Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

October 13, 2000  1743 - 1807                                                           le 13 octobre 2000

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Ian Fergus Hunter

Ian Fergus Hunter

v. (26580)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Kenneth J. Yule

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 6.9.2000

Marc Teahan

Gregory Lafontaine

Lafontaine & Associates

v. (27999)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Leslie Paine

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 18.9.2000

ITT Industries of Canada Ltd.

Brian R. Carr

Fraser Milner Casgrain

v. (28069)

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

David E. Spiro

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 28.9.2000

K.D.J.

James D. Bahen

Leask Bahen

v. (28095)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Colin Sweeney, Q.C.

A.G. of British Columbia

FILING DATE 31.8.2000

Andrew Norman Wristen

Brian H. Greenspan

Greenspan Humphrey Lavine

v. (28104)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Alexander Alvaro

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 8.9.2000

Raymond Piché, et al.

Raymond Piché

c. (28107)

Sa Majesté la Reine telle que représentée par le Conseil du Trésor et al. (C.A.F.)

David Sgayias, Q.C.

P.G. du Canada

DATE DE PRODUCTION 1.9.2000

Médis services pharmaceutiques et de santé Inc.

Philippe Frère

Lavery, de Billy

c. (28111)

Syndicat des salariés de distribution de produits pharmaceutiques (FISA) et al. (Qué.)

Henri Grondin

Grondin, Poudrier, Bernier

DATE DE PRODUCTION 6.9.2000

Teamsters du Québec, chauffeurs et ouvriers de diverses industries, local 69

Daniel Tremblay

Turgeon Lavoie

c. (28112)

Syndicat des salariés de distribution de produits pharmaceutiques (FISA) et al. (Qué.)

Henri Grondin

Grondin, Poudrier, Bernier

DATE DE PRODUCTION 6.9.2000

Ontario Teachers’ Federation (“OTF”), et al.

William Markle

Markle, May, Phibbs

v. (28113)

The Attorney General of Ontario (Ont.)

Janet E. Minor

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 6.9.2000

Ron Archibald, et al.

Dale Gibson

Dale Gibson Associates

v. (28116)

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

Brian H. Hay

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 11.9.2000

André Prud’homme, et al.

Richard Landry

Landry & Pouliot, senc

c. (28117)

Fernand Prud’homme (Qué.)

Jean-Jacques Rainville

Dunton Rainville senc

DATE DE PRODUCTION 12.9.2000

Westcola Holdings Inc., et al.

Duncan W. Glaholt

Glaholt & Associates

v. (28118)

Structural Contracting Ltd. (Ont.)

Gregory N. Hemsworth

Capo, Sgro, Dilena, Hemsworth, Mendicino

FILING DATE 11.9.2000

Kailash Chandra Dhawan

Julius H. Grey

Grey, Casgrain

v. (28122)

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, et al. (Qué.)

Maurice Drapeau

FILING DATE 14.9.2000

Fraternité des préposés à l’entretien des voies

Georges Marceau

Melançon, Marceau, Grenier & Sciortino

c. (28124)

Canadien Pacifique Ltée, et al. (Qué.)

Roy L. Heenan

Heenan Blaikie

DATE DE PRODUCTION 15.9.2000

Ville de Montréal

Diane Lafond

Jalbert, Séguin, Verdon, Caron, Mahoney, s.e.n.c.

c. (28129)

Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, section locale 301, et al. (Qué.)

Gaston Nadeau

Trudel, Nadeau, s.e.n.c.

DATE DE PRODUCTION 18.9.2000

Association minière du Québec Inc.

Yves Turgeon

Fraser Milner Casgrain

c. (28135)

Jacques-Émile Bourbonnais, et al. (Qué.)

Manuel Oudar

Commissaire de l’industrie de la construction

DATE DE PRODUCTION 21.9.2000

Canadian Newspapers Company Limited, et al.

Patricia D.S. Jackson

Torys

v. (28136)

Robert Hodgson (Ont.)

Phillip Healey

Aird & Berlis

FILING DATE 21.9.2000

Royal Trust Corporation of Canada

A. Irvin Schein

Minden Gross Grafstein & Greenstein LLP

v. (28137)

502759 Ontario Limited, et al. (Ont.)

Duncan M. MacFarlane, Q.C.

Flett, Beccario

FILING DATE 22.9.2000

Léonildo Pirès

Léonildo Pirès

c. (28139)

André L. Monty

Thierry Usclat

Talbot, Drapeau, Martel

DATE DE PRODUCTION 25.9.2000

Clément Duguay

Guy Lauzon

Dunton Rainville, s.e.n.c.

c. (28143)

Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec (Qué.)

Manon Bonnier

DATE DE PRODUCTION 25.9.2000

White, Ottenheimer & Baker

D. Mark Pike

Benson Myles

v. (28144)

Attorney General of Canada (Nfld.)

Stephen Fitzgerald

Browne, Fitzgerald, Morgan

FILING DATE 26.9.2000

Michel Bacon

Daniel Royer

c. (28147)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)

François Legault

P.G. du Québec

DATE DE PRODUCTION 27.9.2000

Renald Fortin

Renald Fortin

c. (28149)

Compagnie d’assurance Wellington, et al. (Qué.)

Jean-François Michaud

Lavery de Billy

DATE DE PRODUCTION 27.9.2000

Douglas Sloan

Douglas G. Sloan

v. (28150)

The York Region District School Board, et al. (Ont.)

Roy C. Filion, Q.C.

Filion, Wakely & Thorup

FILING DATE 27.9.2000

Randy Edward Malcolm

Anthony H. Dalmyn

Brodsky & Company

v. (28153)

Her Majesty the Queen (Man.)

Gregg Lawlor

A.G. of Manitoba

FILING DATE 27.9.2000

The Commissioner of Patents

Frederick B. Woyiwada

A.G. of Canada

v. (28155)

The President and Fellows of Harvard College (F.C.A.)

David A. Morrow

Smart & Biggar

FILING DATE 2.10.2000

OCTOBER 12, 2000 / LE 12 OCTOBRE 2000

27782                    IVON SHEARING ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (B.C.) (Crim.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Similar fact evidence - Sexual offences - Cross-examination - Complainant’s privacy interests - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in upholding the trial judge’s admission of two complainants’ evidence as similar fact evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in upholding the trial judge’s ruling limiting the cross-examination of a complainant on the content of her personal diary?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27663                    MARKEL INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA ‑ v. ‑ JUDY AZEVEDO, MARK AZEVEDO (Alta.)

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

Commercial law - Insurance - Insured instructing insurer post-loss that waiving insurance coverage - Insured found liable for damages but judgment not collectable - Extent of statutory right to enforce a liability insurance contract by a third party stranger to the contract - Extent to which judicial perception of “Public Policy” should determine the law.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27641                    RALPH DICK, DANIEL BILLY, ELMER DICK, STEPHEN ASSU, GODFREY PRICE, ALLEN CHICKITE, AND LLOYD CHICKITE, SUING ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF THE WE WAI KAI INDIAN BAND (ALSO KNOWN AS THE CAPE MUDGE INDIAN BAND) ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, ROY ANTHONY ROBERTS, C. AUBREY ROBERTS AND JOHN HENDERSON, SUING ON THEIR OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF THE WEWAYKUM INDIAN BAND (ALSO KNOWN AS THE CAMPBELL RIVER INDIAN BAND) ‑ and between ‑ ROY ANTHONY ROBERTS, C. AUBREY ROBERTS AND JOHN HENDERSON, SUING ON THEIR OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF THE WEWAYKUM INDIAN BAND (ALSO KNOWN AS THE CAMPBELL RIVER INDIAN BAND) ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, RALPH DICK, DANIEL BILLY, ELMER DICK, STEPHEN ASSU AND JAMES D. WILSON, SUING ON THEIR BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF THE WE WAI KAI INDIAN BAND (ALSO KNOWN AS THE CAPE MUDGE INDIAN BAND) (F.C.A.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

The applications for leave to appeal are granted.

Les demandes d’autorisation d’appel sont accordées.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Indians - Real property - Action - Damages - Fiduciary duty of Crown - Reserves - Land claims - Surrender of lands - Monetary compensation - Limitation of Actions - Whether the Court of Appeal erred with respect to the legal test for allotment of Indian Reserves under the Indian Act - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining the legality of an Indian Band resolution transferring a reserve to another Indian Band without surrender of compensation -Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the Crown had met its fiduciary obligation by purporting to transfer a reserve from one Indian Band to another without a surrender, without paying compensation and without divulging the monetary value of the reserve - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that statutory and equitable limitations applied to eliminate an Indian Band’s interest in its reserve and eliminate the Band’s claim for damages for loss of that interest - Whether provincial limitation periods can extinguish the Indian interest in reserve lands by referential incorporation into federal law through s. 39(1) of the Federal Court Act? - Whether the lower courts were correct in determining that the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of British Columbia lacked the power to decide that Campbell River should be allocated I.R. 12, and that the Orders-in-Council that gave effect to that decision contained a “clerical error” that the Court can correct.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27889                    MICHAEL TAYLOR ‑ v. ‑ ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (F.C.A.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejeté.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Constitutional Law - Judicial Immunity - Does a superior court judge enjoy absolute immunity from human rights legislation while acting as a judge - If not, what are the exceptions to common law judicial immunity, having regard to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Charter - Does judicial immunity extinguish the right of a courtroom spectator to freedom from religious discrimination by the presiding judge?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27735                    IVAN VANEK, GEORGINA VANEK AND EVA VANEK, A MINOR BY HER LITIGATION GUARDIAN, GEORGINA VANEK ‑ v. ‑ THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC COMPANY OF CANADA LIMITED, BEATRICE FOODS INC., FAIRLEE FRUIT JUICE LTD. (Ont.)

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

Torts - Negligence -  Duty of care - Foreseeability of nervous shock or mental, emotional and psychological distress - Child swallowing contaminated juice causing parents emotional distress - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario misapplied the legal test of foreseeability as set out in this case - Whether Court of Appeal for Ontario erred at law in interfering with the Trial Judge’s finding of fact, and replacing the Trial Judge’s finding of fact with its own, in the absence of any payable or overriding error on the part of the Trial Judge - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario misapplied and ignored key facts in determining the issue of foreseeability - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in that it applied and followed case law precedent with significantly different facts, and in one case applied and followed the legal test of a foreign jurisdiction with no precedent in Canadian law - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there had been no claim for damages pleaded on behalf of the Plaintiff Georgina Vanek pursuant to the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27803                    RUSSELL KALASHNIKOFF ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (B.C.) (Crim.)

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 - Narcotics - Evidence - Hearsay - Standard of proof - Where an accused is charged with trafficking in cocaine, whether Crown must prove that substance is in fact cocaine - Whether it is proper to forego the usual rules for the admissibility of hearsay evidence in a criminal trial because it would be inconvenient and expensive to abide by the usual rules - Whether the onus and standard of proof in a criminal proceeding require that the Crown establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence it tenders in Court is that same evidence that was seized by the police in the course of the investigation?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27771                    ANAND RISHI PERSAUD ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Ont.) (Crim.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

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

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Hearsay - Principled approach to hearsay - Jury charge - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling that the trial judge was correct in admitting into evidence for their truth eight hearsay statements - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge acted within his discretion in permitting the hearsay statements to go as exhibits into the jury room for deliberations - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not concluding that the trial judge’s instructions directing the jury how to approach the hearsay statements were inadequate and unfair?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27909                    TERRY LEE MEIDEL ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (B.C.) (Crim.)

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 - Extension of time to appeal conviction and sentence - Trial in absentia - Interpretation - Section 431.1 (now s. 475) of the Criminal Code , R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in denying the Applicant’s extension of time to appeal - Whether the learned trial judge erred in law in proceeding against the Applicant in absentia - Whether sentence imposed on the Applicant was disproportionate?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27789                    PANDUIT CORP., PANDUIT (CANADA) LIMITED ‑ v. ‑ THOMAS & BETTS, LIMITED (F.C.A.)

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

Property - Intellectual property - Patents - Trade marks - Application for summary judgment - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law by accepting that a patentee could potentially use trade-mark rights, after the expiry of a patent, to prevent the public from making the very same preferred embodiment as that described and depicted by the inventor of the patent - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law by misunderstanding the nature and role of the preferred embodiment in a patent - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that the so-called doctrine of functionality was developed by the Federal Court to deal with the issue of the use which the public may make of an expired patent?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27873                    HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES’ UNION ‑ v. ‑ CHILDREN AND WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTRE (HEALTH EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA), CO‑OPERATORS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (B.C.)

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

Labour law - Arbitration - Jurisdiction - Collective agreement - Long term disability benefits - Whether the jurisdiction of Arbitration Boards over disputes arising out of the ambit of collective agreements includes the jurisdiction to determine whether employees are eligible to receive long term disability benefits provided in insured group plans mandated by the collective agreements - Whether Arbitration Boards have the jurisdiction to join group plan insurers as parties to arbitration proceedings without their consent, and to order them to pay benefits to eligible employees?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

August 6, 1999

Arbitration Board

(D.R. Munroe Q.C. [Chair], D. Ferguson and V. Carter)

Preliminary award declaring that Arbitration Board  did not have jurisdiction to add the Respondent, Co-operators Life Insurance Company, as a party to the arbitration proceedings

March 3, 2000

Court of Appeal of British Columbia

(Lambert, Southin and Finch JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

April 25, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

27857                    BIRGIT KAJAT ‑ v. ‑ THE SHIP "ARCTIC TAGLU" THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED IN THE SHIP"ARCTIC TAGLU", THE SHIP "LINK 100", THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED IN THE SHIP "LINK 100", SEA‑LINK MARINE SERVICES LTD., MALCOLM BRUCE BROPHY, AND GARY MCKRAE, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT (F.C.A.)

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

Torts - Negligence - Similar fact evidence - Trial judge relies upon similar fact evidence to find a fact in issue - Whether a failure to explicitly state a clear evaluation of whether the similar fact evidence was logically probative constituted an error in law.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27539                    SYNDICAT DES TRAVAILLEURS ET TRAVAILLEUSES DES POSTES ‑ c. ‑ SOCIÉTÉ CANADIENNE DES POSTES  (Qué.)

CORAM:               Les juges L'Heureux‑Dubé, Bastarache et LeBel

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

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

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail - Arbitrage - Preuve - Congédiement - Preuve d’événements postérieurs au congédiement - La Cour d’appel du Québec avait-elle raison de déterminer que l’arbitre de grief, nommé en vertu des dispositions du Code canadien du travail , L.R.C. (1985), ch. L-2 , n’a pas la compétence de recevoir une preuve de faits survenus après le congédiement d’un employé, pour alcoolisme et toxicomanie - Les dispositions du Code canadien du travail  et de la convention collective sont-elles suffisamment distinctes de celles du Code du travail, L.R.Q., ch. C-12, pour justifier la reconnaissance du pouvoir de l’arbitre de se saisir de la preuve de faits postérieurs au congédiement et antérieurs à l’audition du grief?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

27536                    DOROTHY COULOMBE ‑ v. ‑ OFFICE MUNICIPAL D'HABITATION DE POINTE‑CLAIRE (Que.)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit des biens - Baux - Locateurs et locataires - Libertés publiques - Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Bail conclu entre la demanderesse et l’intimé - Clause du bail interdisant la possession d’un animal dans l’immeuble - La règle interdisant les animaux viole-t-elle en l’espèce les art. 1 et 10 (handicap) de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., ch. C-12, et oblige-t-elle l’intimé à offrir à la demanderesse un accommodement raisonnable? - La décision de la Cour du Québec obligeant la demanderesse à se départir de son chat est-elle ultra vires ou manifestement déraisonnable? - La norme de contrôle judiciaire appliquée en l’espèce était-elle appropriée?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

27654                    PREMIER HORTICULTURE LTÉE ‑ c. ‑ DENIS LÉVESQUE  (Qué.)

CORAM:               Les juges L'Heureux‑Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache.

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droits des biens - Baux - Clause de renouvellement - En absence d’erreur déraisonnable ou manifeste du juge de première instance, la Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en s’immisçant dans l’appréciation des faits du juge de première instance?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

27757                    ELWYN PATTERSON, THE MARGINALIZED WORKERS ACTION LEAGUE ‑ v. ‑ ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND MERVIN W.C. HARROWER (B.C.)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Civil rights - Statutes - Interpretation - Regulations - - Right to privacy - Security of the person - Interpretation of the consent portion of the B.C. Benefits (Income Assistance) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 27 application form - B.C. Regulation 123/98 - Whether it is contrary to ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter, and not justifiable under s.  1, to compel persons who rely on welfare to waive privacy rights over a range of biographical information as a condition of receiving welfare - Whether the impugned regulation is ultra vires the Minister's statutory power in that it takes away, by regulation, a right extended under the Act.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27788                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ‑ v. ‑ JACQUES CINOUS (Que.) (Crim.)

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

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Trial - Instructions to the jury - Self-defence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the principles established in R. v. Lavallée, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852 apply in circumstances where a person intentionally kills another in the absence of an assault, and in the presence of a clear opportunity to flee, thus allowing the claim of self-defence in section 34(2) to excuse a pre-emptive strike - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in the test to be applied in determining whether there was an air of reality sufficient to ground the defence of self-defence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27744                    IMPERIAL OIL LIMITED ‑ v. ‑ ERIC S. LLOYD, IAN C. MURDOCH, H.G. DREYER, BERNARD C. CHUNG, DALE D. EIRICH, NORMAN DOUGLAS WILLSON, CAMERON ERNEST PALMER, COLIN LOKKEN LABERGE, JAMES A. COROON, ROBERT W.W. HAMILTON, JOHN MACDONALD, GREGORY DONALD JONES, BRIAN EVAN DODD, WAYNE BIEGLER, GILLES FOURNIER, PETER WEIR, ROGER A. GALLANT, MURRAY LYTLE AND GEORGE THOMAS ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND REPRESENTATIVES OF CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS HAVING CLAIMS AGAINST IMPERIAL OIL LIMITED (Alta.)

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

The motion to adduce new evidence and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.

La demande de présentation de nouveaux éléments de preuve et la demande d’autorisation d’appel sont rejetées avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Civil procedure - Actions - Pre-trial procedure - Respondents suing Applicant with respect to variations in two pension plans - Applicant moving for order setting aside service of amended statement of claim and staying action permanently - Motion challenging jurisdiction of Alberta court over subject matter of action on grounds of res judicata, issue estoppel, collateral attack and adequate alternative remedy - How do doctrines of res judicata, issue estoppel, and collateral attack apply to decisions of administrative tribunals outside criminal law context?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27727                    PIERRE DEVINAT ‑ c. ‑ LA COMMISSION DE L'IMMIGRATION ET DU STATUT DE RÉFUGIÉ  (C.A.F.)

CORAM:               Les juges L'Heureux‑Dubé, Bastarache et LeBel.

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs. The application for leave to cross-appeal is dismissed without costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Mandamus - Article 20 de la Loi sur les langues officielles, L.R.Q. (1985) (4e suppl.), ch. 31 - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en refusant de sanctionner la violation par la Commission de l’immigration et du statut de réfugié  d’une obligation linguistique quasi constitutionnelle, celle que lui impose l’article 20 de la Loi sur les langues officielles, par la délivrance du bref de mandamus demandé qui obligerait la CISR à mettre toutes ses décisions à la disposition du public dans les deux langues officielles?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

27850                    SMITHKLINE BEECHAM ANIMAL HEALTH INC. ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (F.C.A.)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Income tax - Assessment - Procedure - Application to file an Amended Reply to Notice of Appeal - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal and the Tax Court of Canada erred in concluding that the Minister of National Revenue was merely advancing a new argument to support its assessment after the time to reassess under the Income Tax Act has expired - Whether the recent enactment of subsection 152(9) of the Income Tax Act in effect overruled the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Continental Bank of Canada v. Canada, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 358?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27892                    DOUGLAS SLOAN ‑ v. ‑ DAVID J. JOHNSON, MINISTER OF EDUCATION FOR THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, THE YORK REGION DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD, MICHAEL MAGARREY,  AS A PRINCIPAL OF THE YORK REGION DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD, GARY MICHAEL, AS A VICE‑PRINCIPAL OF THE YORK REGION DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD, HELEN FOX, AS A PRINCIPAL OF THE YORK REGION DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD AND FRANCES J. MCKENNA, AS A SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS FOR THE YORK REGION DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD (Ont.)

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

The application for leave to appeal and the motion for a stay of execution are dismissed with costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel ainsi que la requête en sursis d’exécution sont rejetées avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Collective agreement - Arbitration - Jurisdiction - Civil rights - Whether the lower courts erred in considering that the Applicant’s dispute with the Respondent Minister fell under the collective agreement between the Applicant’s union and the Respondent School Board - Whether the lower courts erred in considering that the Applicant’s dispute could be dealt with by an arbitrator - Whether the Respondent Minister’s interpretation of a provision of Section 24 of Regulation 298 of the Education Act is unconstitutional.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

January 27, 1999

Superior Court of Justice (Meehan J.)                             

Application for judicial review dismissed

June 25, 1999

Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court)

(Hartt, Campbell and Wright JJ.)                      

Motion to set aside or vary previous decision dismissed

March 10, 2000

Court of Appeal for Ontario

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

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed

May 4, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal and motion for a stay of execution filed

27591                    ANDRÉE GROLEAU ROBERGE ET CLAUDE ROBERGE ‑ c. ‑ PIERRE PARADIS, JACQUES PARADIS, ANDRÉ PARADIS, MICHELINE PARADIS MATHIEU, LOUISE PARADIS MORENCY, THÉRÈSE PARADIS LACHANCE ET ALBINA PARADIS LONGPRÉ  (Qué.)

CORAM:               Les juges Gonthier, Binnie et Arbour

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Code civil - Législation - Interprétation - Droit des biens - Testaments - Testament olographe - Conditions de forme - Volonté du testateur - Lorsque le tribunal a acquis la certitude qu’un testament olographe contient les dernières volontés du défunt, doit-il refuser ses volontés lorsqu’une exigence de forme n’a pas été suivie?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

27756                    CAIN ELI MERASTY ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Sask.) (Crim.)

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 - Defence - Provocation - Whether the effect of the interval between the racial slurs and the shooting and its effect on the question of provocation was a matter of law to be determined by the Court or a question of fact for the jury - Whether the trier of fact should consider each provocation act in isolation or their combined effect in accordance with R. v. Linney.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27625                    THÉRÉSA DUCHESNE ‑ c. ‑ JEAN‑MARIE PICARD - et - THÉRÈSE PICARD, CAMILLE PICARD, FRANÇOIS PICARD ET NATHALIE PICARD  (Qué.)

CORAM:               Les juges Gonthier, Binnie et Arbour

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Code civil - Interprétation - Droit des biens - Testaments - Testament olographe - Formule de testament préimprimée comportant des inscriptions manuscrites - L’art. 714 du Code civil du Québec, L.Q., 1991, ch. 64, permet-il au tribunal de donner préséance à la volonté de tester, au détriment des conditions essentielles de forme du testament, créant ainsi une quatrième forme de testament, soit le testament judiciaire?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

27525                    656203 ONTARIO INC., DONALD FOLEY AND FRANK YANTHA ‑ v. ‑ SOLOWAY, WRIGHT (Ont.)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Barristers and solicitors - Fees - Assessment of solicitor’s account - Motions judge finding total fees billed by solicitors to be fair and reasonable - Court of Appeal quashing clients’ appeal on basis of estoppel - Whether litigants can make binding agreements to oust statutory jurisdiction of appellate court to hear an appeal - Whether judges appointed pursuant to the Judges Act,  R.S.C. 1985, c. J-1 , may conduct hearings in the nature of arbitrations outside the ordinary process required by the rules of the courts of which they are judges.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27713                    RAJADURAI SAMUEL THANGARAJAN, ANNETTE THANGARAJAN AND WILLIAM THANGARAJAN AND JAMES THANGARAJAN, BY THEIR LITIGATION GUARDIAN, RAJADURAI SAMUEL THANGARAJAN ‑ v. ‑ MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION (F.C.A.)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour 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

Immigration law -  Statutes - Interpretation - Admission to Canada - Inadmissible persons - Mentally retarded boy refused permanent residence in Canada on ground that his admission would create excessive demands on Canadian social services - Whether special education falls within “social services” within meaning of s. 19(1)(a)(ii) of Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27883                    HYDRO‑QUÉBEC ‑ c. ‑ VILLE DE HAMPSTEAD  (Qué.)

CORAM:               Les juges Gonthier, Binnie et Arbour

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Code civil - Procédure - Couronne - Prescription - Immunités et privilèges de la Couronne - Droit municipal - Recours civil contre une municipalité - Législation - Interprétation - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en statuant que la prescription de six mois, contenue à l’article 586 de la Loi sur les cités et villes, est désormais opposable à la Couronne et à ses mandataires, depuis l’entrée en vigueur des articles 2877 et 2925 C.c.Q.? - Art. 2877 et 2925 C.c.Q.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

27763                    FIRM OF KIRKLAND, MURPHY & AIN ‑ v. ‑ JOHN R. WERNIKOWSKI (Ont.)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Bastarache and Arbour JJ.

The motion to add material to the application for leave to appeal is granted.  The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

La requête pour production de documents à ajouter à la demande d’autorisation d’appel est accueillie.  La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural Law - Civil procedure - Striking out a pleading - Abuse of process - Negligence - Criminal lawyer - Collateral attack on final decision of court of competent jurisdiction in previous proceedings - Respondent convicted of two unrelated sexually related crimes - Respondent commenced civil claim against criminal defence lawyer for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty - Whether it is an abuse of process, absent fraud or fresh evidence, to permit a convicted offender, having exhausted his appeals, to re-litigate his criminal conviction by commencing an action against his lawyer for negligence in the conduct of the criminal proceedings - Whether a different test should be applied where the civil action involves allegations of negligence against a lawyer for the conduct of the criminal proceeding, where the criminal conviction involved a sexual offence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27912                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ‑ v. ‑ KEITH ARNOLD WREN (Ont.) (Crim.)

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 - Care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired - Whether act or conduct of the accused in relation to the motor vehicle must create a risk of danger from putting the car in motion or in some other way.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

February 11, 1998

Ontario Court of Justice (MacPhee J.)

Acquittal from charge of being impaired while in the care or control of a motor vehicle

February 10, 1999

Superior Court of Justice (Millette J.)

Summary conviction appeal dismissed

March 14, 2000

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Laskin, Feldman, and  O'Connor JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

May 15, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

27807                    MURRAY ERNEST GREENWOOD, AS ADMINISTRATOR AD LITEM FOR DON WILHELM ‑ v. ‑ VERNON HICKSON, LEONA HICKSON, WILHELM HEILMAN AND MELANIE HEILMAN (Sask.)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Wills - Barrister’s and solicitors - Applicant solicitor negligently drafted will - Gifts to certain beneficiaries, including Respondents, failed due to negligent drafting - Whether Applicant liable to Respondents for failure of testamentary gift - If a duty of care exists, what is the correct remedy - If a duty of care exists, whether the Court of Appeal erred in varying quantum of damages - If a duty of care exists, whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the testator had no contributory liability for Respondents’ loss.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27821                    WAYNE LESLIE BELLEGARDE ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Sask.) (Crim.)

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 - Evidence - Out-of-court statements made by co-accused - Whether the trial judge properly instructed the jury on the use of out-of-court statements made by the Applicant’s co-accused - Powers of court of appeal - Whether the court of appeal erred in substituting a conviction of second degree murder for the conviction of first degree murder received at trial, rather than ordering a new trial - Whether the court of appeal’s actions deprived the Applicant of his right to a trial by a jury of his peers as guaranteed by s. 11(f) of the Charter.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27835                    LYNE PÉRUSSE ‑ c. ‑ LE MINISTRE DU REVENU NATIONAL  (C.A.F.)

CORAM:               Les juges Gonthier, Binnie et Arbour

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Charte canadienne  - Civil - Droit à l’égalité - Assurance-chômage - Emplois exclus - «Personnes liées» - Présomption d’un lien de dépendance - L’alinéa 3(2)c) de la Loi sur L’assurance-chômage viole-t-il l’article 15(1)  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés , compte tenu de l’affaire Law c. Canada (Ministre de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration), [1999] 1 R.C.S. 497?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

18 septembre 1997

Cour canadienne de l'impôt

(Tardif j.c.c.i.)

Appel contre deux déterminations du ministre du Revenu national rejeté

27804                    AUTOBUS THOMAS INC. ‑ c. ‑ SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE  (C.A.F.)

CORAM:               Les juges Gonthier, Binnie et Arbour

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée, frais à suivre.

The application for leave to appeal is granted, costs to follow.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit fiscal - Droit commercial - Capital d’une société - Prêt - Vente - Financement d’inventaires - Marge de crédit - Contrat de vente à tempérament - «Prêts et avances» - Sûreté réelle - Tradition d’argent - Les dettes de la demanderesse reliées au financement d’inventaires d’autobus constituent-elles des prêts et avances en vertu de l’alinéa 181.2(3)c) de la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu? -  Les dettes de la demanderesse reliées au financement d’inventaires d’autobus constituent-elles des dettes visées par l’alinéa 181.2(3)d) de la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

27960                    DARA WILDER ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (B.C.) (Crim.)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

The application for an extension of time and the motions by the applicant to file supplementary argument as well as to file a lengthy reply are granted.  The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande de prorogation de délai ainsi que les requêtes par le demandeur pour production d’arguments additionnels ainsi que production d’une longue réplique sont accordées.  La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal - Criminal Law - Evidence - Whether evidence compelled under Income Tax Act can be used in criminal proceedings.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27945                    WAWANESA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ‑ v. ‑ DONALD BROWN AND EDNA BROWN (Sask.)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Insurance - Evidence - Fresh evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal’s relaxation of the requirement for due diligence by trial counsel in the context of a non-criminal case detrimentally modifies the existing procedural rules pertaining to the introduction of fresh evidence on appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in admitting the fresh evidence and ordering a new trial.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27829                    EMILE DAGHER, SHOUKAT CHOUDRY, MAURICE KHOURY, JOHN LIMNIDIS, WAYNE KING, LUCIEN COURAUD SR. AND ROY HARLAND ‑ v. ‑ MCDONNELL‑RONALD LIMOUSINE SERVICE LIMITED, CARRYING ON BUSINESS AS AIRLINE LIMOUSINE (Ont.)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

The application for an 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

Labour law - Labour Relations - Collective Agreement - Arbitration - Procedural law - Court - Jurisdiction - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the essence of the dispute in question was within the OLRB’s jurisdiction - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to take into account the impact of its decision on non-bargaining unit brokers - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the contractual terms respecting the brokerage fees in the service agreement ceased to govern the parties once the union and employer entered into a collective agreement.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27834                    E.S. FOX LIMITED ‑ v. ‑ MARTIN HAGT, ONTARIO MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND CHRISTOPHER ALBERTYN (Ont.)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent Martin Hagt.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de l’intimé Martin Hagt.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Employment standards - Lay-off - Termination - Severance pay - Interpretation - Section 58(1) of the Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.14 - Whether the interpretation of the Employment Standards Act should be based on the subjective expectations or intentions of the employee, employer or the Ministry of Labour or on an objective basis as determined by the words of the statute?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28035                    VINCENZO CIPOLLONE ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Ont.) (Crim.)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour 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 - Defence - Provocation - Whether the trial judge erred in instructing the jury as to the evidentiary basis for “wrongful act or insult” under s. 232  of the Criminal Code , R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46  - Whether the trial judge erred in failing to specifically instruct the jury that the circumstances of the Applicant’s matrimonial dispute were to be considered when applying the objective and  subjective components of the defence of provocation?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28004                    TERRI‑JEAN BEDFORD ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Ont.) (Crim.)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour 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 - Keeping a common bawdy-house for the purposes of prostitution - Elements of the offence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting “prostitution” under s. 210(1)  of the Criminal Code   - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  (ss. 8 , 24 ) - Remedies - Judicial stay of proceedings - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the manner of the police search and seizure did not justify a stay of proceedings

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28022                    MIL SYSTEMS, A DIVISION OF DAVIE INDUSTRIES INC., FLEETWAY INC. ‑ v. ‑ THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES CANADA, SIEMENS WESTINGHOUSE INC. (F.C.A.)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Standard of Review - Judicial review of decision by Canadian International Trade Tribunal with respect to tender process for government contract - Jurisdiction of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal - Standard of review applicable to decision by Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27607                    DAVID ASKEY ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF HEALTH AND EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICES COMMISSION, AMBULANCE EMPLOYEES' UNION, CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' LOCAL 873 (B.C.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

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

La demande de réexamen de la demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.

25094                    MICHAL PNIAK ‑ v. ‑ LONDON PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, DR. E. RALYEA (Ont.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, L’Heureux-Dubé and Major JJ.

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

La demande de réexamen de la demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

27308                    SALVATORE GRAMAGLIA - v. - ALBERTA FAMILY AND SOCIAL SERVICES (Alta.)

CORAM:               Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.

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

La demande de réexamen de la demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

27479                    610990 ONTARIO INC. and WILLIAM HUTCHINSON  - v. - BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA (Ont.)

CORAM:               Major, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

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

La demande de réexamen de la demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée. .

26836                    URAL DIREK - v. -  ANTHONY DIXON, CARDINAL CAR AND TRUCK RENTAL INC., 458132 ONTARIO LIMITED, carrying on business as DAVE WOOD MAZDA and DAVE WOOD MAZDA LTD. (Ont.)

CORAM:               Major, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

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

La demande de réexamen de la demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.

14.9.2000

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to September 29, 2000.

4.10.2000

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

Sa Majesté la Reine

    c. (27250)

Jean-Pierre Hamelin (Crim.)(Qué.)

Jacques Blais et Carole Lebeuf, pour l’appelante.

M. David Lepofsky and Christopher Webb, for the intervener A.G. for Ontario.

François Dadour et Pierre Poupart, pour l’intimé.

ACCUEILLI / GRANTED

LE JUGE L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ : (oralement)

À la majorité, nous sommes d’avis d’accueillir l’appel.  Contrairement à la Cour d’appel, nous sommes d’avis que le juge du procès ne s’est ni mépris sur l’objectif de l’expertise ni n’a abusé de sa discrétion en disposant du témoignage de l’expert.

En conséquence, l’appel est accueilli à la majorité.

Les juges Iacobucci, Major et Arbour auraient rejeté l’appel et adopté les motifs du juge LeBel de la Cour d’appel.

[Translation] A majority of us would allow the appeal.  Unlike the Court of Appeal, we are of the view that the trial judge neither was mistaken about the purpose of the expert evidence nor abused his discretion in dealing with the expert’s testimony.

The appeal is accordingly allowed by a majority decision.

Iacobucci, Major and Arbour JJ. would have dismissed the appeal and adopted the reasons of LeBel J.A.

5.10.2000

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

J.C.

    v. (27109)

Her Majesty the Queen and David Edward McClure (Crim.)(Ont.)

Anthony Moustacalis and Daniel Lawson, for the appellant.

John M. Rosen, for the intervener the Advocates’ Society.

Christine Bartlett Hughes, for the respondent Her Majesty the Queen.

Maureen Forestell and Samantha G. Peeris, for the respondent David Edward McClure.

Leslie Pringle and Steven Skurka, for the intervener the Criminal Lawyers’ Association.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Criminal law - Barristers and Solicitors - Should the solicitor and client privilege ever yield to the accused’s right to full answer and  defence? - If so, in what circumstances? - What would be the appropriate test?

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel - Avocats - Le droit de l’accusé à une défense pleine et entière peut-il avoir préséance sur le secret professionnel de l’avocat? - Le cas échéant, dans quelles circonstances? - Quel serait le critère approprié?

6.10.2000

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

Kingsley Michael Sutton

     v. (27666)

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

Margaret Gallagher, for the appellant.

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

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Criminal law - Evidence - Hearsay - Charge to jury - Whether this Court’s approach to the “co-conspirator’s exception to the hearsay rule” as set out in R. v. Carter [1982] 1 S.C.R. 938 remains applicable in a trial for a substantive offence - Whether the trial judge was not required as a matter of law to direct the jury to “potentially confirmatory evidence” as part of a Vetrovec warning - Whether a new trial should not have been ordered because the Crown had not shown with certainty that the verdict would have been different.

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel - Preuve - Ouï-dire - Exposé au jury - La démarche adoptée par notre Cour dans l’arrêt R. c. Carter [1982] 1 R.C.S. 938, relativement à « l’exception à la règle du ouï-dire à l’égard des conspirateurs » s’applique-t-elle également dans un procès portant sur une infraction substantielle? - Est-il vrai que le juge du procès n’était pas tenu en droit d’indiquer au jury l’existence d’une «déposition potentiellement corroborante» dans le cadre d’une mise en garde de type Vetrovec? - Est-il vrai que la tenue d’un nouveau procès n’aurait pas dû être ordonnée parce que le ministère public n’avait pas établi de façon certaine que le verdict aurait été différent?

OCTOBER 12, 2000 / LE 12 OCTOBRE  2000

26564                    ANDREW SCOTT DARRACH ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - and - THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MANITOBA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, THE WOMEN’S LEGAL EDUCATION AND ACTION FUND, THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT CENTRES, THE DISABLED WOMEN’S NETWORK OF CANADA AND THE NATIONAL ACTION COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN  (Ont.) (Crim.)  2000 SCC 46 / 2000 CSC 46

CORAM:               McLachlin C.J. and L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier,

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

The appeal is dismissed.  The constitutional questions are answered as follows:

1.             Do ss. 276.1(2) (a) and 276.2(2)  of the Criminal Code  of Canada  infringe upon an accused’s right to silence and the right not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against himself in respect to the offence pursuant to s. 7 and/or s. 11( c )  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

Answer: No.

2.             If the answer to question number one is yes, are the infringements demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter?

Answer: Not applicable.

3.             Do ss. 276(1) , 276(2) (c) and 276.2(2)  of the Criminal Code  of Canada  infringe upon an accused’s right to make full answer and defence pursuant to s. 7 and/or s. 11(d) of the Charter?

Answer: No.

4.             If the answer to question number three is yes, are the infringements demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter?

Answer: Not applicable.

L’appel est rejeté.  Les questions constitutionnelles reçoivent les réponses suivantes:

1.             Les paragraphes 276.1(2)  et 276.2(2)  du Code criminel  du Canada  portent-ils atteinte au droit de l’accusé de garder le silence et à son droit de ne pas être contraint de témoigner contre lui-même dans toute poursuite intentée contre lui pour l’infraction qu’on lui reproche, droits qui lui sont garantis par l’art. 7 et l’al. 11 c )  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  ou par l’une ou l’autre de ces dispositions?

Réponse:               Non.

2.             Si la réponse à la première question est oui, s’agit-il d’atteintes dont la justification peut se démontrer dans le cadre d’une société libre et démocratique conformément à l’article premier de la Charte?

Réponse:               Ne s’applique pas.

3.             Le paragraphe 276(1) , l’al. 276(2) c) et le par. 276.2(2)  du Code criminel  du Canada  portent-ils atteinte au droit de présenter une défense pleine et entière qui est garanti à l’accusé par l’art. 7 et l’al. 11d) de la Charte ou par l’une ou l’autre de ces dispositions?

Réponse:               Non.

4.             Si la réponse à la troisième question est oui, s’agit-il d’atteintes dont la justification peut se démontrer dans le cadre d’une société libre et démocratique conformément à l’article premier de la Charte?

Réponse:               Ne s’applique pas.

26939                    SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE ‑ c. ‑ RENAUD LÉVESQUE  (Qué.) (Crim.) 2000 SCC 47 /

2000 CSC 47

CORAM:               Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges L’Heureux‑Dubé,

Gonthier, Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie et Arbour           

Le pourvoi est accueilli et le jugement de la Cour d’appel du Québec est annulé.  Une peine de huit ans et six mois d’incarcération est substituée à la peine imposée par le juge de première instance.  Madame le juge Arbour est dissidente.

The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec is set aside.  A sentence of imprisonment for eight years and six months is substituted for the sentence imposed by the trial judge.  Madam Justice Arbour is dissenting.

OCTOBER 13, 2000 / LE 13 OCTOBRE 2000

26779                    K.L.W. ‑ v. ‑ WINNIPEG CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES - and - THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MANITOBA AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Man.) (Civil) 2000 SCC 48 / 2000 CSC 48

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

Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

The appeal is dismissed, McLachlin C.J. and Arbour J. dissenting. There is no order as to costs in this Court.  The constitutional questions are answered as follows:

Question 1.            Is s. 21(1) of The Child and Family Services Act, S.M. 1985-86, c. C-80, as amended, in whole or in part inconsistent with, or does it infringe or deny rights guaranteed by, s. 7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

Answer: No.  McLachlin C.J. and Arbour J. would answer yes.

Question 2.            If the answer to this question is yes, is s. 21(1) of The Child and Family Services Act, S.M. 1985-86, c. C-80, as amended, demonstrably justified pursuant to s. 1  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

Answer: In light of the answer to the first question, this question does not arise.  McLachlin C.J. and Arbour J. would answer no.

Le pourvoi est rejeté.  Le juge en chef McLachlin et le juge Arbour sont dissidents.  Aucune ordonnance relative aux dépens n’est rendue dans notre Cour.  Les questions constitutionnelles reçoivent les réponses suivantes:

Question 1.            Le paragraphe 21(1) de la Loi sur les services à l’enfant et à la famille, L.M. 1985-86, ch. C-80 et ses modifications est-il, en totalité ou en partie, incompatible avec les droits garantis par l’art. 7  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés , ou y porte-t-il atteinte?

Réponse:               Non.  Le juge en chef McLachlin et le juge Arbour répondraient oui.

Question 2.            Dans l’affirmative, la justification du par. 21(1) de la Loi sur les services à l’enfant et à la famille, L.M. 1985-86, ch. C-80 et ses modifications, peut-elle se démontrer conformément à l’article premier de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

Réponse:               Vu la réponse à la première question, cette question ne se pose pas.  Le juge en chef McLachlin et le juge Arbour répondraient non.

OCTOBER 12, 2000 / LE 12 OCTOBRE  2000

26570                               HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - v. - JOHN BINIARIS (Crim.)(B.C.)

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

 Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.                                        

The application for extension of time is granted and the motion for a re-hearing is dismissed.

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande de nouvelle audition est rejetée.

Andrew Scott Darrach ‑ v. ‑ Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)(Crim.)(26564)

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

Neutral citation:  2000 SCC 46. / Référence neutre:  2000 CSC 46.

Judgment rendered October 12, 2000 / Jugement rendu le 12 octobre 2000

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

Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights  ‑‑ Fair trial ‑‑ Right to make full answer and defence ‑‑ Sexual assault ‑‑ Evidence of complainant’s sexual activity ‑‑ Whether substantive aspect of s. 276  of Criminal Code  infringing accused’s right to make full answer and defence or his right to a fair trial ‑‑ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7 , 11(d)  ‑‑ Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46, ss. 276(1) , (2) (c), 276.2(2) .

Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights  ‑‑ Right to silence ‑‑ Right not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against oneself ‑‑ Sexual assault ‑‑ Evidence of complainant’s sexual activity ‑‑ Whether procedural aspect of s. 276  of Criminal Code  infringing accused’s right to silence and his right not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against him ‑‑ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7 , 11(c)  ‑‑ Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46, s. 276.1(2) , 276.2(2) .

Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights  ‑‑ Self‑incrimination ‑‑ Voir‑dire ‑‑ Whether s. 13 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  protecting accused against self‑incrimination on voir‑dire ‑‑ Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46, s. 276.2 .

The accused was charged with sexual assault and, at his trial, attempted to introduce evidence of the complainant’s sexual history.  He unsuccessfully challenged the constitutionality of s. 276.1(2) (a) of the Criminal Code  (which requires that the affidavit contain “detailed particulars” about the evidence), ss. 276(1) and 276(2)(c) (which govern the admissibility of sexual conduct evidence generally), and s. 276.2(2) (which provides that the complainant is not a compellable witness at the hearing determining the admissibility of evidence of prior sexual activity).  At the trial proper,  the complainant testified and was cross‑examined.  The defence was allowed a voir dire to introduce evidence about her past sexual activity where the accused presented his own detailed affidavit but refused to be cross‑examined on it.  After the voir dire, the trial judge refused to allow the accused to adduce the evidence of the complainant’s  sexual history.  The accused was subsequently convicted of sexual assault. The Court of Appeal dismissed the accused’s appeal, concluding that the impugned provisions did not violate the accused’s right to make full answer and defence, his right not to be compelled to testify against himself or his right to a fair trial as protected by ss. 7 , 11( c )  and 11( d )  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .

Held:  The appeal should be dismissed.

The current version of s. 276  of the Criminal Code  is in essence a codification by Parliament of the Court’s guidelines in Seaboyer.  Section 276 contains both a substantive part that prevents a complainant’s past sexual activity from being used for improper purposes and a procedural part that enforces this rule.  In view of Seaboyer, the constitutionality of both the rule and the procedure has already been established at a general level.  Section 276 is carefully crafted to comport with the principles of fundamental justice.  It protects the integrity of the judicial process while at the same time respecting the rights of the people involved.

The substantive aspect of s. 276 does not infringe the accused’s s. 7 right to make full answer and defence or his s. 11(d) right to a fair trial.  Far from being a “blanket exclusion”, s. 276(1) only prohibits the use of evidence of past sexual activity  when it is offered to support two specific, illegitimate inferences, namely, that a complainant is more likely to have consented to the alleged assault and that she is less credible as a witness by virtue of her prior sexual experience.  These “twin myths” are simply not relevant at trial.  They are not probative of consent or credibility and can severely distort the trial process.  Because s. 276(1) is an evidentiary rule that only excludes material that is not relevant, it cannot infringe an accused’s right to make full answer and defence. An accused has never had a right to adduce irrelevant or misleading evidence.  Further, the fact that s. 276(2)(c) requires that the evidence tendered to support a permitted inference has “significant probative value” does not raise the threshold for the admissibility of evidence to the point that it is unfair to the accused.  The word “significant”, on a textual level, is reasonably capable of being read in accordance with ss. 7 and 11(d) and the fair trial they protect.  The requirement of “significant probative value” serves to exclude evidence of trifling relevance that, even though not used to support the two forbidden inferences, would still endanger the “proper administration of justice”.  In sum, s. 276 enhances the fairness of the hearing by excluding misleading evidence from trials of sexual offences.  It preserves the accused’s right to adduce relevant evidence that meets certain criteria and so to make full answer and defence.

With respect to the procedural aspect of s. 276, the requirement that an accused present an affidavit and establish on a voir dire that the evidence is admissible in accordance with established criteria does not  infringe his right not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against him, nor a right not to reveal his defence.  The procedure mandated by s. 276 is consistent with the law of evidence and with Seaboyer.  It is a basic rule of evidence that the party seeking to introduce evidence must be prepared to satisfy the court that it is relevant and admissible.  Therefore, if the defence seeks to adduce evidence of sexual activity, it must establish that it supports at least some relevant inference. Further, the particular voir dire required by s. 276 does not offend the principle against self‑incrimination because the requirement that the accused establish a legitimate use for evidence of sexual activity does not compel him to testify. In applications under s. 276, there is free and informed consent when the accused participates in order to exculpate himself.  Where there is neither a legal obligation nor an evidentiary burden on the accused, the mere tactical pressure on the accused to participate in the trial does not offend the principle against self‑incrimination or the right to a fair trial.  Lastly, s. 276 does not offend the presumption of innocence because  nothing in s. 276 obviates the Crown’s basic duty to establish all the elements of a sexual offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 276.1(2)(a) of the Code requires the defence to enter an affidavit with “detailed particulars” of the evidence it seeks to adduce.  The affidavit requirement does not infringe the accused’s right to silence.  The right to silence in s. 7 comprises the right to silence before trial and the privilege against self‑incrimination at trial; it is inaccurate to speak of an absolute right to silence at the trial stage of the criminal process. Moreover, s. 276 does not require the accused to make premature or inappropriate disclosure to the Crown.  The accused is not forced to embark upon the process under s. 276 at all.  If the defence is going to raise the complainant’s prior sexual activity, it cannot do so in such a way as to surprise the complainant.  The right to make full answer and defence does not include the right to defend by ambush. 

If the trial judge is satisfied that the affidavit meets the requirements of s. 276.1, the accused has the right under s. 276.2 of the Code to an in camera hearing to decide whether the evidence is admissible.  The non‑compellability of the complainant at the voir dire and the requirement to submit to cross‑examination on the affidavit do not infringe the accused’s right not to be compelled to testify at his own trial. An accused does not face a legal compulsion to testify and the tactical pressure he encounters is not unfair.  The basic rules of evidence require the accused, having produced his affidavit, to submit to cross‑examination because the right to cross‑examine is essential to give any weight to an affidavit.  An accused’s refusal to submit to cross‑examination on his sworn affidavit in effect reduces its weight to that of an unsworn statement, and it is well settled that an accused cannot make an unsworn statement.  The Crown’s right to cross‑examine on the affidavit under s. 276 is essential to protect the fairness of the trial.  Cross‑examination is required to enable the trial judge to decide relevance by assessing the affiant’s credibility and the use to which he intends to put the evidence. The cross‑examination must be confined to what is necessary to determine whether the evidence is admissible. Furthermore, on the voir dire, s. 13 of the Charter protects an accused against self‑incrimination.  This privilege against self‑incrimination applies because a voir dire is an “other proceeding” within the meaning of s. 13.

The complainant’s non‑compellability at the voir dire is based on sound legislative goals.  To compel the complainant to be examined on her sexual history before the subject has been found to be relevant to the trial would invade the complainant’s privacy and discourage the reporting of crimes of sexual violence.  The right to make full answer and defence, moreover, does not provide a right to cross‑examine an accuser.  The fair trial protected by s. 11(d) is one that does justice to all the parties.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1998), 38 O.R. (3d) 1, 107 O.A.C. 81, 122 C.C.C. (3d) 225, 13 C.R. (5th) 283 (sub nom. R. v. D. (S.A.)), [1998] O.J. No. 397 (QL), dismissing the accused’s appeal from his conviction for sexual assault.  Appeal dismissed.

Lawrence Greenspon and Blair Crew, for the appellant.

Rosella M. Cornaviera and Karen Shai, for the respondent.

Graham R. Garton, Q.C., and Robin Parker, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada.

Joanne Marceau and Marie‑Claude Gilbert, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec.

Cynthia Devine, for the intervener the Attorney General of Manitoba.

Alexander Budlovsky and Marian K. Brown, for the intervener the Attorney General of British Columbia.

Elizabeth Thomas and Carissima Mathen, for the interveners Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres, the Disabled Women’s Network of Canada and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.

Solicitors for the appellant:  Karam, Greenspon, Ottawa.

Solicitor for the respondent:  The Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto.

Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada:  The Department of Justice, Ottawa.

Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec:  The Department of Justice, Sainte‑Foy.