Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

July 21, 2000  1222 - 1324                                                                          2000

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Lewis Joseph Spiterie

Lewis Joseph Spiterie

v. (27521)

Update Management Limited et al. (Ont.)

B.A. Percival, Q.C.

Benson, Percival, Brown

FILING DATE 19.6.2000

D.C.A.

Daniel L. Palamarek

Lister & Associate

v. (27913)

Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

Jack Watson, Q.C.

A.G. of Alberta                       

FILING DATE 16.5.2000

Volf Friedman et al.

v. (27930)

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

Morris Rosenberg

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 16.6.2000

Ville de Beauport

Benoît Pépin

Langlois Gaudreau

c. (27935)

H.L.P. Société en commandite (Qué.)

Claude Jean

Flynn Rivard

DATE DE PRODUCTION 26.5.2000

146726 Canada Inc.

Julius H. Grey

Grey Casgrain

v. (27941)

City of Montreal et al. (Que.)

Serge Barrière

Jalbert, Séguin, Verdon, Caron, Mahoney. g.p.

FILING DATE 26.5.2000

Brenda Marie Johnson-Paquette

Dougald E. Brown

Nelligan Power

v. (27966)

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

Louis Sébastien

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 13.6.2000

Terry Tombran

James Lockyer

Pinkofsky, Lockyer

v. (27969)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Michael Bernstein

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 15.6.2000

Les Entreprises Ab Rimouski Inc. et Aldège Banville

c. (27970)

Sa Majesté la Reine (C.A.F.)

Stéphane Lilkoff

Ministère de la Justice

DATE DE PRODUCTION 14.6. 2000

Rony Alexander Lopez

Eric L. Teed, Q.C.

Teed & Teed

v. (27971)

Her Majesty the Queen (N.B.)

Christopher T. Titus

A.G. of New Brunswick

FILING DATE 16.6.2000

George Desnomie

Joel A. Weinstein

Aikins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson

v. (27972)

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

Gérald L. Chartier

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 16.6.2000

Carol Duguid

Geoffrey T. Mullin

Wardlaw, Mullin, Carter, Thwaites & Ward

v. (27973)

Bank of Montreal (Ont.)

Joshua J. Siegel

Rubenstein, Siegel

FILING DATE 19.6.2000

Ernst Zundel

Douglas H. Christie

v. (27977)

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

Claire A.H. le Riche

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 19.6.2000

Mirjana Stefanovic, Executrix of the Estate of Katrina Keljanovic

Andrew J. MacDonald

Harris & Harris

v. (27978)

Maria Sanseverino (Ont.)

Debra L. Stephens

Hughes, Dorsch, Garland, Coles, Stephens

FILING DATE 19.6.2000

The Honourable Ralph Klein, et al.

David W. Kinloch

A.G. of Alberta

v. (27980)

Barbara Decock, et al. (Alta.)

Clint R. Suntjens

Litwiniuk & Company

FILING DATE 19.6.2000

Association pour la protection des automobilistes

Jacques Castonguay

Castonguay, White, Brassard

c. (27981)

Édutile Inc. (C.A.F.)

Christopher R. Mostovac

Ravinsky Ryan

DATE DE PRODUCTION 16.6.2000

Wayne Leslie Bellegarde

E.F. Anthony Merchant, Q.C.

Merchant Law Group

v. (27821)

Her Majesty the Queen (Sask.)

W.D. Sinclair

A.G. of Saskatchewan

FILING DATE 30.6.2000

Her Majesty the Queen

W.J. Scott Bell

A.G. of British Columbia

v. (27847)

B.J.S. (B.C.)

Bruce F. Fairley

Fairley & Davis

FILING DATE 19.6.2000

Her Majesty the Queen

W.J. Scott Bell

A.G. of British Columbia

v. (27976)

B.J.S. (B.C.)

Bruce F. Fairley

Fairley & Davis

FILING DATE 19.6.2000

Hugh John MacMaster

Hillel David

Aylesworth Thompson Phelan O’Brien LLP

v. (27983)

The Corporation of the Regional Municipality of York (Ont.)

J. Murray Davison, Q.C.

Paterson, MacDougall

FILING DATE 21.6.2000

Laura Bannon

W. Danial Newton

Carrel & Partners

v. (27985)

The Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay (Ont.)

Stephen J. Wojciechowski

Eryou Barristers

FILING DATE 21.6.2000

Patrick Berry et al.

F.J.C. Newbould, Q.C.

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

v. (27992)

Chris Pulley et al. (Ont.)

Dougald E. Brown

Nelligan Power

FILING DATE 26.6.2000

Cherie Gronnerud

Joanne C. Moser

Richmond Nychuk

v. (27993)

Harold Robert (Bud) Gronnerud (Sask.)

David A. Gerrand

Gerrand Rath Johnson

FILING DATE 26.6.2000

Golden Panda Building Products Inc. et al.

Chi-Kun Shi

v. (28000)

Bowne of Canada, Ltd. (Ont.)

Nicolette Holovaci

Banfill Holovaci

FILING DATE 29.6.2000

E.S.

Peter Lindsay

v. (27862)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Philip Downes

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 21.6.2000

Ville de Beaupré

Diane Larose

Bélanger Sauvé

c. (27938)

Station Mont Sainte-Anne Inc. (Qué.)

Richard Laflamme

Huot Laflamme

DATE DE PRODUCTION 30.6.2000

Estate of Marie Vyna Ruman

Kathleen Ruman

v. (27974)

The Municipal Corporation of the City of Yellowknife (N.W.T.)

Elizabeth Hellinga

Gullberg, Weist, MacPherson & Kay

FILING DATE 19.6.2000

D.T.A.

Sylvain Gagnon

c. (27984)

M.E.L. (Qué.)

Ginette Quintal

DATE DE PRODUCTION 5.6.2000

Syndicat national des employés municipaux de Pointe-Claire (CSN)

Serge LaVergne

Sauvé et Roy

c. (27987)

Marc Boisvert et al. (Qué.)

Marc Boisvert

DATE DE PRODUCTION 22.6.2000

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

Guy Bélanger

Ross, Bélanger

c. (27988)

Communauté urbaine de Montréal et al. (Qué.)

Marie Charest

Richer, Charest

DATE DE PRODUCTION 22.6.2000

Procureur général du Canada et al.

Jean-Marc Aubry, c.r.

P. G. du Canada

c. (27989)

Mario Lord et al. (Qué.)

Johanne Mainville

O’Reilly Mainville et Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION 22.6.2000

James King

John W. Clarke

Learmonth, Dunne & Clarke

v. (27990)

Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities et al. (Nfld.)

Randall Pelletier

Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities

FILING DATE 23.6.2000

The North West Company Inc.

Harold M. Smith

Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales

v. (27991)

Construction General Labourers et al. (Nfld.)

Douglas A. Moores, Q.C.

Moores, Andrews

FILING DATE 26.6.2000

Serge Tremblay

c. (27994)

Ville de Forestville (Qué.)

Sonia Bérubé

Cain, Lamarre, Casgrain, Wells

DATE DE PRODUCTION 26.6.2000

Dame Elham Azar

Franck Laveaux

c. (28001)

Gestion Hassake-Holdings Inc. et al. (Qué.)

Pierre Magnan

Marchand Magnan Melançon Forget

DATE DE PRODUCTION 30.6.2000

Dr. V.I. Fabrikant

Dr. V.I. Fabrikant

v. (28005)

M.A. Hyppolite (Qué.)

Josée Paquin

Côté & Ouellet

FILING DATE 4.7.2000

Mlhrali Celik

Mlhrali Celik

Oxford Building Maintenance Engineering

v. (28006)

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

Eugene Mazzuca

Blaney, McMurtry, Stapells, Friedman

FILING DATE 5.7.2000

Ernst Zundel

Douglas H. Christie

v. (28008)

Sabina Citron et al. (F.C.A.)

Robert P. Armstrong, Q.C.

Tory Tory DesLauriers & Binnington

FILING DATE 5.7.2000

Ernst Zundel

Douglas H. Christie

v. (28009)

Sabina Citron et al. (F.C.A.)

Robert P. Armstrong, Q.C.

Tory Tory DesLauriers & Binnington

FILING DATE 5.7.2000

Mlhrali Celik

Mlhrali Celik

Oxford Building Maintenance Engineering

v. (28010)

The St. Paul Insurance Companies formerly known as United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (Ont.)

William G. Woodward

Dyer, Brown

FILING DATE 7.7.2000

Gérald Larose et al.

Mario Évangéliste

Sauvé et Roy

c. (28011)

Réjean Fleury (Qué.)

Réjean Fleury

DATE DE PRODUCTION 10.7.2000

Peter John Stark

Anil K. Kapoor

v. (27975)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Susan L. Reid

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 30.6.2000

Nicholas Y. Bonamy

Nicholas Y. Bonamy

v. (28003)

Correctional Service Canada (F.C.A.)

Bruce W. Gibson

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 30.6.2000

Terri - Jean Bedford

David L. Corbett

Eberts Symes Street & Corbett

v. (28004)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Scott C. Hutchison

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 5.7.2000

Patrick Kelly

Clayton C. Ruby

Ruby & Edwardh

v. (28007)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Paul S. Lindsay

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 6.7.2000

Alan Emmette Simmons

John Norris

Ruby & Edwardh

v. (27979)

The United States of America (Ont.)

David Littlefield

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 19.6.2000

Brentwood Pioneer Holdings Ltd.

P.W. Klassen

Crease Harman & Company

v. (28013)

Provincial Agricultural Land Commission (B.C.)

J.K. McEwan

Farris Vaughan Wills & Murphy

FILING DATE 14.7.2000

Hung Quoc Hoang

Hersh Wolch

Wolch, Wilson & Dewit

v. (28014)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Robert J. Frater

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 14.7.2000

JUNE 26, 2000 / LE 26 JUIN 2000

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Major

Bruce Curt Mulligan

v. (27726)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sexual assault and sexual touching- Charge to jury - Whether accused entitled to have jury instructed on issue of consent where it was not raised as a defence - Whether staying of charge on which accused convicted nullifies complaint concerning breach of procedural rights where accused was absent for part of trial - Whether introduction of prejudicial evidence by Crown on cross-examination constitutes a violation of accused’s s. 7 rights or a reversible error.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mary Francis Cooper

v. (27880)

Robert J. Hobart and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia

- and -

Brian William Slobogian, Onalee Robin Slobogian, Frank Biller, Michelle Marie Biller, Eron

Mortgage Corporation, Eron Financial Services, Eron Investment Corporation, Eron Investment (#2)

Corporation, 543219 B.C. Ltd., 509994 B.C. Ltd., 509097 B.C. Ltd., 496622 B.C. Ltd., 534170 B.C. Ltd.,

Rocke Wightman, Alan Samuel McLean, Curtis William Lehner, Kevin Robert Brown, Young Robert Lee,

Trevor Slobogian, Lance Lindsay Coulson, Kerry Kristopher Wade Nagy, Ken Robert Jenkins, Debra Lyn

Gallie, Gordon Douglas Carter, Garry Robert Dukelow, Renate Morell, Russell Jennings,

Douglas Frederick Jackie, David Nairne and Ian Wragge (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence - Duty of care - Procedural law - Actions - Class proceedings - Applicant and others losing money in respect of investments made through mortgage broker licensed under Mortgage Brokers Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 313 - Applicant bringing action alleging that Registrar breached his duty of care and was negligent in failing to suspend mortgage broker’s licence earlier and in failing to notify persons that mortgage broker was under investigation - Chambers judge certifying Applicant’s action as a class proceeding - Whether a statutory regulator owes a private law duty of care to members of the investing public for alleged negligence in failing to properly oversee the conduct of an investment company licensed by the regulator.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Eric Martin Johnston

v. (27911)

Theodora Maria Johnston and Philip Harris (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family law - Division of property - Whether owner of investment property entitled to claim resulting or constructive trust to make non-titled spouse a co-owner for the purposes of equalization of net family property - Procedural law - Courts - Whether Court of Appeal erred in not finding a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the trial judge.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Privacy Commissioner of Canada

v. (27846)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes - Interpretation - Privacy - Customs and Excise - Employment Insurance -  Legislation disentitles employment insurance recipients from receiving benefits during a period in which they are absent from Canada - Pursuant to an agreement, the Department of National Revenue disclosed travellers’ personal information to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission with the purpose of detecting employment insurance beneficiaries receiving benefits while out of Canada - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in finding that the disclosure of “personal information” by the Department of National Revenue to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission pursuant to the Ancillary Memorandum of Understanding for data capture and release of information on travellers was authorized by section 8  of the Privacy Act  and section 108  of the Customs Act - Whether in view of the restrictions on the use of personal information in the Privacy Act , does paragraph 108(1) (b) of the Customs Act provide the Minister with authority to disclose personal information to the Commission for use in an investigative data match program - Whether the Minister properly authorized the disclosure of personal information in the Traveller Declaration Forms to the Commission for use in an investigative data match program - Privacy Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. P-21, ss. 7 , 8  - Customs Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-1, s. 108.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Deborah Smith

v. (27844)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Civil - Privacy - Customs and Excise - Employment Insurance - Legislation disentitles unemployment insurance recipients from receiving benefits during a period in which they are absent from Canada - The Applicant, an unemployment insurance recipient failed to inform the Canada Employment Insurance Commission of her absence from Canada - Pursuant to an agreement, the Department of National Revenue disclosed travellers’ personal information to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission with the purpose of detecting employment insurance beneficiaries receiving benefits while out of Canada - Whether the disclosure by the Department of National Revenue to the Canada Employment and Insurance Commission of personal information from the Applicant’s Traveller Declaration Form and the use of this information in the data match program, and subsequently, as evidence against the Applicant, contravenes the Applicant’s right to be secure from unreasonable search or seizure under section 8  of the Charter  and if so, whether the evidence should have been excluded under subsection 24(2)  of the Charter  - Whether the provision in the Unemployment Insurance Act which disentitles the Applicant from receiving benefits while outside of Canada infringes the Applicant’s mobility rights under subsection 6(1)  of the Charter 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache et LeBel

Fayez Nasser

v. (27879)

Monika Mayer‑Nasser (also known as Monika Mayer) (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family law - Division of property - 23-year common-law relationship - Unjust enrichment - Applicant found to have been unjustly enriched - Whether there was unjust enrichment - Whether the Respondent was adequately compensated for her services - Whether the remedy awarded for the unjust enrichment was consistent with Peter v. Beblow, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 980.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Efraim Bagola

v. (27691)

Elyahu Ovadya (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Partnership - Remedies - Purchase of condominium units - Application of partnership principles to the facts of the case - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the parties were partners - Whether the existence of a partnership creates an automatic obligation on each person who is a party to the partnership to contribute equally to the partnership in the absence of any agreement providing for same between those same persons - Whether there was a special arrangement outside the scope of partnership law - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law and/or in fact.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Me André Ronald Comeau

c. (27692)

Me Louise Comeau, ès qualités de syndic du Barreau du Québec (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail - Droit des professions - Discipline professionnelle - Interprétation des lois - Droit transitoire - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en privant les tribunaux judiciaires spécialisés du droit de juger toutes questions de droit transitoire et, par extension, toutes questions de procédure émanant de législations concernant les organismes sur lesquels les tribunaux judiciaires spécialisés ont juridiction - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en interprétant l’article 12 de la Loi d’interprétation, L.R.Q., ch. I-16, comme l’autorisant à appliquer mutatis mutandis des dispositions s’appliquant à d’autres corporations professionnelles que celle du Barreau - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en décidant comme elle l’a fait alors que le législateur avait décidé de créer un régime spécial pour les membres du Barreau, accusés d’un acte criminel, en référant leur cas non pas, comme pour les autres professions, à un comité de discipline, mais bien en le confiant au Bureau de l’Ordre des avocats lui-même - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en généralisant la situation du requérant-appelant, alors qu’il s’agit d’un cas d’espèce : situation que le Tribunal des professions avait bien saisie?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Groupe Tremca inc. et Jagna Limited

c. (27657)

Techno Bloc inc. (C.A.F.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit des professions - Avocats et procureurs - Conflit d’intérêts - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle erré en ne tenant pas compte du droit fondamental d'un justiciable de ne pas être privé sans raison valable de son droit de retenir les services de l'avocat de son choix? - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle erré en ne traitant pas de la renonciation de l'intimée à soulever le conflit d'intérêts? - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle erré en ne reconnaissant pas qu'il y avait eu renonciation à soulever le conflit d'intérêts dans le présent dossier? - Succession MacDonald c. Martin, [1990] 3 R.C.S. 1235.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Kenneth M. Narvey

v. (27785)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Clarification - Clarification of Order - Inherent power of a court to clarify an order notwithstanding the absence of specific rules - Representation of a group by a non-solicitor - Did the Federal Court of Appeal err by refusing to issue clarification of its reasons in a previous decision?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

December 21, 1998

Federal Court of Canada (Trial Division)

(Noël J.)

Decision: Respondent Dueck allowed to keep his citizenship

March 16, 1999

Federal Court of Canada (Trial Division)

(Noël J.)

Motions by the Coalition and the Applicant for standing to seek reconsideration of the Order and clarification of the reasons of the Trial Division, dismissed

September 3, 1999

Federal Court of Appeal

(Desjardins J.)

Motion by the Coalition and the Applicant for leave to be represented by the Applicant rather than by a solicitor, and for leave for the Applicant, to act in person rather than be represented by a solicitor in that capacity, dismissed

November 5, 1999

Federal Court of Appeal

(Desjardins J.)

Motion for clarification of stated reasons of September 3rd, 1999 dismissed

March 6, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for an extension of time to file a leave application and application for leave to appeal filed

CORAM:   Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Binnie et Arbour

Alexander William Hart

v. (27784)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian  Charter  - Criminal - Criminal law - Right to a fair trial - Right to make full answer and defence - Cross-examination of a largely unresponsive child witness - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its characterization of the common law rule regarding the admission of evidence of a non-responsive witness, especially a non-responsive child witness - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to require a proper inquiry into the fairness of the trial process by the trial judge -  Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to conduct its own inquiry into the fairness of the trial process - If so, whether these failures violated the Applicant’s Charter  rights under ss. 7 and 11(d) - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider the competence of counsel at trial where trial counsel had carriage of the appeal?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Tai Huan Do

c. (27805)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit criminel - Preuve - Admissibilité de déclarations - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en maintenant que le juge de première instance pouvait juger comme libre et volontaire une déclaration verbale de cinq heures sans prise de notes ni enregistrement? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en maintenant que le juge de première instance pouvait juger comme libre et volontaire qu’une déclaration verbale de cinq heures pendant la nuit, sans notes ni enregistrement, ne viole pas le droit au silence ni le droit à une défense pleine et entière de l’article 7  de la Charte  ni le droit à l’avocat de l’article 10 b )  de la Charte ? -  La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en ne considérant pas que les erreurs manifestes du juge du procès l’ont empêché de saisir un aspect important de la preuve entraînant ainsi un verdict déraisonnable? -  La Cour d’appel du Québec et la Cour du Québec ont-elles erré en droit en refusant la demande d’arrêt des procédures au motif du manquement du ministère public de divulguer à la défense l’identité d’un témoin à charge? -  Le juge de première instance a-t-il manifestement erré en déclarant comme libre et volontaire la déclaration du demandeur au syndic de son ordre professionnel, car cette déclaration était imposée par le Code des professions du Québec, sous peine de sanction pénale et disciplinaire?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Walter Schepanow

v. (27733)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario,

Bohdan Zarowsky and Eugenia Karnauh (Executors of the Estate of Peter Starodub),

Mitchell Bardyn Zalucky - Ihor Bardyn, Victor Lishchyna, Yaroslav Mikitchook,

McMillan Binch - Brad Hanna, John Tamming, Markle May Phibbs - Richard Evenson,

Dundalk District Credit Union Limited, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce,

Bank of Montreal and Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.) (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian  Charter  - Civil - Section 24 relief - Procedural law - Courts - Jurisdiction - Actions found outside jurisdiction of Court - Appeal from orders declaring actions to be vexatious - Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in refusing to consider that the Applicant’s Charter  damages tort, ground in the tort of conspiracy, was “new law” - Whether legal argument ought to have been allowed - Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred by re-inventing the “burden of proof” and the principles of fundamental justice to deny the relief sought under Section 24  of the Charter  - Whether the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Federal Court of Appeal “vacated the field” rather than provide a recorded ruling on the Applicant’s Charter  damages tort - Whether the Federal Court, Trial Division and the Federal Court of Appeal violated the Applicant’s Charter  rights guaranteed under ss. 2, 7, 11( d ) , and 15(1)  - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal finding that the Applicant was vexatious was proper given that the Ontario Court of Appeal had ruled that the Applicant’s conduct and actions were not vexatious in accessing the Estates and Trust Acts.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Jamshid Farhadi

v. (27955)

The Minister of Citizenship & Immigration (F.C.A.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Immigration law - Judicial review - Natural and fundamental justice - Determination that the Applicant constituted a danger to the public in Canada - Removal decision made by an expulsions officer -  What is nature and scope of the protection against torture afforded to persons under Canadian law? - What is the manner in which societal and individual interests are assessed in the context of the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 and in the context of the establishment of a justification for a Charter  right infringement under section 1  of the Charter of Rights .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Thierry Van Doosselaere, Frans G.A. de Roy, as trustees in bankruptcy of Antwerp Bulkcarriers, N.V.

v. (27905)

Holt Cargo Systems Inc., Container Applications International Inc. (Que.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

International Law - Commercial Law - Conflict of Laws - Bankruptcy - To which Canadian court a request for assistance made by a foreign bankruptcy court should be addressed - Whether judgments of Canadian courts exercising bankruptcy jurisdiction should be paramount where bankruptcy matters are involved, regardless of which Canadian court is first seized - Appropriate judicial response to a request for assistance from a foreign bankruptcy court seeking to adopt a “universal” approach to an international bankruptcy.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

JULY 4, 2000 / LE 4 JUILLET 2000

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Major

Jean‑Guy Fournier

v. (27881)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law - Evidence - Admissibility of involuntary statements  - Defence of dissociation - Trial Court ruling statements involuntary and inadmissible as to whether accused committed the murder but admissible as evidence of the accused’s state of mind  - Whether statements ruled involuntary can be used to determine whether an accused  person possessed the requisite intent for murder.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Earl Francis Penfold

v. (27794)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian  Charter  - Criminal - Unlawful search and seizure (s. 8) -  Detention - Excessive force - Search warrant not issued to particular person but to police force at a city - Police dog used in course of search - Charter  found to be breached and  evidence gathered as result of search found to be inadmissible - Whether search warrant issued pursuant to s. 11  of the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act  is invalid if it is not issued to a named peace officer - Alternatively, whether s. 11  of Controlled   Drugs and Substances Act , in so far as it relates to searches of dwelling houses, is inconsistent with s. 8  of the Charter  - Whether physical force used by the police, in particular having a police dog attack the applicant, did not constitute excessive force in the circumstances - Whether, even assuming excessive force, the evidence obtained via the search should not be excluded pursuant to s. 24(2)  of the Charter .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Russell Kalashnikoff

v. (27803)

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

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

Greater Europe Mission (Canada)

v. (27696)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Excise Tax Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. E-15 , Part IX- Charities - Whether s. 260 of the GST legislation is incapable of literal application and is ambiguous, such that it must be interpreted having regard to the scheme of that legislation as it relates to exported services and goods and the intent of Parliament - Whether services received by a charity in Canada are capable of being “exported” within the meaning of s. 260(1)(c) - Whether services received by a charity in Canada and which directly support the charity’s overseas charitable activities are “exported” within the meaning of s. 260(1)(c) - Whether services received by a charity in Canada in the course of exporting property overseas are “exported” within the meaning of s. 260(1)(c) - Whether services performed outside Canada in the course of administering an overseas charitable activity are for “charitable purposes outside Canada” within the meaning of s. 260(1)(c).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

World Relief Canada

v. (27694)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Excise Tax Act,  R.S.C., 1985, c. E-15 , Part IX - Charities - Whether s. 260 of the GST legislation is incapable of literal application and is ambiguous, such that it must be interpreted having regard to the scheme of that legislation as it relates to exported services and goods and the intent of Parliament - Whether services received by a charity in Canada are capable of being “exported” within the meaning of s. 260(1)(c) - Whether services received by a charity in Canada and which directly support the charity’s overseas charitable activities are “exported” within the meaning of s. 260(1)(c) - Whether services received by a charity in Canada in the course of exporting property overseas are “exported” within the meaning of s. 260(1)(c) - Whether services performed outside Canada in the course of administering an overseas charitable activity are for “charitable purposes outside Canada” within the meaning of s. 260(1)(c).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache et LeBel

Joan Mohammed

v. (27690)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by Treasury Board (F.C.A.)

AND BETWEEN:

Rose O'Hagan, Susan Field, Janice Nachtegaele, Edith Nelson

v. (27690)

Attorney General of Canada (Solicitor General‑Correctional Service of Canada) (F.C.A.)

AND BETWEEN:

Ross Robert Boutilier

v. (27690)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour Law - Statutes - Interpretation - Collective agreement - Grievance - Administrative procedure for redress - Whether grievances with human rights aspects may be referred to adjudication under the Public Service Staff Relations Act  - Public Service Staff Relations Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. P-35, ss. 91 , 92  - Canadian Human Rights Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6 .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

October 30, 1995

Public Service Staff Relations Board

(A.S. Burke, Board Member)

File O’Hagan: Grievances dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

April 15, 1997

Public Service Staff Relations Board

(P.Chodos, Deputy Chairperson)

File Mohammed: Grievance dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

June 4, 1997          

Public Service Staff Relations Board

(Y. Tarte, Chairperson)                                               

File Boutilier: Grievance allowed

June 16, 1998

Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division

(Cullen J.)

File Mohammed: Application for judicial review dismissed

November 13, 1998

Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division

(McGillis J.)

File Boutilier: Application for judicial review allowed

January 11, 1999

Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division

(Wetston J.)

File O’Hagan: Application for judicial review dismissed

December 2, 1999

Federal Court of Appeal

(Stone, Linden, and Sexton JJ.A.)

Appeals dismissed

January 5, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

File Mohammed: Application for leave to appeal filed

January 31, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

File O’Hagan: Application for leave to appeal filed

January 31, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

File Boutilier: Application for leave to appeal filed

Lévesque Automobile Limitée

c. (27730)

Adéodat Denis et Me Robert Levac (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail - Employeur et employé - Plainte de congédiement sans cause juste et suffisante - La Cour d’appel a–t-elle erré en modifiant la décision du juge de la Cour supérieure sans faire état d’aucune erreur de la part de ce dernier dans sa décision qui, à l’aide de raisons spécifiques, cassait celle du Commissaire du travail? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en ordonnant à la demanderesse de réintégrer l’employé dans son emploi malgré la fermeture de l’entreprise? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en retournant le dossier au Commissaire pour qu’il dispose de la question de l’indemnité étant donné l’erreur manifestement déraisonnable quant à la somme à payer mais tout en déterminant à l’avance ladite somme? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en ne faisant aucunement état des allégations de l’employeur du non-respect des règles de justice naturelle par le Commissaire quant à l’empêchement de l’employeur de présenter une preuve et quant à l’attitude cavalière et non respectueuse et empreinte de partialité de la part du Commissaire?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Elio Cannella, Kelly Ann Kennedy, Anita Patel, Lenino Siciliano (by his litigation guardian Massimo Siciliano) and Monica Wright

v. (27705)

The Toronto Transit Commission and the City of Toronto (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Civil - Right to equality - Public transportation -  Respondent Transit Commission operating Wheel-Trans, a specialized door-to-door service for persons unable to use conventional transit - Applicants found by Commission to be ineligible for Wheel-Trans under new criteria adopted in 1996 - Divisional Court dismissing Applicants’ motion to quash Commission’s decision - Whether Divisional Court erred in failing to find that Applicants suffered an infringement of their rights under s. 15 and/or s. 7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Rashid Aziz

v. (27824)

United Used Auto & Truck Parts Ltd., VECW Industries Ltd., Seiler Holdings Ltd. and

United Used Auto Parts (Storage Div.) Ltd., Ernst & Young Inc., Canadian Western Bank, Century Services Inc., Royal Bank of Canada, Clarica Life Insurance Company, City of Surrey, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, International Union of Operating Engineers

and Local 115 (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Creditor and debtor -  Priorities - Cured lenders obtaining order to sell mortgaged lands of operating business - Stay of execution enforcement proceedings granted under Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act - Application to set aside the ex parte Initial Stay Order dismissed and priority granted with respect to certain expenses of Monitor and Petitioners - Application to set aside the ex parte Initial Stay Order dismissed - Whether a court has jurisdiction to grant priority to funding for a reorganization under the CCAA ahead of secured creditors without their consent.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

November 8, 1999

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Tysoe J.)

Order: Application for an ex parte order under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act staying all execution enforcement proceedings against the Respondents granted

November 19, 1999

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Tysoe J.)

Order: Application to set aside the ex parte Initial Stay Order dismissed

January 27, 2000

Court of Appeal of British Columbia

(Rowles, Prowse, and Mackenzie JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

March 27, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

CORAM:   Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Binnie et Arbour

Clément Mukoko Mbaka Mankwe

c. (27791)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

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

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Dr. Arif Hayat

v. (27698)

Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Colleges & universities - Did the Court of Appeal owe a greater degree of judicial deference the Divisional Court’s decision in judicial review? - What is the appropriate standard of review of a tribunal that exercises a statutory power of decision when it defines the scope of its jurisdiction? -  Did the Tribunal act without jurisdiction or err in law when it decided that in reaching its decision, it was not bound to require compliance with the terms of the grading policy, and that it could approve of a change in the methods of evaluation that was not permitted by the Policy? - Was it manifestly unfair to require that the Applicant successfully complete a further evaluation process, after he had successfully completed the announced and established evaluations?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Friends of the West Country Association

v. (27644)

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and

Director, Marine Programs, Canadian Coast Guard (F.C.A.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Statutes - Interpretation - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that a federal environmental assessment should focus on a consideration of environmental effects that are within federal jurisdiction - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that s.15  of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act,  S.C. 1992, c. 37 , as amended, does not require an environmental assessment to consider all interdependent parts of a project - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to rule on the Applicant’s arguments concerning s. 15(1) of CEAA, based on its finding that the Applicant was required to cross-appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s. 16(3) of the CEAA in a manner that confers discretion on federal authorities to disregard cumulative environmental effects which otherwise fall within the mandatory requirements of s. 16(1)(a).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

John Hollick

v. (27699)

The City of Toronto (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Action - Application for Certification of Act as a Class Proceeding - Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6, s. 5 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in denying certification - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that this case raised no “common issues” - Whether a class action for environmental pollution is inherently unmanageable - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to follow the case law - Whether the claim for public nuisance by definition is appropriate for a class action - Whether the court has a discretion to deny certification on grounds other than those expressly stated in s. 5 of the Act.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

JULY 10, 2000 / LE 10 JUILLET 2000

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Major

Konrad Kovacevic

v. (27886)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Reasonable doubt - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in concluding that the instruction that the learned trial judge gave to the jury on the meaning of reasonable doubt was correct and in accordance with this Court’s decision in Regina v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320 - Whether there are conflicting appellate court decisions on the issue of the “inarticulate juror” instruction - Whether  the “in the system” doctrine as set out by the Court in Regina v. Wigman, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 246 and Regina v. Thomas, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 713 applies.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Frederick W. L. Black

v. (27837)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Procedure - Appeal of interlocutory decisions - Whether the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal erred by failing to apply the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  in relation to the Criminal Code  in a clear case of abuse of process of police powers and an abuse in the process of the administration of justice.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Daigeun Rhee

v. (27863)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that the learned trial judge had not committed reversible error in his definition of reasonable doubt to the jury - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in regards to the issue of the  retroactivity of “incremental” changes in the law - Whether the Court of Appeal, by refusing to follow appellate authority from Ontario, effectively created a “dual standard” for jury charges in Canada contrary to the principles of fundamental justice enshrined in section 7  of the Canadian Charter of   Rights and Freedoms .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Royal Donald McCormack

v. (27793)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Statutes - Interpretation - Whether the warrantless search of the Applicant’s apartment was authorized by s. 11(7)  of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , R.S.C. 1996, c. 19  - R. v. Silveira, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Molson Breweries, A Partnership

v. (27839)

John Labatt Limited and Labatt Brewing Company Limited (F.C.A) (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Trade marks - Registrability - Distinctiveness - The word “EXPORT” found not to be distinctive of the Applicant’s brewed alcoholic beverage - Whether the word “EXPORT” was correctly seen as not registrable by the Court of Appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal should have considered whether the word “EXPORT” possesses a separate significance for trade-mark purposes, notwithstanding the fact that it is displayed with the house mark “MOLSON” - Whether the Court of Appeal should have given weight to an admission against interest by the Respondents - Whether the Court of Appeal should have given weight to the Applicant’s uncontradicted evidence of acquired distinctiveness - Whether that evidence was self-serving - Whether the Court of Appeal should have deferred to the lower court’s findings of fact on the question of acquired distinctiveness.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache et LeBel

Robert Blaine Tews

v. (27734)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law - Evidence - Waiver of  voir dire - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Applicant’s statements to the police be admitted as evidence without the necessity of a waiver directly from the accused - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no obligation on the Crown to establish on the record that the Applicant waived the right to have a  voir dire to determine the voluntariness of the Applicant’s statement

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (27788)

Jacques Cinous (Crim.)(Que.)

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

Réjean Vachon

c. (27703)

Caisse Desjardins Lachine/St‑Pierre (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Droit commercial - Procédure civile - Chose jugée - Appel à caractère abusif ou dilatoire - Obligation de conseil et de loyauté d’une caisse populaire - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en concluant à un appel abusif ou dilatoire? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en concluant qu’il y avait chose jugée? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en refusant de considérer l’entente du 30 mai 1997 du simple fait que le demandeur était en défaut? - Code de procédure civile, L.R.Q., ch. C-25, art. 165(1) et 501(5).

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Sidbec‑Dosco (ISPAT) Inc.

c. (27716)

Commission des lésions professionnelles, Jean‑Claude Danis

-et-

Raymond Gemme (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail - Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Norme de contrôle applicable - Accidents du travail - Législation - Interprétation - Mesure discriminatoire - La Commission d’appel en matière de lésions professionnelles a-t-elle excédé sa compétence en important dans le cadre de son interprétation de l’art. 32 de la Loi sur les accidents du travail et les maladies professionnelles la notion de discrimination non intentionnelle ou par suite d’un effet préjudiciable introduite par l’arrêt Andrews c. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 R.C.S. 143 rendu en matière de droits et libertés? -  La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en omettant de considérer l’impact de la référence à l’arrêt Andrews sur l’ensemble de la décision R-3 de la Commission d’appel en matière de lésions professionnelles et sur le critère de révision judiciaire applicable? -  L’interprétation qu’a donnée la Commission d’appel en matière de lésions professionnelles à la notion de «mesure discriminatoire» retrouvée à l’art. 32 de la Loi sur les accidents du travail et les maladies professionnelles et confirmée par la Cour d’appel, est-elle manifestement déraisonnable?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Sidbec‑Dosco (ISPAT) Inc.

c. (27718)

Commission d'appel en matière de lésions professionnelles et Me Jean‑Yves Desjardins

   -et-

    Clermont Gagné, Michel Cusson, Serge Picard, Bernard Séguin, Giussepe Pichirallo, Robert Powney, Benito Carmosino, Rolland Brabant (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail - Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Norme de contrôle applicable - Accidents du travail - Législation - Interprétation - Mesure discriminatoire - La Commission d’appel en matière de lésions professionnelles a-t-elle excédé sa compétence en important dans le cadre de son interprétation de l’art. 32 de la Loi sur les accidents du travail et les maladies professionnelles la notion de discrimination non intentionnelle ou par suite d’un effet préjudiciable introduite par l’arrêt Andrews c. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 R.C.S. 143 rendu en matière de droits et libertés? -  La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en omettant de considérer l’impact de la référence à l’arrêt Andrews sur l’ensemble de la décision R-3 de la Commission d’appel en matière de lésions professionnelles et sur le critère de révision judiciaire applicable? -  L’interprétation qu’a donnée la Commission d’appel en matière de lésions professionnelles à la notion de «mesure discriminatoire» retrouvée à l’art. 32 de la Loi sur les accidents du travail et les maladies professionnelles et confirmée par la Cour d’appel, est-elle manifestement déraisonnable?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 14 décembre 1995

Commission d’appel en matière de lésions professionnelles

(Desjardins, commissaire)

Appels des décisions du Bureau de révision accueillis; plaintes des mis en cause accueillies

CORAM:   Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Binnie et Arbour

Jean‑Denis Côté

c. (27656)

Sa Majesté la Reine  (C.A.F.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Code civil - Droit fiscal - Régime matrimonial - Régime de la communauté de biens réduite aux acquêts - Droit de propriété sur les biens de la communauté - Gain de capital - Les principes établis dans l’arrêt Sura c. M.N.R., [1962] R.C.S. 65 sont-ils toujours applicables? - Lequel des époux doit être imposé sur le gain en capital résultant de la disposition d'actions provenant de la masse commune d'un régime de communauté de biens? - Code civil du Bas Canada, art. 1292.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Roger Guignard

c. (27704)

Ville de St‑Hyacinthe (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Charte canadienne  - Civil - Libertés publiques - Liberté d’expression - Règlement municipal - Enseigne publicitaire - “Contre-publicité” - Les juridictions inférieures ont-elles erré en droit en concluant que l’article 14.1.5 p) du Règlement de zonage de la Ville de Saint-Hyacinthe constituait une violation justifiée de la liberté d’expression du demandeur, à titre de consommateur et au moyen de “contre-publicité”?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 30 avril 1997

Cour municipale (St-Hyacinthe)

(Lalande j.c.m.)

Demandeur déclaré coupable de violation de l'article 14.1.5 p) du Règlement de zonage de la Ville de St-Hyacinthe

Le 8 octobre 1997

Cour supérieure du Québec

(chambre criminelle) (Downs j.c.s.)

Appel rejeté

Le 17 novembre 1999

Cour d'appel du Québec

(Beauregard, Thibault et Denis [ad hoc] jj.c.a.)

Appel rejeté

Le 14 janvier 2000

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée

Hettema Inc., Visser Potato Ltd.

v. (27755)

Claude & Conrad Toner Ltd. (N.B.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Contracts - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that an inspection by an independent government  agency which is required by law amounts to an examination by the Applicant buyers, such that the implied condition of merchantable quality under section 15(b) of the Sale of Goods Act, R.S.N.B. 1970, c. S-1 did not apply - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in finding reliance by the Applicants on the government  inspectors precludes reliance upon the skill of the potato grower, so that the implied condition of reasonably fit for the purpose under section 15(b) of the Sale of Goods Act did not apply - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find a fundamental breach of contract by the Respondent which would allow repudiation of the contract.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY