Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

June 9, 2000  1065 - 1115                                                                     le 9 juin 2000

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Highland Park Financial Inc. et al.

Allan L.V. Stewart

Perlov Stewart Kravetsky Lincoln

v. (27920)

William Dennis Chalmers et al. (Man.)

David G. Hill

Hill Abra Dewar

FILING DATE 18.5.2000

Gordon Ritchie, et al.

Howard Rubin

v. (27944)

Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (B.C.)

Tracey M. Cohen

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP

FILING DATE 30.5.2000

Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company

Gregory A. Thompson

McKercher McKercher & Whitmore

v. (27945)

Donald Brown et al. (Sask.)

Ajit Kapoor

Kapoor, Selnes, Klimm & Brown

FILING DATE 31.5.2000

Emmanuel Solis

David Matas

v. (27947)

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

Mark Mason

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 29.5.2000

Jonathan Trelawny Silbernagel

Jonathan Trelawny Silbernagel

v. (27952)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Trevor Tozer

A.G. of British Columbia

FILING DATE 2.6.2000

Jamshid Farhadi

Lorne Waldman

Jackman, Waldman & Associates

v. (27955)

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

Kevin Lunney

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 5.6.2000

JUNE 5, 2000 / LE 5 JUIN 2000

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Major

David Mark Black

v. (27798)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Evidence - Whether evidence of actions that occur in response to a Charter  breach admissible against the accused - Whether leave to appeal to British Columbia Court of Appeal should have been granted.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ivon Shearing

v. (27782)

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

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

Roland Filzmaier

v. (27700)

O.K.W. Limited (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Courts - Jurisdiction - Judgment and order - Examination in aid of execution - Ontario Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction under Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, to hear appeals from interlocutory decisions of the Ontario Court (General Division) - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in quashing the appeal because it lacked jurisdiction - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by hearing the appeal pre-maturely.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Bruce Brett, David Ross and Felicia Ross

v. (27640)

Halifax Regional Municipality, Merlin

Aviation Services Limited, John Hampson and

3013910 Nova Scotia Limited (N.S.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Statutory interpretation - Leases - The proper principles of statutory interpretation for a taxation statute - Whether a leasehold interest is assessable property pursuant to an assessment statute that defines “assessable property” as “land” without explicitly including “interests in land”.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

William Fook Wah Lim

v. (27635)

Hong Kee Lim (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Judgments - Res Judicata - Whether the Court of Appeal’s ruling conflicts rulings in other provinces and other jurisdictions - Whether the Court of Appeal’s ruling is in direct conflict with opinions expressed in precedents in the British Columbia Court of Appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal’s ruling holds that the  “Principle of Judicial Economy” should override the Applicant’s right to have his action heard.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Markel Insurance Company of Canada

v. (27663)

Judy Azevedo and Mark Azevedo (Alta.)

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

Frima Olszynko and Frank Olszynko

v. (27665)

Anne Larocque, Bruce W. Cowtan, James L. Dugan and Judith Dugan (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Appeal - Jury verdict - Motor vehicles - Negligence - Damages - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by holding that before a civil jury can be set aside as being perverse, it must be shown to be a dishonest verdict - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by failing to deal with a principal ground of appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to consider the uncontested and uncontradicted expert evidence showing that the Applicant Frima Olszynko had suffered psychological injuries - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law relying on the trial judge’s finding that there was some evidence to support the jury’s verdict.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ralph Dick, Daniel Billy, Elmer Dick, Stephen Assu, Godfrey Price, Allen Chickite,

and Lloyd Chickite, suing on behalf of all other member of the Wewaikai Indian Band

(also known as The Cape Mudge Indian Band)

v. (27641)

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) (F.C.A.)

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 Welkom Indian Band

(also known as the Campbell River Indian Band)

v. (27641)

Her Majesty The Queen, Ralph Dick, Daniel Billy, Elmer Dick, Stephen Assu and

James D. Wilson, suing on behalf of all other members of the Wewaikai Indian Band

(also known as The Cape Mudge Indian Band) (F.C.A.)

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

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache et LeBel

Sa Majesté la Reine

c. (27759)

Peter Maxwell (Crim.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel – Appel d’un acquittement – Dans le cas où une Cour d’appel conclut à une erreur de droit au motif que le juge du procès a omis de considérer une preuve pertinente et importante, cette Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en imposant au ministère public le fardeau additionnel de démontrer que n’eût été de cette erreur, le verdict n’aurait pas nécessairement été le même? - Dans le cas où l’erreur de droit constatée par une Cour d’appel porte sur l’omission de tenir compte d’une preuve pertinente et importante concernant la question ultime à trancher, cette Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en ré-évaluant elle-même l’ensemble de la preuve aux fins de se satisfaire que le verdict aurait été nécessairement le même, usurpant ainsi le rôle du juge des faits?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Michael Nikkanen

v. (27645)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law - Procedural Law - Right to silence - Entering statements to police into evidence - Mistrial or adjournment based on late disclosure of Crown information - Remedying non-disclosure by recalling witness and allowing limited cross-examination.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Raoul Martens

v. (27638)

Gulfstream Resources Canada Limited (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Contracts - Agency - mandate - Interpretation of the terms of the contract - Whether the lower courts erred in law - Whether the lower courts erred in finding that the contract was not ambiguous - Whether the lower courts erred in interpreting the contract and in considering the evidence - Whether the lower courts erred in failing to find the ratified sub-agency agreement binding on the Respondent - Whether there was a palpable or overriding error.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Alexander MacBain Cameron and Cheryl Dawn Smith

v. (27584)

The Attorney General of Nova Scotia, representing Her

Majesty The Queen in right of the Province of Nova Scotia, the Minister of

Health, the Department of Health and the Administrator, Insured

Professional Services (N.S.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian  Charter  - Civil law - Whether Canada Health Act requirement of “comprehensiveness demands medical coverage for in vitro fertilization and related treatments - Whether failure of provincial medical insurance scheme to comply with Canada Health Act is a justiciable issue - Whether failure to provide medical coverage for in vitro fertilization and intra cytoplasmic sperm injection violates s. 15  of the Charter  and, if so, whether that discrimination is justifiable pursuant to s. 1  - Whether failure to appoint an appellate tribunal pursuant to s. 7(1) of the Nova Scotia Health Services and Insurance Act violates s.7  of the Charter .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Syndicat des travailleurs et travailleuses des Postes

c. (27539)

Société canadienne des Postes (Qué.)

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

Le Club Juridique

c. (27633)

Gérald Lafrenière (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Législation - Interprétation - Article 61 du Code de procédure civile, L.R.Q. ch. C-25 - Droit de se représenter seul devant le tribunal - Quel est le sens de l’article 61(e) du C.p.c.? - Quelle est la portée des articles 2267 et suivants du Code civil du Québec? - Est-ce une question de fait ou de droit?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 8 décembre 1999

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

Ernst Zündel

v. (27655)

Don Boudria, Randy White, Bill Blaikie, Elsie Wayne,

Alexa McDonough, Hedy Fry, Alfonso Gagliano, Preston

Manning, Jean Chrétien, Gilles Duceppe, Peter MacKay,

The Canadian Jewish Congress, Moshe Ronen, The Liberal

Party of Canada, The Reform Party of Canada, The New

Democratic Party, The Progressive Conservative Party of

Canada and The Bloc Québécois (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Civil - Freedom of expression - Parliamentary privilege - Applicant denied admittance to precincts of House of Commons by all-party motion to prevent him from conducting press conference in Parliamentary Press Gallery press conference room - Applicant’s statement of claim against Respondent Members of Parliament for violation of his right to freedom of expression guaranteed under s. 2( b )  of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  struck out - Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM: Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Binnie et Arbour

James Kloepfer

v. (27453)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law - Evidence - Sentencing - Standard of determining reasonable doubt - Application of the burden of proof and standard of reasonable doubt -  Application of conditional sentencing - Whether Courts of Appeal conflict on major questions of law - Whether trial judge erred by failing to properly apply the burden of proof - Whether trial judge, having made a positive finding of credibility in favour of the complainants, erred in failing to ask whether the evidence of the defence gave rise to a reasonable doubt - Whether the verdict is unsafe given evidence of considerable scarring on the applicant’s penis and significant contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainants - Whether trial judge failed to grasp the importance of this evidence - Whether trial judge failed to properly consider and reconcile serious issues in arriving at his conclusion of guilt and in assessing credibility - Whether trial judge erred in categorically rejecting conditional sentencing - Whether trial judge erred in failing to follow R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, and to give the accused the benefit of reasonable doubt - Whether conviction was unsafe in the circumstances - Whether trial judge failed to grasp the importance of or misapprehended evidence - Whether Court of Appeal erred in its finding that trial judge met the standard of determining whether there was a reasonable doubt - Whether courts below erred in categorically rejecting the application of conditional sentencing.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Luc Albert

v. (27637)

Noella Albert and Fontaine & Associates Inc.

Trustee in Bankruptcy for the

Estate of Noella Albert, a Bankrupt (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family law - Division of Property - Company Shares - Constructive or Resulting Trust - Bankruptcy - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a trustee in bankruptcy is entitled to apply on behalf of a creditor of a bankrupt spouse for the remedies of constructive trust and resulting in family law proceedings thereby declining to follow the decision of Blackman v. Davidson (1987), 12 B.C.L.R. (2d) 24 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial judge judicially exercised his discretion on the equities to decline the remedies of resulting trust and constructive trust.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Terrence Guilbault

v. (27613)

Investors Group Trust Company Limited (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Mortgages - Sureties - Whether notice was an extension or renewal of mortgage - Manulife Bank of Canada v. Conlin, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 415 - Whether ambiguity in the terms of the mortgage document or the notice - Should case have been disposed of by way of motion for summary judgment. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

AGB Halifax Enterprises Inc.

v. (27668)

Wood Street Developments Inc., Viewmark Homes Ltd.,

Shelfran Investments Limited and Karlub Joint Venture (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Real property - Trusts and trustees - Procedural law - Pre-trial procedure - Motion for summary judgment - Purchaser of hotel giving vendor mortgage back which was subsequently assigned to Applicant as mortgagee - Purchaser holding property as bare trustee for three beneficiaries - Partnership agreement between trustee and beneficiaries providing that trustee waived any right of indemnification it might have from partners - Mortgage going into default - Applicant suing purchaser on mortgage and obtaining judgment - Applicant commencing action claiming that beneficiaries liable to indemnify purchaser for amount of judgment against it - Beneficiaries granted summary judgment dismissing action - Whether bare trustee entitled to indemnification by beneficiaries of trust against liabilities incurred by trustee by reason of trustee’s retention of trust property.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Brian L. Eamor

v. (27661)

Air Canada Limited and Air Line Pilots Association (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Labour law - Arbitration - Judicial review - Natural justice - Union’s duty of fair representation - Union member’s rights adjudicated in labour arbitration - Union member represented by independent counsel at arbitration - In separate proceedings before the Canada Labour Relations Board, union was found to have breached its duty of fair representation - Are the findings of the Canada Labour Relations Board binding in the judicial review proceedings concerning the arbitration in which the union had breached its duty - Can a new arbitration be ordered - If so, does the court or the labour tribunal have jurisdiction to order the new arbitration - Can relief be granted by the court to the employee only upon proof of the employer’s error or misconduct - If a fair hearing has been denied, will a court grant a remedy regardless of the practical impact of the denial on the outcome of the proceeding?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Richard Sauvé

v. (27677)

The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, The Solicitor General of Canada

and The Attorney General of Canada  (FCA) (Ont.)

AND BETWEEN:

Sheldon McCorrister, Chairman, Lloyd Knezacek, Vice Chairman on their own behalf and on the behalf of the Stony Mountain Institution Inmate Welfare Committee, and Clair Woodhouse, Chairman, Aaron Spence, Vice Chairman, on their own behalf and on the behalf of the Native Brotherhood Organization of Stony Mountain Institution, and Serge Boulanger, Emile A. Bear and Randy Opoonechaw

v. (27677)

The Attorney General of Canada (FCA) (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Civil - Civil Rights - Right to vote - Prisoner voting - Federal Legislation prohibits inmates serving sentences of two years or more from voting in elections - Whether the Federal Legislation is saved by section 1  of the Charter  as a reasonable limitation on the right to vote - Whether Federal Legislation meets minimal impairment and proportionality tests mandated by s.1  of the Charter  - Whether there is a rational connection between disenfranchising prisoners and enhancing the criminal sanction or promoting civic responsibility and respect for the rule of law - Whether the Federal Legislation is in breach of section 15  of the Charter  - Canada Elections Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. E-2, s. 51(e) as am.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Trifox, Inc.

v. (27649)

Angoss II Partnership,

Angoss Software International (U.S.A.), Inc.

and Angoss Software International Limited (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Contracts - Performance or breach of contract - Fundamental breach - Whether the lower courts erred in law in determining that the non-delivery of a computer source code in itself represented a substantial breach of contract regardless of the reason for that non-delivery or the importance the parties themselves placed upon delivery at any time prior to the termination of their contractual relationship - Whether the lower courts erred in failing to weigh the conclusions they reached with respect to the incomplete delivery of the computer source code and the significance of that incomplete delivery in the context of fundamental/substantial breach.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

JUNE 8, 2000 / LE 8 JUIN 2000

27725                    ASHKAN JABARIANHA 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 - Accused’s exculpatory evidence at trial corroborated by witness - Whether it is permissible in cross-examination  to ask a defence witness about the impact of s.13  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  on his decision to testify.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27577                    EVERETT KAKFWI v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (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

 Taxation - Native Law - Indian Act  - Statutory interpretation - Chief of Band received salary from Band paid out of monies provided by Her Majesty the Queen through the Band Support Funding Program - Whether employment income of Chief is exempt from tax pursuant to sections 87  and 90  of the Indian Act  - Whether paragraph 90(1)(b) of the Indian Act  is to be read narrowly so as to deny the exemptions from taxation conferred by sections 87 and 89, or whether it is to be read literally so as to allow the exemptions - Whether paragraph 90(1)(b) of the Indian Act  includes only agreements which are ancillary to a treaty

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27549                    THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF THUNDER BAY v.1037618 ONTARIO INC. AND 1191111 ONTARIO LIMITED (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

Municipal law - Assessment - Statutory Interpretation - Proper calculation of interest and penalties owing as a result of failure to pay property taxes - Whether interest and penalties should be calculated on original or revised assessment  - Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31; Municipal Tax Sales Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.60; Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.45; Municipal Interest and Discount Rates Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.58

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27519                    PAUL CONWAY v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO - and between - PAUL CONWAY v. RUSSEL FLEMING, GEORGE KAYTAKO, BRIAN JONES, KATHY FINNEY, BURKE THOMPSON, SUE FRASER, KATHY JEHLE, PAT MILLER, DON DONNON, HARRY DONALDSON, GEOFF EAUGHIE, JIM BURT AND DON SHARPEN (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

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Civil - Torts - Intentional torts - Battery - Patient of mental hospital restrained by use of chemical injection - Whether forcible use of chemical restraint constitutes battery - Whether authority of hospital staff to administer chemical restraint without patient’s consent can arise from Lieutenant Governor’s Warrant, common law and/or Mental Health Act - What is the correct interpretation and application of term “restraint” under Mental Health Act - Whether patient’s rights under ss. 7  and 15  of Charter  breached - Whether breach can be justified under s.1  of Charter . 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27517                    GUY HAREL - c. - DR. PAUL MONTAMBAULT  - et - CURATEUR PUBLIC DU QUÉBEC (Qué.)

CORAM:               Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache et LeBel.

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Preuve - Requête pour garde en établissement - Rapports de deux psychiatres concluant à la nécessité de la garde en établissement psychiatrique - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en statuant que le simple «risque» de dangerosité, plutôt que la preuve d’une dangerosité réelle, est suffisant à fonder le retrait du droit fondamental à la liberté et l’imposition d’une garde en établissement? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en statuant en droit que les rapports d’examens psychiatriques constituent une preuve d’expertise liant le tribunal, en l’absence de preuve médicale contraire? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que la preuve de dangerosité est non contredite, lorsque le patient apporte pour seule preuve son témoignage? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en écartant sans motif l’appréciation de la preuve du juge de première instance et en lui substituant la sienne? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en autorisant ultra petita une garde en établissement à tout centre hospitalier désigné par le Centre universitaire de santé de l’Estrie, sans tenir compte du droit fondamental du patient au libre choix, consacré au nouvel article 11 de la Loi sur la protection des personnes dont l’état mental présente un danger pour elles-mêmes ou pour autrui?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

27515                    FRÉDÉRIC ST-JEAN - c. - DENIS MERCIER (Qué.)

CORAM:               Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache et LeBel.

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

The application for leave to appeal is granted with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Responsabilité civile - Dommages-intérêts - Médecins et chirurgiens - Responsabilité professionnelle - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré dans son application des principes en matière de lien de causalité?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

27739                    ALAIN GUYOT and SYLVIE PAGÉ - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.) (Que.)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

 Criminal law - Offences - Fraud - Dishonesty - Whether the Applicants’ conduct met the minimum objective dishonesty requirement to justify a conviction for fraud?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27578                    HARBANS SINGH PAWAR, FOR HIMSELF AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL THOSE ALSO IMPROPERLY DENIED BENEFITS - 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

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Equality - National origin - Social security - Constitutionality of the residency requirements of the Old Age Security Act,  R.S.C., 1985, c. O-9  -  Interrelationship between Canada’s right to negotiate and enter into international agreements and the domestic right to equality - Issue of what is included or analogous to the term “national...origin” as that term is used in s. 15  of the Charter  - Quality of evidence that should be before the court when dealing with allegations of adverse effects discrimination under s. 15  of the Charter .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27562                    JAN LACKOWIAK - v. - MAPLE ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CANADA LTD. (Ont.)

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

Procedural law - Did lower courts err in disposition of case?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27560                    BEVERLEE JORGENSEN - v. - CRÉDIT M.P. LTÉE and LES PLACEMENTS LAVIGNE LTÉE (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 OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Property law - Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Leases - Promise of purchase - Can a tribunal decline jurisdiction by making a distinction not found in the enabling legislation? - What is the standard of judicial review in the absence of a comprehensive privative clause and in light of the rules of public order which govern residential leases? - Can the right of residential occupancy as prescribed in a lease be a “droit réel innommé” or is it always a personal right protected by the civil code and rules of public order? - Does the decision to exclude certain leases from the rental legislation go against the very purpose and the spirit of the law and achieve the opposite effect from that intended by the National Assembly?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

March 25, 1994

Court of Québec

(Boissonneault J.)

Respondent's appeal from two decisions of the Régie du logement allowed

27561                    PHILIP DOUGLAS BACKMAN - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (F.C.A)

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

The application for leave to appeal is granted with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Statutes - Interpretation - Whether “profit” means profit as calculated under the Income Tax Act, or instead refers to commercial profit - Whether the standard for the existence of a partnership is the same for tax purposes as under the general law.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27532                    GREAT LAKES POWER LIMITED  ‑ v. ‑  REGIONAL ASSESSMENT COMMISSIONER, REGION NO. 31, THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SAULT STE. MARIE, THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MICHIPICOTEN, THE TOWNSHIP OF MICHIPICOTEN BOARD OF EDUCATION, and THE SAULT STE. MARIE BOARD OF EDUCATION (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

Taxation - Assessment - Statutory Interpretation - Whether hydro-electric generating station is a “manufacturer” pursuant to s. 7(1)(d) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O 1990, c. A.31 or a “business not specially mentioned” pursuant to s. 7(1)(k) - Whether Court of Appeal correctly applied the principles of statutory interpretation.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

November 16, 1992

Assessment Review Board (Hewson, Landell and Sams)

Ruling that Applicant is not a manufacturer pursuant to s. 7(1)(d) of the Assessment Act

January 11, 1996

Ontario Municipal Board (Yao)

Appeal granted

June 4, 1998

Ontario Court (Divisional Court)

(Farley, Coo and Chapnik JJ.)

Appeal by Applicant from the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board dismissed

August 5, 1999

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Finlayson, Austin and Borins JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

October 4, 1999

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

27516                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA and THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL  ‑ v. ‑  ALBERTA PROVINCIAL JUDGES’ ASSOCIATION (Alta.)

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

Constitutional law - Judicial independence - Provincial Courts - Changes or freezes to judicial remuneration - Administrative law - Judicial review - Remedies - Alberta government rejecting most of recommendations of judicial compensation commission - Court of Queen’s Bench ordering government to implement commission’s conclusions - How “simple rationality” test set out in Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3, should be applied - Consequences for government that fails to meet simple rationality test.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27546                    GALINA SOKOLOVA  ‑ v. ‑  THE MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION (F.C.A.)

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

Immigration law - Jurisdiction - Evidence - Did the panel fail to observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or other procedure required by law in making its decision whether or not the errors appear on the face of the record? -  Did the panel members ignore, misconstrue or misstate relevant and material evidence properly before it in arriving at their conclusions, thus erring in law?  Did the panel err in giving insufficient consideration to the fact that the Applicant Galina Sokolova is a woman and the Applicant Jana Sokolova is a girl child? - Did the panel act without jurisdiction, act beyond its jurisdiction or refuse to exercise its jurisdiction? - Did the Board apply the pragmatic and functional analysis to the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1.1?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27545                    DOUGLAS LEO BEAMISH  ‑ v. ‑  HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(P.E.I.)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

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

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Procedural law - Evidence - Charge to the jury - Whether the Appeal Division erred in invoking section 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code  to cure the improper admission of similar fact evidence at the trial of the Applicant -  Whether the Appeal Division erred in concluding that the Applicant’s argument in relation to the procedural improprieties of the collection of cat DNA evidence, was an argument of only “weight” and therefore an issue only to be decided by the jury - Whether the Appeal Division erred in concluding that it was the role of the jury to assess the qualifications and validity of methods of expert witnesses, and that such should be considered in assessing the weight of the experts’ evidence - Whether the Appeal Division erred in concluding that the statements made, and opinions expressed, by the trial judge during the charge to the jury were proper and without influence on the jury.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

July 19, 1996

Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island

(Trial Division)

(Jenkins J.)

Applicant convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with 18 years of parole ineligibility

27458                    HAMZA ABDULLA ALI et 124558 CANADA INC.  - c. ‑  LA COMPAGNIE D’ASSURANCE GUARDIAN DU CANADA et LA COMPAGNIE D’ASSURANCE ROYALE DU CANADA (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

Droit commercial - Assurances des biens - Dommages causés par un feu d’origine criminelle - Condamnation des propriétaires au criminel -  Indemnité d’assurance réclamée par les propriétaires - Effet d’une condamnation criminelle dans un procès civil - La preuve de la condamnation des Ali au criminel constitue-t-elle chose jugée, ou est-elle un “fait juridique” tel qu'il empêchait le juge de première instance de procéder à une analyse de la preuve de novo en tenant compte des faits nouveaux et des autres faits prouvés? - La Cour d'appel pouvait-elle procéder à une nouvelle analyse de la crédibilité des témoins du procès et des faits en l'absence d'erreur déterminante du juge de première instance et en s'inspirant du jugement rendu au criminel? - Le fardeau de la preuve de démontrer l'implication volontaire des Ali dans l'incendie criminel demeurait-il chez les assureurs, même en présence d'une condamnation par les tribunaux siégeant au criminel?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

27463                    LA PROCUREURE GÉNÉRALE DU QUÉBEC et LE MINISTRE DES TRANSPORTS - c. ‑  LE CAMP WATCHICHOU INC. (Qué.)

CORAM:               Les juges Gonthier, Binnie et Arbour

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens sur la requête seulement.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs on the leave application only.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Expropriation - Évaluation - Les dommages accordés pour contrer le braconnage sont-ils des dommages qui résultent directement de l’expropriation au sens de l’art. 58 de la Loi sur l’expropriation, L.R.Q., ch. E-24? - Subsidiairement, la Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en substituant son opinion à celle de la Chambre de l’expropriation qui n’était pas manifestement déraisonnable dérogeant aux principes qui doivent guider les tribunaux d’appel dans le domaine de l’expropriation en accordant de son chef une indemnité additionnelle de 200 000$ à titre de dépréciation et de 11 152$ à titre de frais d’experts?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

30.5.2000

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to May 3, 2000.

30.5.2000

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

James Kloepfer

     v. (27453)

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

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to May 26, 2000.

30.5.2000

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Motion for extension of time and leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario)

IN/DANS:              Bradley Sawyer

v. (27277)

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

and between

Rui Wen Pan

v. (27424)

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

Requête en prorogation de délai et en autorisation d'intervenir

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario), for an extension of time and for leave to intervene in the above appeals;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1)             The motion for an extension of time and for leave to intervene of the applicant Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario) is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a single factum not to exceed 30 pages in length and to present oral argument not to exceed 15 minutes.

The intervener shall not be entitled to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record apart from its factum and oral submissions.

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

30.5.2000

Before / Devant:    BASTARACHE J.

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

N.M.P. (a young person)

     v. (27936)

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

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to September 15, 2000.

1.6.2000

Before / Devant:   LE JUGE BASTARACHE

Requête en radiation

L’Ordre des chiropracticiens du Québec

     c. (27871)

Philippe Thomas (Qué.)

Motion to strike out

REJETÉE AVEC DÉPENS / DISMISSED WITH COSTS

Lecture faite de la requête pour radiation d’un affidavit et d’une pièce jointe, ainsi que des mémoires des parties et des documents y annexés, je suis d’avis que l’affidavit expose des faits connus de l’affiant servant à établir l’intérêt public de l’appel seulement.  Le document annexé sert à mettre en contexte la position de l’affiant et ne saurait porter préjudice à l’argumentation de l’intimé-requérant.  L’article 23 des Règles de la Cour suprême autorise la production d’un affidavit et de pièces relatives au mérite de la demande d’autorisation elle-même et ne saurait être interprété comme limitant ceux-ci à des éléments du dossier produit en Cour d’appel.

Pour ces motifs, la requête est rejetée avec dépens.  Le demandeur-intimé aura 20 jours additionnels suivant cette décision pour signifier et déposer sa réponse à la demande d’autorisation d’appel.

1.6.2000

Before / Devant:   BASTARACHE J.

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

Helmut Johannes Merz

    v. (27918)

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

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to May 15, 2000.

1.6.2000

Before / Devant:   BASTARACHE J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Ontario

IN/DANS:              John Gorenko, et al.

v. (27266)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, et al. (Que.)

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

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

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1)             The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Attorney General of Ontario is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 30 pages in length and to present oral argument of 15 minutes.

The intervener shall not be entitled to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record apart from its factum and oral submissions.

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

2.6.2000

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Motion to adjourn the hearing of the appeal

Adele Rosemary Breese (nee Gruenke)

    v. (27207)

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

Requête pour ajourner l'audition de l'appel

DISMISSED / REJETÉE   The motion on behalf of the appellant for an order adjourning the hearing of this appeal to the Fall session is dismissed.

2.6.2000

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Uwe Schweneke

     v. (27848)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario Ministry of Education, et al. (Ont.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to May 17, 2000.

2.6.2000

Elizabeth Lavoie et al.

    v. (27427)

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

2.6.2000

Daniel Matthew Nette

    v. (27669)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

AGENDA for the week beginning June 12, 2000.

ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 12 juin 2000.

The Court will not be sitting on the week beginning June 19, 2000

La Cour ne siègera pas durant la semaine commençant le 19 juin 2000.

Date of Hearing/                                     Case Number and Name/    

Date d'audition                                        Numéro et nom de la cause

2000/06/12                                                Motions - Requêtes

2000/06/12                                                Mary Glass, et al. v. Musqueam Indian Band, et al. (FC) (Civil) (By Leave) (27154)

2000/06/13                                                A.R.B. v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal) (As of Right / By Leave) (26918)

2000/06/13                                                Her Majesty the Queen v. Marijana Ruzic (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave) (26930)

2000/06/14                                                Robert William Latimer v. Her Majesty the Queen (Sask.) (Criminal) (By Leave)  (26980)

2000/06/15                                                Adele Rosemary Breese (nee Gruenke) v. Her Majesty the Queen (Manitoba) (Man.) (Criminal) (By Leave)(27207)

2000/06/15                                                Arthur David Gabriel, et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen, et al. (Man.) (Criminal) (By Leave) (27161)

2000/06/16                                                The Minister of National Revenue v. Grand Chief Michael Mitchell also known as Kanentakeron (FC) (Civil) (By Leave) (27066)

NOTE: 

This agenda is subject to change.  Hearing dates should be confirmed with Registry staff at (613) 996-8666.

Cet ordre du jour est sujet à modification.  Les dates d'audience devraient être confirmées auprès du personnel du greffe au (613) 996-8666.

27154      Mary Glass et al v. Musqueam Indian Band et al

Native law ‑ Property law - Leases - Rent review - Evaluation of lands located on a reserve - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred by introducing a presumption that, in the determination of annual rent for leased reserve land, the “land” must be valued as if it were surrendered absolutely for sale in fee simple, free of the market benefits and limitations associated with its status as reserve land? - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in its construction of the words “current land value”?

On February 17, 1960, the Respondent Musqueam Band of Indians surrendered  approximately 40 acres of Musqueam Indian Reserve No. 2  to Her Majesty the Queen for purposes of leasing.  On April 20, 1961, the Governor in Council accepted the surrender.  On June 8, 1965, Her Majesty the Queen entered into an agreement with a private developer (Musqueam Development Company Limited), of no relation to the Band, which obligated the developer to subdivide the land and to install services.  The developer filed the plan of subdivision on December 15, 1965, and services were provided to the 75 subdivided lots in 1966.  The developer received leases for each subdivided lot which were in accordance with the “Draft Lease (Residential)” that was appended to the Master Agreement.  In consideration for a lump sum payment to the developer and the annual rent to be paid to the Crown on behalf of the Band, the developer then assigned the leases for each subdivided lot to individuals for residential use. 

The typical lease provides that the land is subject to a 99 year leasehold commencing on June 8, 1965.  The rent for the first three 10-year periods is set in the lease.  The amount of rent for the first three periods is set at $298-$375 per year.  For the 20-year period commencing June 8, 1995, and for the two 20-year periods thereafter, as well as for the final nine-year period the lease specified that the parties would negotiate fair rent for the land.  The lease stipulated that an annual rent of 6% of the current land value would be regarded as fair rent.

The parties were unable to come to an agreement as to the rent payable for the 20-year period commencing on June 8, 1995.  At the heart of the disagreement between the parties is the meaning of “current land value”.  Pursuant to the terms of the lease, the Band applied to the Federal Court, Trial Division for a determination of the annual fair rent payable.  By judgment rendered December 11, 1997, Rothstein J. of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, determined an annual fair rent of approximately $10,000 per lot.  The Band appealed this decision to the Federal Court of Appeal.  On December 21, 1998, the Band’s appeal was allowed in part and the annual fair rent was determined to be an average of $28,000 per lot.

Origin of the case:                                                British Columbia

File No.:                                                                 27154

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     December 21, 1998

Counsel:                                                                                Jack Giles Q.C., Kevin M. Woodall and Ludmila B. Herbst for

the Appellants

Darrell Roberts Q.C. for the Respondent Band and Chiefs

Mitchell Taylor for the Respondent Crown

27154      Mary Glass et al c. Bande indienne de Musqueam et al

Droit des autochtones - Droit des biens - Baux - Révision de loyer - Évaluation de terrains situés sur une réserve - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle commis une erreur en introduisant une présomption suivant laquelle, dans la détermination du loyer annuel d’une terre de réserve cédée à bail, le «terrain» devait être évalué comme s’il était cédé de façon absolue pour une vente en fief simple, libre des avantages et des restrictions de nature commerciale associées à son statut de terre de réserve? - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle commis une erreur dans son interprétation des mots «valeur courante du terrain»?

Le 17 février 1960, la bande indienne de Musqueam intimée a cédé environ 40 acres de la réserve indienne n^o 2 de Musqueam à Sa Majesté la Reine à des fins de location. Le 20 avril 1961, le gouverneur en conseil a accepté la cession. Le 8 juin 1965, Sa Majesté la Reine a conclu une entente avec un promoteur privé (Musqueam Development Company Limited), n’ayant aucun lien avec la bande, qui obligeait le promoteur à lotir les terres et à faire l’installation de services d’aqueduc et d’égout. Le promoteur a déposé le plan de lotissement le 15 décembre 1965 et les services ont été fournis en 1966 aux 75 lots. Le promoteur a reçu des baux pour chacun des lots conformément au «projet de bail (résidentiel)» annexé à l’entente cadre. En contrepartie d’un paiement global versé au promoteur et du loyer annuel à payer à la Couronne pour le compte de la bande, le promoteur a ensuite cédé chaque bail à des particuliers à des fins résidentielles.

Le bail type prévoit que le terrain est assujetti à une tenure à bail d’une durée de 99 ans commençant le 8 juin 1965. Le loyer des trois premières périodes de 10 ans est établi dans le bail et va de 298 $ à 375 $ par année. Pour la période de 20 ans commençant le 8 juin 1995 et pour les deux périodes subséquentes de 20 ans, de même que pour la dernière période de neuf ans, le bail précisait que les parties négocieraient un juste loyer. Le bail stipulait qu’un loyer annuel de 6 p. 100 de la valeur actuelle courante du terrain serait considéré comme un juste loyer.

Les parties ont été incapables de s’entendre sur le loyer payable pour la période de 20 ans commençant le 8 juin 1995. Le sens de l’expression «valeur courante du terrain» est au coeur du désaccord entre les parties. Conformément aux termes du bail, la bande a demandé à la Cour fédérale, Section de première instance, d’établir le juste loyer annuel à payer. Par jugement rendu le 11 décembre 1997, le juge Rothstein de la Section de première instance de la Cour fédérale du Canada a établi un juste loyer annuel d’environ 10 000 $ par lot. La bande a interjeté appel de cette décision à la Cour d’appel fédérale. Le 21 décembre 1998, l’appel de la bande a été accueilli en partie et le juste loyer annuel a été établi à une moyenne de 28 000 $ par lot.

Origine:                                                  Colombie-Britannique

N^o du greffe:                                          27154

Arrêt de la Cour d'appel:                     Le 21 décembre 1998

Avocats:                                                                Jack Giles, c.r., Kevin M. Woodall et Ludmila B. Herbst pour les appelants

Darrel Roberts, c.r., pour la bande et les chefs intimés

MitchellTaylor pour la Couronne intimée

26918      A.R.B. v. Her Majesty The Queen

Criminal law - Evidence - Trial - Charge to the jury - Sexual intercourse with a female under the age of fourteen years and indecent assault - Whether evidence proposed to be tendered by the Appellant was collateral evidence or evidence relevant to an issue at trial - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the exclusion on the basis that the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion on the test of whether its probative value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect - Whether, even with these errors, the Crown can invoke the Code proviso, to uphold the convictions.

The Appellant and his wife lived in a small house, containing a living room, kitchen, three bedrooms, a bathroom and utility room off the kitchen.  There was a small barn adjacent to the house.  The Appellant and his wife had one natural son and adopted four other children, including the female complainant and her twin brother.

The complainant testified as to a course of sexual activity by the Appellant that commenced with touching and fondling on her first visit to the home at age 4,  progressing by age 8 to full sexual intercourse and continued until she left home at the age of 17 in 1975.  She estimated that there had been a thousand sexual assaults over this period of time, and that they occurred anywhere in the house and in the small barn. The complainant testified that the Appellant plied her with liquor and threatened to send her back to the orphanage in order to gain her compliance.  All of the other family members testified on behalf of the Appellant, stating that they had no knowledge of the sexual abuse alleged by the complainant.

The complainant had alleged in her statements to the police that between the ages of 12 and 17, she had been sexually assaulted by the natural son and one of her foster brothers and at their invitation, by a number of their friends.  She alleged that the boys had seen the actions of the Appellant and later decided that they could use her sexually too.

Counsel for the Appellant wished to examine the complainant on the criminal conduct that she alleged of others in order to permit him to call these persons to deny the allegations.  This evidence was to impact on the credibility of the complainant on the probability of her allegations against the Appellant.  The trial judge rejected this line of evidence as being collateral.  The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.  Moldaver J.A, dissenting, held the evidence proposed to be tendered by the Appellant was not collateral, but was relevant to an issue at trial.  He held that the trial judge erred in excluding this evidence.

Origin of the case:                                                Ontario

File No.:                                                                 26918

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     September 9, 1998

Counsel:                                                                                Robert J. Reynolds for the Appellant

J. Sandy Tse for the Respondent

26918 A.R.B. c. Sa Majesté la Reine

Droit criminel -- Preuve -- Procès -- Exposé au jury -- Rapports sexuels avec une personne de sexe féminin âgée de moins de quatorze ans et attentat à la pudeur -- La preuve que l’appelant propose de présenter est-elle accessoire ou pertinente quant à une question litigieuse? -- La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en confirmant l’exclusion de la preuve au motif que le juge du procès avait bien exercé son pouvoir discrétionnaire relativement au critère qui consiste à se demander si l’effet préjudiciable de la preuve l’emporte substantiellement sur sa valeur probante? -- Même avec ces erreurs, le ministère public peut-il invoquer la disposition du Code prévoyant le maintien de déclarations de culpabilité malgré des erreurs?

L’appelant et son épouse vivaient dans une petite maison dans laquelle il y avait un salon, une cuisine, trois chambres, une salle de bain et une lingerie qui donnait sur la cuisine.  Il y avait une petite grange attenante à la maison.  L’appelant et son épouse ont un garçon biologique et quatre enfants adoptés, dont la plaignante et son frère jumeau.

La plaignante a offert un témoignage quant à une suite d’actes sexuels commis par l’appelant, qui a commencé à la toucher et à la caresser à l’occasion de sa première visite à la maison quand elle avait quatre ans, est passé à la relation sexuelle complète lorsqu’elle avait huit ans et a continué jusqu’à ce qu’elle quitte la maison à l’âge de dix-sept ans en 1975.  Selon elle, il y a eu mille agressions sexuelles au cours de cette période, qui ont eu lieu partout dans la maison et dans la petite grange.  Dans son témoignage, la plaignante déclare que l’appelant lui faisait boire une quantité abondante d’alcool et la menaçait de la renvoyer à l’orphelinat afin qu’elle se soumette.  Tous les autres membres de la famille ont témoigné en faveur de l’appelant, affirmant qu’ils n’étaient pas au courant de l’abus sexuel allégué par la plaignante.

Dans ses déclarations à la police, la plaignante allègue qu’un de ses frères par adoption, le fils biologique de l’appelant et, sur leur invitation, un certain nombre de leurs amis l’ont agressée sexuellement; elle était alors âgée entre douze et dix-sept ans.  Elle soutient que les garçons ont été témoins des actes de l’appelant et qu’ils ont par la suite décidé qu’ils pouvaient eux aussi se servir d’elle sur le plan sexuel.

L’avocat de l’appelant voulait interroger la plaignante au sujet de la conduite criminelle qu’elle reproche à d’autres personnes afin de pouvoir assigner celles-ci pour qu’elles contredisent les allégations.  Cette preuve visait à influer sur la crédibilité de la plaignante en ce qui concerne la vraisemblance de ses allégations contre l’appelant.  Le juge du procès a exclu cette preuve au motif qu’elle était accessoire.  La Cour d’appel à la majorité a rejeté l’appel.  Le juge Moldaver, en dissidence, a conclu que la preuve que proposait de présenter l’appelant n’était pas accessoire, mais qu’elle était pertinente quant à une question litigieuse.  Il a conclu que le juge du procès avait commis une erreur en excluant cette preuve.

Origine:                                                  Ontario

N^o du greffe:                                          26918

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel:                    Le 9 septembre 1998

Avocats:                                                                Robert J. Reynolds pour l’appelant

J. Sandy Tse pour l’intimée

26930      Her Majesty The Queen v. Marijana Ruzic

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Defences - Duress - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the immediacy and presence requirements of s. 17  of the Criminal Code  (defence of duress) violate s. 7  of the Charter  - Whether the trial judge properly instructed the jury on the elements of the defence of duress at common law.

The Respondent was tried before a judge and jury on charges of unlawfully importing two kilograms of heroin into Canada and of possession and use of a false passport.  The Respondent admitted importing the heroin and using a false passport but claimed that she had done so under duress.  She said that a man named Mirkovic had threatened to harm or kill her mother in Serbia unless she brought the heroin to Canada.  She also said that the Serbian police could not protect her mother. 

Her claim of duress did not meet the immediacy or presence requirements of s. 17  of the Criminal Code , so during her trial she asked for a declaration that s. 17  of the Criminal Code  violated s. 7  of the Charter  and was of no force or effect.  The trial judge ruled that s. 17 did violate s. 7  of the Charter  and was not saved by s. 1 .

The trial judge, therefore, declined to charge the jury on the statutory defence.  Instead, he charged the jury on the common law defence of duress.  The jury acquitted the Respondent of both charges.  The Appellant Crown appealed the acquittal on the charge of importing heroin.  The Crown argued that the trial judge erred in ruling that s. 17 was unconstitutional and in removing the statutory defence from the jury.  The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown’s appeal. 

Origin of the case:                                                Ontario

File No.:                                                                 26930

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     August 28, 1998

Counsel:                                                                                Croft Michaelson and Morris Pistyner for the Appellant

Frank Addario and Leslie Pringle for the Respondent

26930 Sa Majesté la Reine c. Marijana Ruzic

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  -- Droit criminel -- Défenses -- Contrainte -- La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que les exigences d’instantanéité et de présence contenues à l’art. 17  du Code criminel  (défense de contrainte) contreviennent à l’art. 7  de la Charte ?  Le juge du procès a-t-il donné des directives appropriées au jury quant aux éléments relatifs à la défense de contrainte en common law.

L’intimée a été jugée devant un juge et un jury relativement à des accusations d’importation illégale de deux kilogrammes d’héroïne au Canada et de possession et d’utilisation d’un faux passeport.  L’intimée a admis avoir importé de l’héroïne et utilisé un faux passeport, mais elle a prétendu avoir agi sous la contrainte.  Elle a dit qu’un nommé Mirkovic l’avait menacée de faire du mal à sa mère en Serbie ou de tuer celle-ci si elle n’apportait pas l’héroïne au Canada.  Elle a également dit que la police serbe ne pouvait pas protéger sa mère.

Comme son allégation de contrainte ne satisfaisait pas aux exigences d’instantanéité et de présence de l’art. 17  du Code criminel , l’intimée a, au cours de son procès, sollicité un jugement déclaratoire portant que l’art. 17  du Code criminel  contrevenait à l’art. 7  de la Charte  et était inopérant.  Le juge du procès a décidé que l’art. 17 violait l’art. 7  de la Charte  et n’était pas sauvegardé par l’article premier.

Le juge du procès a donc refusé de donner des directives au jury sur le moyen de défense prévu par la loi.  Il lui a plutôt donné des instructions relatives à la défense de contrainte prévue par la common law.  Le jury a acquitté l’intimée relativement aux deux accusations.  Le ministère public appelant a interjeté appel de l’acquittement relatif à l’accusation d’importation d’héroïne.  Il a prétendu que le juge du procès avait commis une erreur en décidant que l’art. 17 était inconstitutionnel et en ne parlant pas au jury de la défense prévue par la loi.  La Cour d’appel a rejeté l’appel du ministère public.

Origine:                                                  Ontario

N^o du greffe:                                          26930

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel:                    28 août 1998

Avocats:                                                                Croft Michaelson et Morris Pistyner pour l’appelante

Frank Addario et Leslie Pringle pour l’intimée

26980      Robert William Latimer v. Her Majesty The Queen

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal - Defence - Necessity - Sentence - Constitutional exemption - Should the defence of necessity have been left with the jury - Did the Court of Appeal err in deciding that there was no obligation on a trial judge to rule on whether a defence has met the air of reality test and would be left to the jury prior to the address of counsel -  Whether the trial judge provided a misleading answer to jurors that had the effect of undermining why the jury might exercise their power to nullify - Should the trial judge have charged the jury that they could find that the Appellant had the legal right to decide to commit suicide for his daughter as her surrogate decision maker - Whether the Charter  allows for a constitutional exemption in mandatory minimum sentencing and if so, should an exemption have been granted in these circumstances.

The Appellant was the father of Tracy Latimer, who suffered from extreme cerebral palsy and was quadriplegic as a result of brain damage suffered at birth. On October 24, 1993, the Appellant remained home to care for Tracy while his wife and other children went out. After returning home, Mrs. Latimer found Tracy in her bed, but not alive.

The first trial judge admitted the Appellant’s confessions, but did not allow the defence of necessity to go to the jury. Following the initial trial by jury, Mr. Latimer was convicted of second degree murder.  An appeal was dismissed by a majority of the Court of Appeal. Subsequent to the judgment of the Court of Appeal, it was discovered that Crown counsel at trial, who was not counsel on appeal, had interfered with the jury. The Supreme Court of Canada found that the Appellant had been lawfully arrested, and that his confession was properly admitted, but returned the matter for a new trial due to the interference with the jury.

At the new trial, the Appellant relied on the defence of necessity. Prior to the final address to the jury, the Appellant’s counsel requested a ruling on whether that defence would be put to the jury. The trial judge declined to make a ruling at that time and the Appellant’s counsel addressed the jury relying on the defence of necessity. In the course of the charge to the jury, the trial judge told the jury that, as a matter of law, the defence of necessity was not available in this case.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty. The trial judge informed the jury of the mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment, and then invited them to retire to decide if they wished to recommend an increase in the minimum term of 10 years. The jury returned soon after retiring and asked if they  could recommend less than ten years before parole.  They were told not really, but could make any recommendation they wished. The jury resumed its deliberations and recommended that the Appellant be eligible for parole after one year.

Defence counsel asked that the Appellant be given an exemption from the provisions of the Criminal Code  under s.24(1)  of the Charter . The trial judge granted the Appellant a constitutional exemption and substituted a sentence of one year in jail followed by one year of probation pursuant to s.24  of the Charter . The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant’s appeal as to conviction and granted the Crown’s appeal as to sentence. They imposed a sentence of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 10 years.

Origin of the case:                                                Saskatchewan

File No.:                                                                 26980

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     November 23, 1998

Counsel:                                                                                Edward L. Greenspan Q.C., Marie Henein and Mark Brayford,  Q.C. for the Appellant

Kenneth MacKay Q.C. and Graeme Mitchell Q.C. for the Respondent

26980      Robert William Latimer c. Sa Majesté la Reine

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit criminel - Défense - Nécessité - Détermination de la peine - Exemption constitutionnelle - La défense de nécessité aurait-elle due être soumise à l’appréciation du jury? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en décidant que le juge du procès n’avait pas l’obligation de décider si une défense satisfait au critère de la vraisemblance et devrait être soumise à l’appréciation du jury avant l’exposé des avocats? - Le juge du procès a-t-il fourni une réponse trompeuse aux jurés qui aurait eu pour effet de miner la raison pour laquelle le jury pouvait exercer son pouvoir d’annuler? - Le juge du procès aurait-il dû donner des directives au jury selon lesquelles il pouvait décider que l’appelant avait le droit de décider de mettre fin à la vie de sa fille en tant que personne subrogée dans son droit de prendre des décisions? - La Charte permet-elle l’octroi d’une exemption constitutionnelle dans le cas d’une peine minimale obligatoire et le cas échéant, une exemption constitutionnelle aurait‑elle dû être octroyée dans ces circonstances?

L’appelant était le père de Tracy Latimer, qui souffrait d’une infirmité motrice cérébrale très sévère et était quadriplégique en raison de lésions cérébrales survenues à la naissance. Le 24 octobre 1993, l’appelant était resté à la maison pour prendre soin de Tracy pendant que sa femme et ses autres enfants étaient sortis. À leur retour, Madame Latimer a trouvé Tracy sans vie dans son lit.

Le juge du premier procès a admis en preuve les aveux de l’appelant, mais a décidé de ne pas soumettre la défense de nécessité à l’appréciation du jury. Par suite du premier procès devant jury, M. Latimer a été reconnu coupable de meurtre au deuxième degré. La Cour d’appel a rejeté l’appel à la majorité. Après le jugement de la Cour d’appel, on a découvert que le substitut du procureur général agissant en première instance, qui n’était pas le procureur qui avait agi en appel, avait entravé le processus de formation du jury. La Cour suprême du Canada a décidé que l’arrestation de l’appelant était légale, et que son aveu avait été admis selon les règles, mais a ordonné la tenue d’un nouveau procès étant donné qu’il y avait eu entrave au processus de formation du jury.

Au second procès, l’appelant a invoqué la défense de nécessité. Avant l’exposé final au jury, l’avocat de l’appelant a demandé que la cour statue sur la question de savoir si ce moyen de défense serait soumis à l’appréciation du jury. Le juge du procès a refusé de statuer à ce moment et l’avocat de l’appelant a fait son exposé au jury en se fondant sur la défense de nécessité. Au cours de son exposé au jury, le juge du procès lui a dit que, légalement, il n’était pas possible de faire valoir la défense de nécessité en l’espèce.

Le jury a rendu un verdict de culpabilité. Le juge du procès a informé le jury que la peine minimale obligatoire était l’emprisonnement à perpétuité, et l’a ensuite invité à se retirer pour décider s’il souhaitait recommander l’imposition d’une peine de durée supérieure au minimum de dix ans. Le jury est revenu peu après s’être retiré et a demandé s’il lui était loisible de recommander que l’appelant soit éligible à une libération conditionnelle avant dix ans. La réponse a été qu’il n’était pas vraiment possible de le faire, mais qu’il pouvait faire toutes les recommandations qu’il souhaitait. Le jury a repris ses délibérations et a recommandé que l’appelant soit éligible à une libération conditionnelle après un an.

L’avocat de la défense a demandé que l’appelant soit exempt de l’application des dispositions prévues au Code criminel  en vertu du par. 24(1)  de la Charte . Le juge du procès a octroyé une exemption constitutionnelle à l’appelant et a substitué une peine d’un an d’emprisonnement suivie d’une probation d’un an conformément à l’art. 24  de la Charte . La Cour d’appel a rejeté l’appel interjeté par l’appelant quant à la déclaration de culpabilité et a accueilli l’appel de la poursuite contre la peine. La Cour d’appel a imposé une peine d’emprisonnement à perpétuité sans possibilité de libération conditionnelle avant dix ans.

Origine :                                                 Saskatchewan

N^o du greffe :                                         26980

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel :                   Le 23 novembre 1998

Avocats :                                               Edward L. Greenspan, c.r., Marie Henein et Mark Brayford, c.r., pour l’appelant

Kenneth MacKay, c.r., et Graeme Mitchell, c.r.,pour l’intimée

27207      Adele Rosemary Breese (nee Gruenke) v. Her Majesty The Queen

Criminal law - Evidence - Reference to Court of Appeal for Manitoba  pursuant to s. 690  of the Criminal Code  asking whether information arising from the Self Defence Review conducted by Ratushny J. was admissible as fresh evidence, and, if any evidence was admissible, to determine the case as if it were an appeal by the Appellant on the issue of fresh evidence - Court of Appeal found that none of the evidence was admissible - Whether the defence psychiatrist’s new opinion was not admissible as fresh evidence because it failed to comply with due diligence requirement.

On November 28, 1986, 81-year old Phillip Barnett was bludgeoned to death. His body was found locked in his vehicle beside a rural highway on the outskirts of Winnipeg. The Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and her co-accused was also convicted. The Appellant’s appeal against conviction was dismissed on January 16, 1989 by the Court of Appeal of Manitoba, and a subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed on October 24, 1991.

In October, 1995, the Minister of Justice appointed a commission (the Self Defence Review) to review the law of self-defence as it had evolved since R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852, and to assess the potential impact of battered-woman syndrome on women convicted and imprisoned before Lavallee who might have benefited from the law on self-defence as it developed thereafter. Ratushny J. of the Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division) led the Self Defence Review, which received applications from 98 women, including the Appellant.

Ratushny J. recommended to the Minister of Justice that the Appellant’s application be referred to the Court of Appeal for Manitoba. Pursuant to s.690  of the Criminal Code , the Minister of Justice referred the question to the Court of Appeal for Manitoba of whether the information obtained by the Self Defence Review was admissible as fresh evidence on appeal to the Court of Appeal.  The Minister of Justice further directed the Court of Appeal to determine the case as if it were an appeal by Adele Rosemarie Breese (Gruenke) on the issue of fresh evidence if they found that the information would be admissible on appeal.

The psychiatrist called by the defence at trial, Dr. Shane, did not provide additional information directly to the Self Defence Review. However, after the Reference to the Court of Appeal, he prepared a lengthy psychiatric report specifically dealing with battered woman syndrome and it was before the Court. The Court of Appeal advised the Minister pursuant to the first part of the reference that none of the information before the Self Defence Review nor the subsequent affidavit and report of Dr. Shane constituted new evidence.

Origin of the case:                                                Manitoba

File No.:                                                                 27207

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     November 10, 1998

Counsel:                                                                                Terence C. Semenuk for the Appellant

R. Saull for the Respondent A.G. Manitoba

David G. Frayer Q.C. for the Respondent A.G. Canada

27207      Adele Rosemary Breese (née Gruenke) c. Sa majesté la Reine

Droit criminel - Preuve - Renvoi devant la Cour d’appel du Manitoba conformément à l’art. 690  du Code criminel  pour déterminer si l’information issue de l’Examen de la légitime défense effectué par le juge Ratushny était admissible à titre de nouvelle preuve, et, si des éléments de preuve devaient être admissibles, pour statuer sur la demande comme s’il s’agissait d’un appel interjeté par l’appelante sur la question de la nouvelle preuve - La Cour d’appel a décidé qu’aucun élément de preuve n’était admissible - La nouvelle opinion du psychiatre de la défense était-elle inadmissible à titre de nouvelle preuve parce qu’elle ne respectait pas l’obligation de diligence raisonnable?

Phillip Barnett, âgé de 81 ans, a été frappé à coup de matraque jusqu’à ce que mort s’ensuive le 28 novembre 1986. Son corps a été retrouvé à l’intérieur de son véhicule verrouillé le long d’une route rurale de la banlieue de Winnipeg. L’appelante a été reconnue coupable de meurtre au premier degré et son coaccusé a également été reconnu coupable. La Cour d’appel du Manitoba a rejeté l’appel interjeté par l’appelante contre la déclaration de culpabilité le 16 janvier 1989 et un appel subséquent à la Cour suprême du Canada a été rejeté le 24 octobre 1991.

Au mois d’octobre 1995, le ministre de la Justice a constitué une commission (Examen de la légitime défense) pour examiner le droit à la légitime défense compte tenu de son évolution depuis l’arrêt R. c. Lavallée, [1990] 1 R.C.S. 852, et pour évaluer les répercussions possibles du syndrome de la femme battue pour les femmes reconnues coupables à qui des peines d’emprisonnement ont été imposées avant l’arrêt Lavallée et qui auraient pu bénéficier du droit à la légitime défense tel qu’il s’est développé par la suite. Le juge Ratushny de la Cour de justice de l’Ontario (Division provinciale) a dirigé l’Examen de la légitime défense qui a reçu des demandes de 98 femmes, dont l’appelante.

Le juge Ratushny a recommandé au ministre de la Justice le renvoi de la demande de l’appelante devant la Cour d’appel du Manitoba. Conformément à l’art. 690  du Code criminel , le ministre de la Justice a renvoyé devant la Cour d’appel du Manitoba la question de savoir si l’information issue de l’Examen de la légitime défense était admissible à titre de nouvelle preuve en appel devant la Cour d’appel. Le Ministre de la Justice a également demandé à la Cour d’appel de statuer sur l’affaire, comme s’il s’agissait d’un appel interjeté par Adele Rosemary Breese (Gruenke) sur la question de la nouvelle preuve, si elle concluait que l’information est admissible en appel.

Le psychiatre qui a témoigné pour la défense au procès, le Dr Shane, n’a pas fourni d’information supplémentaire directement à l’Examen de la légitime défense. Cependant, après le renvoi devant la Cour d’appel, il a préparé un rapport psychiatrique volumineux portant spécifiquement sur le syndrome de la femme battue, et celui-ci a été produit à la Cour. La Cour d’appel a avisé le ministre que, en ce qui avait trait à la première partie du renvoi, ni l’information présentée à l’Examen de la légitime défense ni l’affidavit et le  rapport du Dr Shane ne constituaient de la nouvelle preuve.

Origine :                                                                 Manitoba

N^o du greffe :                                                         27207

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel :                                   Le 10 novembre 1998

Avocats :                                                               Terence C. Semenuk pour l’appelante

R. Saull pour l’intimé Proc. gén. du Manitoba

David G. Frayer, c.r., pour l’intimé Proc. gén. du Canada

27161      Arthur David Gabriel et al v. Her Majesty The Queen

Criminal law - Procedure - Bias - Whether the Court of Appeal for Manitoba erred in ruling that there was no bias or reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the trial judge such as to render his hearing of the trial incompatible with the principles of natural or fundamental justice - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in denying the Appellants an adjournment to permit them to bring a motion to admit new evidence to the said Court to further establish a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the trial judge.

Sixteen persons, including the Appellants, were charged with mischief relating to a 1996 road blockade on Provincial Road 276, located at the south end of the Waterhen Indian First Nations Reserve, in Waterhen Manitoba.  Two of the Appellants were charged with possession of a weapon and three were charged with wearing a disguise with criminal intent.  The charges stemmed from an armed standoff between the people manning the barricades and police and were made once the confrontation was settled, and the barricade removed.  The Appellants were convicted following a five week trial before Menzies J. of the Court of Queen’s Bench.

There were deep political divisions on the Waterhen Indian First Nations Reserve. The Appellants, and other community members were part of a group that was opposed to governance of the community by the Chief and his council.  The Appellants group, called the “quorum”, obtained a majority of the seats on the council in a 1993 election, but the Chief and his supporters ignored the results of this election.  There were many disputes between the two factions culminating in an impasse that led to the events of 1996.  The barricade was erected to keep the Chief and his supporters off the reserve.

The Appellant Gary Vernon Catcheway has deposed an affidavit in support of the leave application.  In the affidavit, he says that John Menzies was a member of a law firm, Johnston & Company, which was counsel to the Waterhen Band Development Corporation, a company controlled by the Chief and his supporters.  He says that John Menzies mediated an unjust dismissal action brought by the wife of the Appellant Percy Gabriel.  The affidavit also says that John Menzies represented Melford Vernon Catcheway (not a party to these proceedings) in a bail hearing respecting charges flowing from the barricade of the road. John Menzies was the trial judge.  None of the Appellants were represented by counsel at trial, as their counsel was permitted to withdraw.  At the hearing of the motion to withdraw, the Appellants made a motion for an adjournment to retain new counsel.  During this motion, Menzies J. was advised by the Appellant Harold Catcheway that he had acted for him before.  Menzies J. responded “What has this got to do with a fair trial?”

On the appeal, most of the Appellants were still unrepresented.  Mr. P.E. Kingsley represented the Appellants Harold and Judy Catcheway, to raise an argument of bias.  The Court of Appeal rejected the arguments and refused the Appellants’ request for an adjournment to allow them to get legal advice on the possibility of bringing an application to adduce fresh evidence on the point of bias.  The appeals were dismissed, with Huband J.A. dissenting on the question of sentencing of certain of the Appellants.

Origin of the case:                                                Manitoba

File No.:                                                                 27161

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     February 1, 1999

Counsel:                                                                                Paul E. Kammerloch and Harvey J. Slobodzian for the

Appellants

Gregg Lawlor for the Respondent