis par le par. 93(1)  de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 ? - Si la réponse est affirmative à l’égard des droits des écoles séparées catholiques, est-ce que ces dispositions, ou l’une d’entre elles, sont invalides à l’égard des contribuables des écoles publiques et des conseils scolaires publics par l’effet soit de l’art. 93  de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867  soit d’une convention constitutionnelle? - Est-ce que l’alinéa 257.12(1)b) de la Loi sur l’éducation, L.R.O. 1990, ch. E.2, modifiée par la Loi de 1997 sur l’amélioration de la qualité de l’éducation, L.O. 1997, ch. 31, contrevient au préambule, à l’art. 53  ou à l’art. 54  de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 ?

La Loi de 1997 sur l’amélioration de la qualité de l’éducation, L.O. 1997, ch. 31 (la LAQE), a été adoptée le 1^er décembre 1997 et a modifié la Loi sur l’éducation, L.R.O. 1990, ch. E.2, en imposant une nouvelle formule de financement aux conseils scolaires de l’Ontario, qui limitait leur pouvoir de contrôler leur budget et leurs dépenses, et en modifiant en profondeur la régie et le financement de l’éducation en Ontario. Deux demandes contestant la LAQE ont été instituées devant la Cour de l’Ontario (Division générale) et entendues conjointement. L’une d’elles a été présentée par le groupe d’appelants de l’Association des enseignants catholiques de langue anglaise de l’Ontario tandis que l’autre a été présentée par le groupe d’appelants de l’Ontario Public School Boards’ Association.

Le juge Cumming, de la Cour de l’Ontario (Division générale), a conclu que la LAQE était inconstitutionnelle dans la mesure où elle retirait à la communauté romaine catholique le droit ou le privilège de taxation, ou touchait ce droit ou privilège, relativement à ses écoles confessionnelles et que la Loi sur l’éducation, sous sa forme modifiée, était inapplicable dans la mesure où elle était liée ou touchait au droit ou privilège de taxation du système des écoles séparées relativement aux écoles confessionnelles, ce droit et privilège étant garanti par le par. 93(1)  de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 .

La Cour d’appel a accueilli l’appel interjeté par le Procureur général de l’Ontario contre la décision du juge Cumming qui déclarait inapplicable la LAQE et la Loi sur l’éducation, sous sa forme modifiée, dans la mesure où elles retiraient à la communauté romaine catholique le droit de taxation. Elle a rejeté l’appel interjeté par l’Association des enseignants catholiques de langue anglaise contre la décision selon laquelle la LAQE et la formule de financement ne contreviennent pas au par. 93(1)  de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 . Elle a également rejeté l’appel interjeté par l’Ontario Public School Boards’ Association contre les décisions selon lesquelles la LAQE ne porte pas atteinte aux droits des écoles publiques garantis par le par. 13(1), la LAQE n’est pas invalide en vertu de la théorie de la convention constitutionnelle et la LAQE ne constitue pas une délégation interdite du pouvoir d’imposer des taxes scolaires par voie de règlement.

Origine :                                 Ontario

N^o du greffe :                                         27363

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel :                   Le 27 avril 1999

Avocats :                                               Paul JJ. Cavalluzzo et Fay C. Faraday pour les appelants  l’Association des enseignants catholiques de langue anglaise de l’Ontario, Marshall Jarvis, Claire Ross et Annemarie Ross

Janet E. Minor, Robert E. Charney et Michel Y. Hélie pour l’intimé le Procureur général de l’Ontario

Michael A. Hines pour les appelantes l’Ontario Public School Boards’ Association et Joleene Kemp

Brian A. Kelsey, c.r., pour l’appelante Toronto District Board

Maurice A. Green et Susan M. Ursel pour les appelants l’Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, David Edwards et Robert Churchill

Elizabeth J. Shilton pour les appelants Elementary Teachers’ Federation  of Ontario

Janet E. Minor, Robert E. Charney et Michel Y. Hélie pour l’intimé le Procureur général de l’Ontario

27168      The British Columbia College of Teachers v. Trinity Western University et al

Administrative law - Jurisdiction - Remedies - Prerogative writs - Application to Appellant for certification of a teacher education program at Respondent university - Respondent university not meeting requirements for certification in several particulars - Students and teachers at Respondent university required to agree to refrain from practices, including homosexual behaviour, that are biblically condemned - Were discriminatory practices an extraneous consideration - Whether the decision of the Council patently unreasonable - Whether the courts below erred in granting an order in the nature of mandamus - Whether there was a violation of s. 2 and/or s. 15  of the Charter - If so, was the violation justified under s. 1 .

The Respondent Trinity Western University (“TWU”) is a fully funded private university founded on religious principles by the Evangelical Free Church.  TWU requires all faculty members and all students seeking admission to agree to live by a set of Community Standards in which they agree to refrain from practices, including homosexual behaviour. The Contract states that “students who cannot with integrity support those standards should seek a living-learning situation more acceptable to them.” At the time of the judicial review application, the Respondent Lindquist was in her third year of the teacher education program at TWU. She voluntarily signed the Community Standards on September 4, 1996.

TWU applied to the Appellant British Columbia College of Teachers (“BCCT”) for accreditation of its teacher education programs. Accreditation means that graduates of the program are certified by the BCCT. A Bachelor of Education degree program without certification may run on a free-standing basis, but its graduates have to apply individually for certification. It is possible, but difficult, to teach in British Columbia without certification.

On May 17, 1996, the Council rejected TWU’s application.

The Council gave no reasons, but provided TWU with a list of issues discussed in their deliberations. TWU requested a review of the decision. On June 26, 1996, the review application was rejected because the Council believed that “the proposed program follows discriminatory practices which are contrary to the public interest and public policy which the College must consider under its mandate as expressed in the Teaching Profession Act.”  TWU applied for judicial review of that decision, seeking an order of certiorari quashing the decision and an order of mandamus directing approval of the application. The chambers judge found that BCCT’s decision was made without evidence, quashed the decision and remitted the matter to the Council with directions. A majority of the Court of Appeal denied the appeal.

Origin of the case:                                British Columbia

File No.:                                 27168

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:     December 9, 1999

Counsel:                                                Thomas R. Berger Q.C. for the Appellant

Robert G. Kuhn, Kevin G. Sawatsky and Kevin L. Boonstra for the Respondents

27168 The British Columbia College of Teachers c. Université Trinity Western et al

Droit administratif - Compétence - Réparations - Brefs de prérogative - Demande d’accréditation auprès de l’appelant d’un programme d’enseignement en éducation donné à l’université intimée - Université intimée ne satisfaisant pas aux critères d’accréditation à plusieurs égards - Les étudiants et les professeurs de cette université sont tenus de s’abstenir de certaines pratiques condamnées par la bible, notamment les comportements homosexuels - Ces pratiques discriminatoires constituaient-elles une considération extérieure? - La décision du Conseil était-elle manifestement déraisonnable? - Les cours d’instance inférieure ont-elles commis une erreur en accordant une ordonnance de mandamus? - Y avait-il contravention aux art. 2 et/ou 15 de la Charte? - Dans l’affirmative, la contravention était-elle justifiée par l’article premier?

L’intimée l’Université Trinity Western (l’UTW) est une université privée entièrement financée par le secteur privé qui a été fondée sur des principes religieux par l’Evangelical Free Church. L’UTW exige que les membres de la faculté et les étudiants demandant l’admission acceptent de se conformer à un ensemble de normes communautaires prévoyant l’exclusion de certaines pratiques, notamment les comportements homosexuels. Le contrat prévoit que : « les étudiants qui ne peuvent pas en toute conscience appuyer ces normes devraient rechercher des conditions de vie et d’apprentissage qui leur est plus acceptable ». Au moment de la demande de contrôle judiciaire, l’intimée Lindquist en était à sa troisième année dans le programme d’enseignement en éducation à l’UTW. Elle a volontairement signé une acceptation des normes communautaires le 4 septembre 1996.

L’UTW a demandé l’accréditation de son programme d’enseignement en éducation auprès de l’appelant British Columbia College of Teachers (le BCCT). L’accréditation fait en sorte que les diplômés du programme sont accrédités par le BCCT. Il est possible d’offrir un programme de baccalauréat en éducation sans accréditation, mais les diplômés de ce programme doivent eux-mêmes demander leur accréditation. Il est possible, mais difficile, d’enseigner en Colombie-Britannique sans accréditation.

Le 17 mai 1996, le Conseil a refusé la demande de l’UTW.

Le Conseil n’a fourni aucun motif mais a donné à l’UTW une liste des questions discutées au cours de ses délibérations. L’UTW a demandé la révision de la décision. Le 26 juin 1996, la demande de révision a été rejetée parce que le Conseil estimait que « le programme proposé adopte des pratiques discriminatoires contraires à l’intérêt et à l’ordre public, que l’université doit considérer comme faisant partie du mandat qui lui est conféré par la Teaching Profession Act ». L’UTW a présenté une demande de contrôle judiciaire de cette décision, sollicitant une ordonnance de certiorari annulant la décision ainsi qu’une ordonnance de mandamus enjoignant l’approbation de la demande d’accréditation. Le juge en chambre a conclu que la décision du BCCT ne se fondait sur aucune preuve, il a annulé la décision et il a renvoyé l’affaire au Conseil avec des directives. La Cour d’appel, à la majorité, a rejeté l’appel.

Origine :                                 Colombie-Britannique

N^o du greffe :                                         27168

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel :                   Le 9 décembre 1999

Avocats :                                               Thomas R. Berger, c.r., pour l’appelant

Robert G. Kuhn, Kevin G. Sawatsky et Kevin L. Boonstra

pour les intimés

27415      Spire Freezers Limited et al v. Her Majesty The Queen

Taxation - Assessment - Statutes - Interpretation - Appellants purchasing interest in American partnership to purchase losses of the partnership - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Canadian parties had not entered into a partnership.

In 1978 a partnership ( “HCP”) was formed to develop a luxury condominium project on Santa Catalina Island of the coast of California (the “HCP Project”).  Eventually the partnership consisted of only two partners, each of which held a 50% share in the condominium: BCE Development Inc., and its subsidiary Peninsula Cove Corporation.  In order to obtain government approvals for the HCP Project, the partnership had to build a  low to moderate rental apartment project.  Tremont Apartments was fully owned by a corporation called Tremont Street Apartments Corporation (“TSAC”), which was fully owned by the partnership. 

By the end of 1986 the costs of the HCP Project exceeded its fair market value by approximately $10 million (U.S.).  A tax-shelter vendor therefore approached several Canadian parties, including the Appellants, with a proposed loss-purchase transaction. It was described as a seven million dollar business loss which was for sale for approximately 20 cents on the dollar.  A series of transactions took place on November 30, 1987 to allow the Appellants to join the Partnership.

The Appellants had paid approximately $1.2 million (U.S.) for the losses of the partnership.  In the fiscal year ending December 31, 1987, the partnership claimed a loss of $10 million (U.S.) in respect of the sale of the HCP Project and a capital loss of $367,000 (U.S.) in respect of the sale of TSAC shares.  Revenue Canada disallowed the claims for non-capital and capital losses, and the Appellants appealed.  Some of them also appealed subsequent taxation years in which the relevant losses were carried forward.  The appeals were heard together on the common evidence of Spire Freezers Limited and the decision was to apply to all the appeals.

The Tax Court of Canada held that the Appellants were not in a partnership because their only intention had been to obtain a tax loss, not to carry on a business in common with a view to profit.  The majority of the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.  Robertson J.A., dissenting, was of the view that the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Continental Bank Leasing Corp. v. Canada, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 298 was dispositive of the case and, if properly followed, would lead to the conclusion that partnership losses could validly have been claimed in this case.

Origin of the case:                                Federal Court of Appeal

File No.:                                 27415

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:     May 25, 1999

Counsel:                                                Warren J.A. Mitchell Q.C. for the Appellant

Susan L Van Der Hout for the Respondent

27415      Spire Freezers Limited et al c. Sa Majesté La Reine

Droit fiscal - Cotisation - Lois - Interprétation - Appelants achetant une participation dans une société de personnes américaine en vue d’acquérir les pertes de cette société - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que les parties canadiennes n’avaient pas créé une société de personnes?

En 1978, une société de personnes (HCP) a été constituée pour mettre sur pied un grand ensemble résidentiel de luxe composé d’appartements en copropriété sur l’île Santa Catalina, au large des côtes de la Californie (le projet de HCP). À la fin, la société de personnes était composée de seulement deux associées, soit BCE Development Inc. et sa filiale Peninsula Cove Corporation, qui détenaient chacune une participation de 50 % dans l’immeuble en copropriété. Pour obtenir les permis requis des autorités compétentes pour le projet HCP, la société devait construire un ensemble de logements à louer à prix modique. Tremont Apartments appartenait entièrement à une société par actions appelée Tremont Street Apartments Corporation (TSAC), dont était entièrement propriétaire la société.

À la fin de 1986, les coûts du projet HCP excédaient sa juste valeur marchande d’environ 10 millions de dollars américains. Un vendeur d’abris fiscaux a donc communiqué avec plusieurs parties canadiennes, y compris l’appelante, pour leur proposer un achat de pertes fiscales. L’objet de la proposition était décrit comme étant une perte d’entreprise de sept millions de dollars qui était à vendre à un prix d’environ 20 cents le dollar. Un ensemble d’opérations a eu lieu le 30 novembre 1987 pour permettre aux appelants de se joindre à la société.

Les appelants avaient payé environ 1,2 million de dollars américains pour les pertes de la société. Pour l’exercice financier se terminant le 31 décembre 1987, la société a réclamé une perte de 10 millions de dollars américains relativement à la vente du projet HCP ainsi qu’une perte en capital de 367 000 dollars américains relativement à la vente des actions de TSAC. Revenu Canada a refusé les déductions relatives aux pertes en capital et aux autres pertes, et les appelants ont interjeté appel. Certains d’entre eux ont également interjeté appel relativement aux années d’imposition suivantes où les pertes pertinentes avaient été reportées. Les appels ont été entendus conjointement sur la foi de la preuve commune de Spire Freezers Limited, et la décision était applicable à tous les appels.

La Cour canadienne de l’impôt a conclu que les appelants n’étaient pas des associés parce que leur seule intention avait été d’acquérir une perte fiscale, et non pas d’exploiter une entreprise en commun en vue de réaliser un bénéfice. La Cour d’appel fédérale, à la majorité, a rejeté l’appel. Le juge Robertson, dissident, était d’avis que l’arrêt de la Cour suprême du Canada Continental Bank Leasing Corp. c. Canada, [1998] 2 R.C.S. 298, réglait l’affaire et que, s’il était suivi convenablement, il menait à la conclusion que les pertes de la société de personnes auraient valablement pu être réclamées en l’espèce.

Origine :                                 Cour d’appel fédérale

N^o du greffe :                                         27415

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel :                   Le 25 mai 1999

Avocats :                                               Warren J.A. Mitchell, c.r., pour les appelants

Susan L. Van Der Hout pour l’intimée

27561      Philip Douglas Backman v. Her MajestyThe Queen

Taxation - Assessment - Statutes - Interpretation - Whether “profit” means profit as calculated under the Income Tax Act, or instead refers to commercial profit - For a partnership to have a purpose of earning profit, whether that profit would have to be larger than the tax loss at issue  - Whether the Appellant became a partner on August 29, 1988.

The Appellant is a lawyer and the sole employee and shareholder of P.D. Backman Professional Corporation, an Alberta corporation restricted to carrying on the practice of law. At all relevant times, the Appellant worked full-time as a corporate and commercial lawyer. In the summer of 1988, the Appellant and one of his law partners, Alan Ross (“Ross”), learned that an opportunity existed for residents of Canada to enter into transactions with a Texas limited partnership, Commons at Turtle Creek Limited (the “Commons”). For approximately US $ 180,000, they could acquire an accounting loss of approximately CAD $ 5 million which they could deduct in computing their income for Canadian income tax purposes.

On August 29, 1988, the Appellant acquired a 2.60156% general partnership interest in the Commons. The only asset owned by the Commons was an apartment complex in Dallas (the “Dallas Apartment Complex”). The Appellant and Ross acquired their interest in the Dallas Apartment Complex subject to an option held by a partnership consisting of the former limited partners of the Commons and the new general partner. The option allowed the new limited partnership to re-acquire the property at a price which would trigger the losses inherent in the Dallas Apartment Complex. The Appellant and Ross held their interest in the property for less than two hours. The non-capital loss to the Appellant and Ross on the purported disposition of the property was US $ 5,992,807.

The Minister of National Revenue disallowed the claim for a partnership loss. The Tax Court judge found that the Appellant and Ross were not partners with respect to ownership of the Dallas Apartment Complex since they were not associated to carry on business for a profit. The appeal was dismissed.

Origin of the case:                                Federal Court of Appeal

File No.:                                 27561

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:     August 31, 1999

Counsel:                                                C.D. O’Brien Q.C., Al Meghji, Michel Bourque  and Gerald Grenon for the Appellant

Naomi Goldstein for the Respondent

27561      Philip Douglas Backman c. Sa Majesté la Reine

Droit fiscal - Évaluation - Lois - Interprétation - Le terme «bénéfice» équivaut-il à un bénéfice au sens de la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu ou renvoie-t-il plutôt à un bénéfice commercial? - Pour qu’une société de personnes ait un but en réalisant un bénéfice, ce bénéfice doit-il être plus important que la perte fiscale en cause? - L’appelant est-il devenu associé le 29 août 1988?

L’appelant est avocat, ainsi que le seul employé et actionnaire de P.D. Backman Professional Corporation, une société albertaine qui ne se concentre que sur la pratique du droit.  Pour les fins de la présente affaire, l’appelant a travaillé à temps plein à titre d’avocat spécialisé en droit des sociétés et en droit commercial.  À l’été 1988, l’appelant et l’un de ses associés, Alan Ross («Ross»), ont appris que les résidents canadiens pouvaient transiger avec une société en commandite située au Texas, la Commons at Turtle Creek Limited («Commons»).  Pour la somme d’environ 180 000 $US, ils pouvaient acquérir une perte comptable d’environ 5 millions de dollars canadiens, qu’ils pouvaient ensuite déduire du calcul de leur revenu pour les fins de l’impôt sur le revenu au Canada.

Le 29 août 1988, l’appelant a acquis une participation de 2,60156 % à titre de commandité au sein de Commons.  Le seul élément d’actif que possédait Commons était un immeuble d’appartements à Dallas («l’immeuble d’appartements Dallas»).  L’appelant et Ross ont acquis leur participation dans l’immeuble d’appartements Dallas, sous réserve d’une option consentie à une société en commandite composée des anciens commanditaires de Commons et d’un nouveau commandité.  Cette option permettait à la nouvelle société en commandite de racheter le bien-fonds à un prix qui entraînerait des pertes relatives à l’immeuble d’appartements Dallas.  L’appelant et Ross ont gardé leur participation dans le bien-fonds pendant moins de deux heures.  La perte autre qu’en capital qu’ont subie l’appelant et Ross en ce qui a trait à la disposition du bien-fonds censée être effectuée se chiffrait à 5 992 807 $US.

Le ministre du Revenu national a refusé à l’appelant la déduction des pertes de société de personnes.  Le juge de la Cour canadienne de l’impôt a statué que l’appelant et Ross n’étaient pas des associés pour les fins de la propriété de l’immeuble d’appartements Dallas, puisqu’ils n’exploitaient pas une entreprise en commun en vue de réaliser un bénéfice.  L’appel a été rejeté.

Origine:                                                  Cour d’appel fédérale

N^o du greffe:                                          27561

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel:                    le 31 août 1999

Avocats:                                                C.D. O’Brien, c.r., Al Meghji, Michel Bourque et Gerald Grenon pour l’appelant

Naomi Goldstein pour l’intimée

CUMULATIVE INDEX -                                                                                                         INDEX CUMULATIF - REQUÊTES

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO                                                                                   EN AUTORISATION DE POURVOI

APPEAL

This index includes applications for leave to appeal standing for judgment at the beginning of 2000 and all the applications for leave to appeal filed or heard in 2000 up to now.

Cet index comprend les requêtes en autorisation de pourvoi en délibéré au début de 2000 et toutes celles produites ou entendues en 2000 jusqu'à maintenant.

*01            Refused/Refusée

*02            Refused with costs/Refusée avec dépens

*03            Granted/Accordée

*04            Granted with costs/Accordée avec dépens

*05            Discontinuance filed/Désistement produit

*06            Others/Autres

*A             Applications for leave to appeal filed/Requêtes en autorisation de pourvoi produites

*B             Submitted to the Court/Soumises à la Cour

*C             Oral Hearing/Audience

*D             Reserved/En délibéré

Status/                     Disposition/

CASE/AFFAIRE                                                                                                                          Statut                       Résultat                                                                       Page                                                                                      

146726 Canada Inc. v. City of Montreal (Que.), 27941, *A                                                1222(00)

1858-0894 Québec Inc. c. Compagnie d’assurance Standard Life (Qué.), 27302, 

   *02 27.1.00                                                                                                                                 1752(99)                           157(00)

2849-6180 Québec Inc. c. 3099-2325 Québec Inc. (Qué.), 27557, *02 22.6.00                 993(00)                             1181(00)

2858-0702 Québec Inc. c. Lac D’Amiante du Québec Ltée (Qué.), 27324, *03

   27.1.00                                                                                                                                         15(00)                               162(00)

2859-8803 Québec Inc. c. Jean Fortin & Associés Inc. (Qué.), 27368, *02 2.3.00           206(00)                             395(00)

2953-6778 Québec Inc c. Gallagher (Qué.), 27908, *02 5.10.00                                         1453(00)                           1615(00)

156036 Canada Inc. c. Les Pétroles Therrien Inc. (Qué.), 27158, *02 27.1.00                  16(00)                               163(00)

158514 Canada Inc. c. Stéphane Lachance & Associés Inc. (Qué.), 28082, *A             1445(00)

248524 Alberta Ltd. v. 155569 Canada Ltd. (Alta.), 27828, *B                                         1473(00)

539938 Ontario Ltd. v. Derksen (Ont.), 27524, *03 25.5.00                                                  785(00)                             956(00)

592123 B.C. Ltd. v. R. in right of British Columbia (B.C.), 28127, *A                              1596(00)

610990 Ontario Inc. v. Business Development Bank of Canada (Ont.), 27479, *01

   3.2.00                                                                                                                                           19(00)                               214(00)

656203 Ontario Inc. v. Soloway, Wright (Ont.), 27525, *02 12.10.00                                 1126(00)                           1764(00)

702535 Ontario Inc. v. Tinmouth (Ont.), 27932, *B                                                              1866(00)

1238157 Ontario Inc. v. Corporation of the City of Brampton (Ont.), 27933, *B           1869(00)

A.K. v. The Queen (Ont.), 27697, *01 11.5.00                                                                           662(00)                             888(00)

A.K. v. The Queen (Sask.), 28028, *A                                                                                       1443(00)

A.-L. T. v. W.B.  (Que.), 27814, *02 25.5.00                                                                                855(00)                             965(00)

A.L.R. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 27659, *03 27.7.00                                                           1119(00)                           1374(00)

Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of

   Canada, Local 63 (Nfld.), 28050, *A                                                                                    1441(00)

Abbott Laboratories, Ltd. v. Nu-Pharm Inc. (F.C.A.), 27051, *B                                        787(99)

ABI Biotechnology Inc. v. Apotex Inc. (Man.), 27795, *02  21.9.00                                     1369(00)                           1521(00)

AGB Halifax Enterprises Inc. v. Wood Street Developments Inc. (Ont.), 27668,

  *02 10.8.00                                                                                                                                  1077(00)                           1391(00)

Advanced Management Enterprises Limited v. Pate’s Variety Inc. (Ont.),

    28173, *A                                                                                                                                  1861(00)

Agricore Cooperative Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27347, *02 13.4.00                               450(00)                             675(00)

Ahani v. Minister of Citizenship & Immigration (F.C.A.), 27792, *04 25.5.00                  905(00)                             972(00)

Ahluwalia v. College of Physician and Surgeons of Manitoba (Man.), 27382,

   *02 6.4.00                                                                                                                                   491(00)                             613(00)

Aiken v. Aitken (B.C.), 27728, *02 11.5.00                                                                                724(00)                             870(00)

Air Wemindji Inc. v. Héli-Forex Inc. (Qué.), 27859, *02 5.10.00                                           1363(00)                           1626(00)

Albert v. Albert (Ont.), 27637, *02 10.8.00                                                                               1076(00)                           1390(00)

Ali c. Compagnie d’Assurance Guardian du Canada (Qué.), 27458, *01 8.6.00              857(00)                             1091(00)

All Seasons Display Inc. v. Mylett (B.C.), 28185, *A                                                             1924(00)

Alpha Laboratories Inc. v. The Queen in Right of Ontario (Ont.), 27419, *02

    20.4.00   585(00)                                                                                                                        740(00)

Alvarez v. The Queen (B.C.), 28120, *A                                                                                   1595(00)

American Mobile Satellite Corp. v. Spar Aerospace Ltd. (Qué.), 28070, *A                   1446(00)

Anraj Fish Products Industries Ltd. v. Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. (F.C.A.),

   28125, *A                                                                                                                                   1596(00)

Antkiw v. Verscheure (Ont.), 27806, *02 5.10.00                                                                     1371(00)                           1628(00)

Apotex Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.), 28059, *A                                        1443(00)

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. (F.C.A.), 27764, *02  21.9.00                                                     1358(00)                           1516(00)

Arcand c. Denharco Inc. (Qué.), 27372, *02 13.4.00                                                              544(00)                             667(00)

Archibald v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 28116, *A                                                                          1744(00)

Arcuri v. The Queen (Ont.), 27797, *03 15.6.00                                                                       1002(00)                           1137(00)

Arthur c. Procureur général du Canada (C.A.F.), 27772, *02 14.9.00                               1337(00)                           1494(00)

Aselford v. Ross (Qué.), 28088, *A                                                                                            1448(00)

Ashmore v. Van Mol (B.C.), 27171, *01 20.1.00                                                                       2013(99)                           98(00)

Askey v The Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia (B.C.), 27607,

   *02 22.6.00                                                                                                                                 1003(009)                         1177(00)

Assiniboine South Teachers’ Association of the Manitoba Teachers’ Society v.

   Assiniboine South School Division No. 3 (Man.), 28115, *A                                          1595(00)

Association des policiers provinciaux du Québec c. Lauzon (Qué.), 27619, *01

   11.5.00                                                                                                                                         662(00)                             873(00)

Association des radiologistes du Québec c. Rochon (Qué.), 27313, *02 20.1.00              1968(99)                           101(00)

Association minière du Québec Inc. c. Bourbonnais (Qué.), 28135, *A                           1745(00)

Association pour la protection des automobilistes c. Édutile Inc. (C.A.F.),

   27981, *A                                                                                                                                   1224(00)

Atlas Industries v. Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (Sask.), 27402, *02

   20.4.00                                                                                                                                         584(00)                             738(00)

Atomic Energy Control Board v. Danilow (Ont.), 27632, *02 10.8.00                                1126(00)                           1394(00)

Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. v. Sierra Club of Canada (F.C.A.), 28020, *A                1327(00)

Attorney General of Canada v. Babcock (B.C.), 28091, *A                                                 1449(00)

Attorney General of Canada v. Harper (Alta.), 28210, *A                                                  1924(00)

Attorney General of Canada v. Matthews (F.C.A.), 27456, *02 20.4.00                             381(00)                             742(00)

Attorney General of Canada v. Pleau (N.S.), 27770, *01 28.9.00                                        1259(00)                           1529(00)

Attorney General of Nova Scotia v. Walsh (N.S.), 28179, *A                                              1923(00)

Augustine v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.B.), 27695, *02 25.5.00                                                     853(00)                             963(00)

Austie v. Aksnowicz (Alta.), 27248, *02 17.2.00                                                                      136(00)                             304(00)

Autobus Thomas Inc. c. La Reine (C.A.F.), 27804, *03 12.10.00                                           1456(00)                           1769(00)

Azar c. Gestion Hassake-Holdings Inc. (Qué.), 28001, *A                                                   1227(00)

Azco Mining Inc. c. Sam Lévy & Associés Inc. (Qué.), 27876, *04 29.6.00                         1124(00)                           1275(00)

Aziz v. United Used Auto & Truck Parts Ltd. (B.C.), 27824, *03 14.9.00                            1246(00)                           1491(00)

B. G. Schickedanz Investments Ltd. v. Szasz (Ont.), 27557, *A                                           1718(99)

Baas v. Jellema (B.C.), 27812, *B                                                                                              1600(00)

Backman v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27561, *04 8.6.00                                                                903(00)                             1087(00)

Bacon (Michel) c. La Reine (Qué.), 28147, *A                                                                      1746(00)

Bacon v. Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation (Sask.), 27469, *01 1.6.00           859(00)                             1015(00)

Bagola v. Ovadya (Ont.), 27691, *02 10.8.00                                                                           1234(00)                           1384(00)

Bailey c. The Queen in Right of Canada (F.C.A.), 27427, *04 25.5.00                                591(00)                             968(00)

Bains v. Bhandar (B.C.), 28211, *A                                                                                          1925(00)

Banca Commerciale Italiana of Canada c. Soeurs du Bon Pasteur de Québec

   (Qué.), 27627, *02 29.6.00                                                                                                        1125(00)                           1275(00)

Bank of America Canada v. Clarica Trust Co. (Ont.), 27898,*03 14.9.00                          1329(00)                           1487(00)

Bank of Montreal v. Enchant Resources Ltd. (Alta.), 27766, *03 21.9.00                          1367(00)                           1519(00)

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

   26988, *B                                                                                                                                    1153(99)

Bannon v. The Coporation of the City of Thunder Bay (Ont.), 27985, *A                        1225(00)

Bareau v. Governors of the University of Alberta (Alta.), 27330, *02 27.1.00                   2015(99)                           167(00)

Barreau de Montréal c. Association professionnelle des sténographes officiels du

   Québec (Qué.), 27472, *05 13.5.00                                                                                          726(00)                             924(00)

Bayer Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.), 27436, *01 15.6.00                             865(00)                             1135(00)

B.C. Shhickedanz Investments Ltd. v. Szasz (Ont.), 27558, *01 15.6.00                              867(00)                             1135(00)

B. Frégeau & Fils Inc. c. Société québecoise d’assainissement des eaux (Qué.),

   27942, *B                                                                                                                                    1819(00)

BDO Dunwoody Ltd. v. Superintendant of Bankruptcy (Man.), 27501, *03 25.5.00        785(00)                             957(00)

Beach v. United States of America (Man.), 27916, *01 5.10.00                                            1370(00)                           1627(00)

Beamish v. The Queen (Crim.)(P.E.I.), 27545, *01 8.6.00                                                        856(00)                             1090(00)

Beaver Lumber Co. v. Epoch (Ont.), 27193, *01 20.1.00                                                        1912(99)                           104(00)

Bedford v. The Queen (Ont.), 28004, *01 12.10.00                                                                  1471(00)                           1773(00)

Bélanger c. Goulet (Qué.), 28178, *A                                                                                      1862(00)

Béliard c. Husbands (Qué.), 27241, *01 17.2.00                                                                      139(00)                             307(00)

Bell v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 28065, *A                                                                                     1441(00)

Bellegarde v. The Queen (Sask.), 27821, *01 12.10.00                                                           1455(00)                           1768(00)

Belships (Far East) Shipping (Pte.) Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Forest Products Ltd.

   (F.C.A.), 27471, *02 25.5.00                                                                                                     731(00)                             970(00)

Benard v. The Queen (Man.), 27175, *01 13.4.00                                                                    386(00)                             668(00)

Ben-Hafsia c. City of Vancouver (B.C.), 27337, *02 27.1.00                                                  18(00)                               153(00)

Berendsen v. The Queen in right of Ontario (Ont.), 27312, *04 25.5.00                             452(00)                             967(00)

Bernardo v. The Queen (Ont.), 27925, *02  21.9.00                                                                1341(00)                           1501(00)

Bernier c. Commission de la Santé, de la Sécurité et de l’Indemnisation des

    accidents au travail du Nouveau-Brunswick (N.-B.), 28191, *A                                   1862(00)

Bernier c. Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec (Qué.), 27416,

   *01 27.4.00                                                                                                                                 594(00)                             763(00

Berry v. Pulley (Ont.), 27992, *A                                                                                              1225(00)

Bertrix Corp. c. Valeurs mobilières Desjardins Inc. (Qué.), 27401, *02 20.4.00               588(00)                             751(00)

Bérubé c. La Reine (Qué.), 27530, *01 20.1.00                                                                        1966(99)                           99(00)

Beyo v. The Queen (Ont.), 27917, *01 5.10.00                                                                          1353(00)                           1610(00)

Bhandar v. Bains (B.C.), 27199, *02 24.2.00                                                                            13(00)                               355(00)

Bhinder v. The Queen (B.C.), 27647, *02 22.6.00                                                                    1007(00)                           1182(00)

Biderman v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27841, *02 19.10.00                                                           1470(00)                           1826(00)

Biron (Jacques) c. Arthur Anderson Inc. (Qué.), 27426, *02 18.5.00                                  730(00)                             907(00)

Biron (Ronald) c. Lévesque Beaubien Geoffrion Inc. (Qué.), 28203, *A                          1924(00)

Biscuits Leclerc Ltée c. Compagnie d’assurance-vie Transamérica Occidental

   (Qué.), 28039, *A                                                                                                                      1440(00)

Black (David) v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27798, *01 29.6.00                                             1066(00)                           1266(00)

Black (Frederick) v. The Queen (N.S.), 27837, *01 14.9.00                                                  1250(00)                           1485(00)

Blackburn c. Boivin (Qué.), 28162, *A                                                                                    1860(00)

Blacklaws v. Morrow (Alta.), 28126, *A                                                                                 1596(00)

Blerot v. The Queen (Sask.), 27819, *02 26.10.00                                                                    1602(00)                           1876(00)

Bloom v. Meditrust Healthcare Inc. (Ont.), 27571, *02 6.4.00                                              485(00)                             608(00)

Bonamy v. Correction Service Canada (F.C.A.), 28003, *B                                                1928(00)

Bonamy v. The Queen (B.C.), 28038, *B                                                                                   1868(00)

Bonamy v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27631, *01 25.5.00                                                         3(00)                                 954(00)

Boston v. Boston (Ont.), 27682, *03 16.3.00                                                                             298(00)                      502(00)

Boudreault c. Procureur général du Canada (C.A.F.), 27660, *02 24.8.00          1170(00)                   1410(00)

Bourbeau c. La Reine (Qué.), 27906, *01  21.9.00                                          1356(00)                   1514(00)

Boutilier v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.), 27690, *02 31.8.00                1243(00)                   1478(00)

Braintech Inc. v. Kostiuk (B.C.), 27296, *02 9.3.00                                         297(00)                    453(00)

Brault & Bisaillon (1986) Inc. c. Éditions Le Canada Français Ltée (Qué.),

   27409,  *02 13.4.00                                                                                   388(00)                    671(00)

Brentwood Pioneer Holdings Ltd. v. Provincial Agricultural Land

   Commission (B.C.), 28013, *A                                                                   1229(00)

Brertton v. The Queen (Alta.), 26669, *01 30.3.00                                           441(00)                    600(00)

Brett v. Halifax Regional Municipality (N.S.), 27640, *02 29.6.00                       1067(00)                   1268(00)

Bri-Mel Developments Ltd. v. McLaren (Ont.), 27411, *02 11.5.00                     495(00)                    879(00)

Bridgesoft Systems Corp. v. The Queen in right of British Columbia (B.C.),

   28047, *A                                                                                                 1442(00)

British Aviation Insurance Group (Canada) Ltd. v. West Central Air Ltd. (Sask.),

   27590, *02 22.6.00                                                                                    952(00)                    1187(00)

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority v. Tenneco Canada Inc. (B.C.),

   27507, *02 22.6.00                                                                                    989(99)                    1174(00)

Bromby v. The Queen (Qué.), 28076, *A                                                        1447(00)

Bromstein v. Khanna (Ont.), 27923, *02 14.9.00                                             1333(00)                   1493(00)

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. Litke (Man.), 27622,

   *02 10.8.00                                                                                              1013(00)                   1388(00)

Brown v. Synchronics Inc. (F.C.A.), 27405, *01 16.3.00                                   347(00)                    499(00)

Bruce Agra Foods Inc. v. Trilwood Investments Ltd (Ont.), 27260, *02 23.3.00  207(00)                    557(00)

Bryan v. The Queen (Man.), 27222, *01 3.2.00                                               94(00)                      211(00)

Buck Consultants Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27707, *02  21.9.00                  1459(00)                   1511(00)

Buhlers v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles for the Province of British Columbia

   (B.C.), 27268, *01 24.2.00                                                                         203(00)                    352(00)

Bull v. The Queen (Alta.), 26669, *01 30.3.00                                                 441(00)                    600(00)

Butcher v. Government of St. Lucia (Ont.), 27375, *02 11.5.00                        497(00)                    881(00)

C.A.L. v. The Queen (N.S.), 27758, *01 22.6.00                                             988(00)                    1172(00)

C.L.L. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27564, *01 23.3.00                                    373(00)                    548(00)

C.M.V. v. The Queen (Alta.), 27779, *01 17.8.00                                            1160(00)                   1396(00)

C.S. c. Goupil (Qué.), 28138, *A                                                                   1597(00)

Cadillac Fairview Corp. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 27214, *02 3.2.00            92(00)                      209(00)

Cadillac Fairview Corp. v. Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (Sask.),

   27537, *01 30.3.00                                                                                    445(00)                    604(00)

Calgary (City of) v. Nice (Alta.), 28161, *A                                                      1809(00)

Castineira v. The Queen (Qué.), 28186, *A                                                     1810(00)

Cameron v. Attorney-General of Nova Scotia (N.S.), 27584, *01 29.6.00           1073(00)                   1271(00)

Campbell (Dwaine) v. The Queen (Ont.), 27606, *05 23.12.99                          40(00)                      40(00)

Campbell v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27685, *02 22.6.00                                      1004(00)                   1178(00)

Campitelli v. The Corporation of the Town of Ajax (Ont.), 28156, *A                  1808(00)

Canadian Drug Manufacturers Assn. v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.),

   28059, *A                                                                                                 1443(00)

Canadian Newspapers Company Limited v. Hodgson (Ont.), 28136, *A             1745(00)

Carrie v. The Queen (B.C.), 27684, *01 11.5.00                                              589(00)                    884(000

Canada Life Assurance Co. v. Ryan (Nfld.), 27603, *02 3.8.00                         1000(00)                   1380(00)

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. v. Corporation of the District of North

   Vancouver (B.C.), 27874, *B                                                                      1476(00)

Canada Post Corp. v. Canadian Postmasters and Assistants Association (F.C.A.),

   27377, *02 6.4.00                                                                                     492(00)                    614(00)

Canada Post Corp. c. Canadian Union of Postal Workers (N.S.), 28099, *A      1593(00)

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Samos Investments Inc. (B.C.),

   28012, *A                                                                                                 1445(00)

Canadian Media Guild, Local 30213 of the Newspaper Guild v. Canadian

   Broadcasting Corp. (Nfld.), 27378, *02 6.4.00                                              540(00)                    611(00)

Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 882 v. City of Prince Albert (Sask.),

   27816, *05 20.9.00                                                                                    1470(00)                   1642(00)

Can-Dive Services Ltd. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co. (B.C.), 27845, *02 26.10.00    1816(00)                   1881(00)

Cannella v. Toronto Transit Commission (Ont.), 27705, *01 14.9.00                 1245(00)                   1491(00)

Cape Breton -Vitoria Regional Shool Board v. Menzies (N.S.), 27962, *A          1159(00)

Cardinal v. The Queen (Alta.), 26669, *01 30.3.00                                           441(00)                    600(00)

Carmichael v. The Queen (Ont.), 27634, *01 23.3.00                                       373(00)                    548(00)

Carrie v.  The Queen (B.C.), 27684, *A                                                          90(00)

Casey v. The Queen (Ont.), 28030, *A                                                           1443(00)

Caswell v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27538, *01 2.3.00                                    272(00)                    392(00)

Cavan v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27582, *01 30.3.00                                    440(00)                    599(00)

Celik v. Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario (Ont.), 28006, *A                 1227(00)

Celik v.  St. Paul Insurance Co. (Ont.), 28010, *A                                          1228(00)

Centra Gas Manitoba v. Bohemier (Man.), 27197, *02 20.1.00                         1967(99)                   100(00)

Challenge Team v. Revenue Canada (F.C.A.), 27946, *B                                 1870(00)

Chan v. Chiasson (Ont.), 27498, *02 18.5.00                                                  731(00)                    909(00)

Chaoulli c. Ministre de la santé et des services sociaux (Qué.), 27910, *A         985(00)

Chase Manhattan Bank of Canada v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27740, *02 14.9.00  1261(00)                   1487(00)

Chaudhary v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27672, *01 25.5.00                              89(00)                      955(00)

Chief and Council of the Shubenacadie Indian Band v. Attorney General of Canada

   (F.C.A.), 28078, *A                                                                                   1446(00)

Chowdhury c. La Reine (Qué.), 28195, *A                                                       1863(00)

Chung v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 27508, *01 27.1.00                                   2014(99)                   165(00)

CIBC Mortgage Corp. c. Vasquez (Qué.), 27963, *A                                        1159(00)

Cigana v. Millette (Que.), 28016, *A                                                               1325(00)

Cipollone v. The Queen (Ont.), 28035, *01 12.10.00                                        1468(00)                   1773(00)

Clarkson v. Government of the Kindgom of the Netherlands (B.C.), 28128, *A   1809(00)

Claveau c. Durand (Qué.), 27349, *02 2.3.00                                                  274(00)                    397(00)

Clay v. The Queen (Ont.), 28189, *A                                                              1923(00)

CLR Construction Labour Relations Associations of Saskatchewan v. PCL

   Industrial Constructors Inc. (Sask.), 27833, *02 26.10.00                             1471(00)                   1878(00)

Club Juridique c. Lafrenière (Qué.), 27633, *01 29.6.00                                   1074(00)                   1272(00)

Cobb v. United States of America (Crim.)(Ont.), 27610, *03 17.2.00                 142(00)                    310(00)

Coca-Cola Ltd. v. Pardhan (F.C.A.), 27392, *02 3.5.00                                    542(00)                    794(00)

Cogswell v. The Queen (N.B.), 28063, *A                                                       1443(00)

Collymore v. The Queen (Ont.), 27526, *01  28.9.00                                        1262(00)                   1523(00)

Comeau c. Comeau, (Qué.), 27692, *02 10.8.00                                             1234(00)                   1384(00)

Committee for the Equal Treatment of Asbestos Minority Shareholders v.

   La Reine (Ont.), 27252, *03 27.1.00                                                            1964(99)                   155(00)

Commission scolaire English-Montréal c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.),

   28196, *A                                                                                                 1863(00)

Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail c. Société canadienne des

   postes (Qué.), 27311, *02 6.4.00                                                                350(00)                    616(00)

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

   d’hébergement et de soins de longue durée Champlain-Manoir de

   Verdun (Qué.), 27639, *02 24.8.00                                                              1168(00)                   1408(00)

Commission des lésions professionnelles c. Société canadienne des postes (Qué.),

   27311, *02 6.4.00                                                                                     350(00)                    616(00)

Commission scolaire d’Iberville c. Syndicat de l’enseignement du Haut-Richelieu

   (Qué.), 27369, *02 30.3.00                                                                         446(00)                    606(00)

Commissioner of Patents v. The President and Fellows of Harvard College

   (F.C.A.), 28155, *A                                                                                   1747(00)

Commisso v. United States of America (Ont.), 27787, *01 24.8.00                   1167(00)                   1406(00)

Compagnie d’assurance-vie Transamerica du Canada c. Goulet (Qué.),

   27939, *A                                                                                                 1156(00)

Conex Services Inc. v. Bogner Developments Ltd.  (B.C.), 27671, *02 21.9.00  1366(00)                   1507(00)

Conrad v. Imperial Oil Ltd. (N.S.), 27270, *02 2.3.00                                       274(00)                    396(00)

Conroy v. Friesen (B.C.), 27200, *01 27.1.00                                                  11(00)                      151(00)

Conseil scolaire de l’Île de Montréal c. Ville de l’Île Bizard (Qué.), 27651, *02

   14.9.00                                                                                                                                   1347(00)           1497(00)

Construction Aggregates Ltd. v. City of Coquitlam (B.C.), 28042, *A                 1440(00)

Conway v. The Queen in Right of Ontario (Ont.), 27519, *02 8.6.00                  945(00)                    1083(00)

Continentale Compagnie d’Assurance du Canada c. Club de Golf Oka Inc (Qué.),

   27379, *02 20.4.00                                                                                    544(00)                    748(00)

Cooper v. Hobart (B.C.), 27880, *03 17.8.00                                                   1230(00)                   1400(00)

Coopers and Lybrand v. Trustees of the Edmonton Pipe Industry Pension Plan

   Trust Fund (Alta.), 28090, *A                                                                     1448(00)

Corporation of the City of Brampton v. Bisoukis (Ont.), 27742, *02 17.8.00       1163(00)                   1399(00)

Corporation of the City of Kelowna v. Labour Relations Board of British Columbia

   (B.C.), 27315, *01 23.3.00                                                                         299(00)                    561(00)

Corporation of the City of Mississauga v. Slough Estates Canada Ltd. (Ont.),

   27951, *A                                                                                                 1117(00)

Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay v. 1037618 Ontario Inc. (Ont.), 27549,

   *02 8.6.00                                                                                                945(00)                    1082(00)

Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay v. Larson (Ont.), 28096, *A                   1592(00)

Corporation of the City of Toronto v. Toronto Terminals Railways Co. (Ont.),

   27626, *05 31.8.00                                                                                    2(00)                        1556(00)

Corrpro Canada, Inc. v. Edmonton Centre West Ltd. (Alta.), 28202, *A             1923(00)

Corsano v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27319, *02 20.4.00                                        451(00)                    753(00)

Cortese v. Nowsco Well Service Ltd. (Alta.), 27968, *B                                   1869(00)

Côté c. La Reine (Qué.), 27656, *02 28.9.00                                                   1256(00)                   1527(00)

Côté (Fernand) c. Taillefer (Qué.), 27882, *02 5.10.00                                     1453(00)                   1615(00)

Coulombe c. Office municipal d’habitation de Pointe-Claire (Qué.), 27536,

   *02 12.10.00                                                                                             1122(00)                   1756(00)

Couture (François) c. Ferme La Champignière Inc. (Qué.), 27301, *02 18.5.00   730(00)                    908(00)

Couture (Paul) c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.) 27530, *B                                         1966(99)                  

Crawford v. The Queen (Sask.), 27195, *01 30.3.00                                        440(00)                    600(00)

Crestwood Lake Ltd. v. Pizzey (Ont.), 27462, *02 11.5.00                               597(00)                    887(00)

D.C.A. v. The Queen (Alta.), 27913, *01 5.10.00                                             1360(00)                   1623(00)

D.T.A. c. M.E.L. (Qué.), 27984, *02  21.9.00                                                  1369(00)                   1520(00)

D’agostino v. United States of America (Ont.), 27787, *B                                1167(00)

Dagher v. McDonnell-Ronald Limousine Service Ltd. (Ont.), 27829, *02 12.10.00                              1465(00)           1771(00)

Daisley v. City of Lethbridge (Alta.), 27890, *A                                               901(00)

Dawes v. Jajcaj (B.C.), 27403, *02 6.4.00                                                      492(00)                    613(00)

Dawson v. Attorney General of Alberta (Alta.), 27629, *01 13.4.00                    385(00)                    667(00)

De-Jai Holdings Inc. v. Corporation of the City of Guelph (Ont.), 27364,

   *02 3.2.00                                                                                                94(00)                      210(00)

Deane v. The Queen (Ont.), 27776, *05 22.2.00                                              461(00)

Del Grande v. Toronto Dominion Bank (Ont.), 27522, *02 30.3.00                    447(00)                    607(00)

Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue (F.C.A), 28100, *A                           1448(00)

Demix, Division de Ciment St-Laurent (Indépendant) Inc. c. Communauté urbaine

     de Montréal (Qué.), 27988, *A                                                                  1226(00)

Derksen v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 27642, *01 30.3.00                               444(00)                    603(00)

Desnomie v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27972, *B                                                  1927(00)

Devgan v. The Queen in Right of Ontario (Ont.), 27567, *01 23.3.00                 374(00)                    549(00)

Devgan v. The Queen in Right of Ontario (Ont.), 27567, *01 20.4.00                 583(00)                    737(00)

Devinat c. Commission de l’Immigration et du Statut de réfugié (C.A.F.),

   27727, *02 12.10.00 (La demande d’autorisation d’appel incident est rejetée

    sans dépens / The application for leave to cross-appeal is dismissed without

    costs)                                                                                                                                    1334(00)           1760(00)

Devji v. Corporation of the District of Burnaby (B.C.), 27667, *02 3.8.00            1120(00)                   1375(00)

Dhawan v. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la

    jeunesse (Qué.), 28122, *A                                                                       1745(00)

Dick v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27641, *03 12.10.00                                           1070(00)                   1749(00)

Directeur général, Région du Québec c. Collin (C.A.F.), 27451, *02 20.4.00       383(00)                    745(00)

Directeur général, Région du Québec c. Couture (C.A.F.), 27447, *02 20.4.00    380(00)                    741(00)

Directeur général, Région du Québec c. Cyr (C.A.F.), 27446, *02 20.4.00          380(00)                    742(00)

Directeur général, Région du Québec c. Duguay (C.A.F.), 27448, *02 20.4.00    382(00)                    744(00)

Directeur général, Région du Québec c. Duguay (C.A.F.), 27449, *02 20.4.00    384(00)                    745(00)

Directeur général, Région du Québec c. Duguay (C.A.F.), 27452, *02 20.4.00    384(00)                    746(00)

Directeur général, Région du Québec c. Leblanc (C.A.F.), 27450, *02 20.4.00   382(00)                    743(00)

Do c. La Reine (Qué.) 27805, *01 31.8.00                                                      1237(00)                   1483(00)

Dobie v. Boushey (Ont.), 27468, *01 23.12.99                                                1817(99)                   21(00)

Dobson v. The Queen (N.B.), 27775, *01 22.6.00                                           950(00)                    1185(00)

Dofasco v. NBD Bank (Ont.), 27754, *02 13.4.00                                           486(00)                    675(00)

Doiron c. Lipp (Qué.), 27940, *A                                                                    1156(00)

Dominion Bridge Inc. v. The Queen (Sask.), 27355, *01 30.3.00                      445(00)                    605(00)

Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. v. Marchand (Ont.), 27244, *02

   17.2.00                                                                                                                                   141(00) 309(00)

Doody v. Professional Training Committee of the Barreau du Québec (Qué.),

   27334, *02 27.1.00                                                                                    8(00)                        160(00)

Doyle v. The Queen (Crim.)(P.E.I.), 27702, *01 25.5.00                                   271(00)                    954(00)

Dr. William N. Campbell Professional Corporation v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27687,

   *02 22.6.00                                                                                              1004(00)                   1178(00)

Drummie v. Society of Lloyd’s (N.B.), 27815, *02 5.10.00                                1462(00)                   1618(00)

Dubreuil Brothers Employees Association v. London Life Insurance Company

    (Ont.), 28165, *A                                                                                     1860(00)

Duca Community Credit Union Ltd. v. Sugarman (Ont.), 27417, *02 11.5.00      545(00)                    883(00)

Duchesne c. Picard (Qué.), 27625, *01 12.10.00                                             1013(00)                   1763(00)

Duguay c. Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec (Qué.), 28143, *A                          1746(00)

Duguid v. Bank of Montreal (Ont.), 27973, *B                                                 1933(00)

Duncan v. Confederation Trust Co. (N.B.), 28043, *A                                      1440(00)

Dunmore v. Attorney General for Ontario (Ont.), 27216, *03 24.2.00                 140(00)                    353(00)

Durand v. Bastien (Alta.), 27818, *02  21.9.00                                                1359(00)                   1517(00)

Dwomoh v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Ont.), 27534, *01 11.5.00  495(00)                    879(00)

Dwyer v. Cavalluzzo, Hayes, Shilton, McIntrye & Cornish (Ont.), 28159, *A       1809(00)

E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company v. Furlan (B.C.), 28154, *A                 1808(00)

E.S. v. The Queen (Ont.), 27862, *B                                                             1450(00)

E.S. Fox Ltd. v. Hagt (Ont.), 27834, *02 12.10.00                                           1466(00)                   1772(00)

E.T.H. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 27709, *01 25.5.00                                   854(00)                    965(00)

Eamor v. Air Canada Ltd. (B.C.), 27661, *02 10.8.00                                       1078(00)                   1392(00)

Eastern Power Ltd. v. Azienda Comunale Energia & Ambiente (Ont), 27595, *02

   22.6.00                                                                                                                                   1008(00)           1183(00)

Edgeworth Construction Ltd. v. Thurber Consultants Ltd. (B.C.), 28177, *A       1861(00)

Edwards v. Law Society of Upper Canada (Ont.), 28108, *B                             1926(00)

Egido c. Groupe Serpone syndic de faillite (Qué.), 28160, *A                           1809(00)

Eholor v. The Queen (Ont.), 27504, *02 6.1.00                                               1963(99)                   22(00)

Ekman v. The Queen (B.C.), 28056, *A                                                         1327(00)

Elder v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27219, *05 26.1.00                                      752(99)                    181(00)

Elliott (Bettyann) v. City of Toronto (Ont.), 27289, *B                                       1866(00)

Elliott (Veronica) v. Liczyk (Ont.), 27888, *B                                                  1867(00)

Ellis-Don Ltd. v. Naylor Group Inc. (Ont.), 27321, *03 20.4.00                          376(00)                    733(00)

Emballage Graham du Canada Ltée c. Commission des droits de la personne et

   des droits de la jeunesse (Qué.), 27336, *02 17.2.00                                    138(00)                    307(00)

Endean v. The Queen in right of the Province of British Columbia (B.C.), 26679,