Bulletins

      OF CANADA                                             DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

October 20, 20061288 - 1325                                                                                                     Le 20 octobre 2006

CONTENTS                                                                              TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Dalhousie Legal Aid Service

Claire McNeil

Dalhousie Legal Aid

v. (31627)

Nova Scotia Power Incorporated et al. (N.S.)

Daniel M. Campbell, Q.C.

Cox, Hanson, O’Reilly, Matheson

FILING DATE 19.9.2006

Tele-Mobile Company (a.k.a. TELUS Mobility)

Paul Burstein

Burstein, Unger

v. (31644)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Randy Schwartz

A.G. of Ontario

FILING DATE 27.9.2006

G.E.S.

James J. Vogel

Richmond Nychuk

v. (31651)

D.L.C. (Sask.)

R. Bradley Hunter

Hunter, Miller

FILING DATE 28.9.2006

New Brunswick (Human Rights Commission)

Seamus I. Cox

New Brunswick Human Rights Commission

v. (31652)

Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (N.B.)

Peter T. Zed, Q.C.

Barry, Spalding

FILING DATE 28.9.2006

Murdo McLeod et al.

Ian A. Blue

Cassels, Brock & Blackwell

v. (31648)

Alberta Securities Commission et al. (Alta.)

Matthew Epp

Alberta Securities Commission

FILING DATE 29.9.2006

Shatha Al-Musawi

Gilles Poulin

v. (31654)

Ville de Montréal (Que.)

Paule Biron

Charest, Séguin, Caron

FILING DATE 29.9.2006

Loredana Gloria Balic

Gavin Crickmore

Hungerford, Tomyn, Lawrenson and Nichols

v. (31647)

Stjepan Balic (also known as Steven Balic) (B.C.)

John S. Harvey

Scarborough, Herman, Harvey & Bluekens

FILING DATE 29.9.2006

Duffin Capital Corporation

Alan J. Lenczner, Q.C.

Lenczner, Slaght, Royce, Smith, Griffin

v. (31663)

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Ont.)

Jack Coop

A.G. of Ontario

FILING DATE 29.9.2006

Association des Courtiers et Agents Immobiliers du Québec et autres

André Durocher

Fasken, Martineau, DuMoulin

c. (31664)

Proprio Direct Inc. (Qc)

Henri Richard

Bélanger, Sauvé

DATE DE PRODUCTION 29.9.2006

Wendy Jessen

Brian J. Hebert

Hebbert, Boddie

v. (31650)

CHC Helicopters International Inc. (N.S.)

Thomas A. Groves

Cox, Hanson, O’Reilly, Matheson

FILING DATE 29.9.2006

620 Connaught Ltd., operating as Downstream Bar et al.

Jack N. Angrios, Q.C.

v. (31661)

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

Bruce Hughson

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 29.9.2006

Janie Louise Ryan et al.

William B. Hembroff

Bryan & Company

v. (31655)

Parmjit Singh Purba et al. (Alta.)

Brij Mohan

Brij Mohan & Associates

FILING DATE 29.9.2006

Edwina Ruth Trick

Edwina Ruth Trick

v. (31653)

John Anthony Trick (Ont.)

D. Smith

Smith Family Law Group

FILING DATE 29.9.2006

Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec

Julie Baril

Dussault, Mayrand

c. (31657)

Yvan Cyr et autre (Qc)

Claude J. Melançon

Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson

DATE DE PRODUCTION 29.9.2006

Abdelaziz Ben Rejeb

Abdelaziz Ben Rejeb

v. (31658)

École Polytechnique de Montréal et autre (Qc)

Pierre Boulanger

Picard, Garceau, Pasquin, Pagé, Viens

FILING DATE 2.10.2006

Kevin Dillabough

William B. Hembroff

Bryan & Company

v. (31656)

Kelly Besler (Alta.)

Patrick J. Feehan

Duncan & Craig

FILING DATE 2.10.2006

Calvin James Macphail

Eugene Meehan, Q.C.

Lang Michener

v. (31629)

Marcie Marie Karasek (Alta.)

Diane L. Harms

Daunais, Boyes

FILING DATE 5.10.2006

Shem William Trotman

Simon R. Buck

Wilson, Buck, Butcher & Sears

v. (31659)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

W.J. Scott Bell

A.G. of British Columbia

FILING DATE 3.10.2006

Sa Majesté la Reine

Henrie-Pierre LaBrie

P.G. du Québec

c. (31662)

Patrick Mathieu (Qc)

Juliana Côté

Rock, Vleminckx, Dury, Lanctôt & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION 4.10.2006

Liliana Verdicchio et al.

Liliana Verdicchio

v. (31666)

City of Montreal (Que.)

Sébastien Caron

Charest, Séguin, Caron

FILING DATE 5.10.2006

Director of the Human Rights and Citizenship Commission

Audrey Dean

Alberta Human Rights Commission

v. (31667)

Alberta (Minister of Human Resources and Employment) (Alta.)

Roderick Wiltshire

A.G. of Alberta

FILING DATE 5.10.2006

OCTOBRE 16, 2006 / LE 16 OCTOBRE 2006

CORAM:  Chief Justice McLachlin and Charron and Rothstein JJ.

La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Charron et Rothstein

1.             Jedfro Investments (U.S.A.) Limited, et al. v. Nadia Jacyk, in her capacity as Litigation Administrator for the estate of Peter Jacyk, et al. (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave) (31561)

CORAM: Bastarache, LeBel and Fish JJ.

Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Fish

2.             Gurwinder Singh Mann, et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Criminal) (By Leave) (31331)

CORAM: Binnie, Deschamps and Abella JJ.

Les juges Binnie, Deschamps et Abella

3.             Yves Michaud c. Michel Bissonnet, ès qualités de président de l’Assemblée nationale du Québec (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation) (31604)

4.             Mohammed Abul Khair, personally and in his capacity as tutor to his minor children, Farhana Khair, Sultana Khair and Abdullah Khair, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, et al. (Que.) (Civil) (By Leave) (31525)

5.             Eric Scheuneman v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.) (Civil) (By Leave) (31555)

OCTOBER 2, 2006 / LE 2 OCTOBRE 2006

(REVISED OCTOBER 18, 2006 / RÉVISÉ LE 18 OCTOBRE 2006)

CORAM:  Chief Justice McLachlin and Binnie and Charron JJ.

La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Binnie et Charron

1.             Fording Coal Limited v. Vancouver Port Authority (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave) (31514)

OCTOBER 20, 2006 / LE 20 OCTOBRE 2006

31521                    William Morley Dorsay v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Crim.) (By Leave)

Coram:    McLachlin C.J. and Charron and Rothstein JJ.

The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA031470, 2006 BCCA 117, dated March 9, 2006, is granted. 

An oral hearing is ordered pursuant to s. 43(1.2) of the Supreme Court Act.  The hearing date will be fixed by the Registrar.

La demande de prorogation du délai pour solliciter l’autorisation d’appeler de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie‑Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA031470, 2006 BCCA 117, daté du 9 mars 2006, est accordée. 

Conformément au par. 43(1.2) de la Loi sur la Cour suprême, la tenue d’une audience est ordonnée.  La date de l’audience sera fixée par la Registraire.

CASE SUMMARY:

Canadian  Charter  - Criminal law - Murder - Trial fairness - How should Canada deal with privileges recognized in other countries in the context of international judicial assistance requests, commission evidence hearings and domestic trials? - What record is necessary to establish that a statement to police was made or obtained in a manner that compromises a fair trial?

The Applicant was charged with the second degree murder of his infant son. The offence was alleged to have been committed in 1967 in Vancouver, British Columbia. The evidence consisted solely of statements by the Applicant to police and mental health workers in the State of Washington.

RÉSUMÉ DE L’AFFAIRE:

Charte canadienne  - Droit criminel - Meurtre - Procès équitable - Comment le Canada doit‑il traiter les privilèges reconnus dans d’autres pays dans le cadre de demandes d’aide judiciaire internationale, de preuve recueillie par commission rogatoire et de procès intérieurs? - Quels éléments de preuve sont nécessaires pour établir qu’une déclaration faite à la police a été faite ou obtenue d’une manière qui compromet l’équité du procès?

Le demandeur a été accusé du meurtre au deuxième degré de son fils en bas âge. Il était allégué que le crime aurait été commis à Vancouver (C.‑B.) en 1967. La preuve consistait uniquement en des déclarations faites par le demandeur à des policiers et des travailleurs en santé mentale de l’État de Washington.

31553                    Manh Tien Tran v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Crim.) (By Leave)

Coram:    McLachlin C.J. and Charron and Rothstein JJ.

On the application to apply for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA033383, 2006 BCCA 298, dated May 16, 2006, an oral hearing is ordered pursuant to s. 43(1.2) of the Supreme Court Act.  The hearing date will be fixed by the Registrar.

Conformément au par. 43(1.2) de la Loi sur la Cour suprême, la tenue d’une audience est ordonnée pour trancher la demande d’autorisation d’appel visant l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie-Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA033383, 2006 BCCA 298, daté du 16 mai 2006.  La date de l’audience sera fixée par la Registraire.

CASE SUMMARY:

Constitutional Law – Charter of Rights  – Search and Seizure – Warrants – Whether a conclusory statement of a private expert that an offence has been committed is a summary basis for meeting the ‘reasonable and probable grounds’ standard required for an authorization to search

The Applicant was acquitted of charges of production of marijuana, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and of theft of electricity under $5000.  Police raided his residence pursuant to a search warrant issued for the seizure of evidence relating to the theft of electricity charge and found marijuana plants as well as evidence that he had been diverting electricity.  The primary basis for the issuance of the warrant was the opinion of  B.C. Hydro security experts, communicated to the R.C.M.P by fax, to the effect that theft of hydro was occurring.  The opinion was based on the experts' observation that the total electricity entering the home was greater than that being recorded on the meter for billing purposes.  The trial judge excluded the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant on the basis that insufficient information had been provided to the authorizing judicial officer to justify its issuance.  The applicant was acquitted of all charges.  The B.C. Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge’s admissibility ruling, holding that the expert’s opinion was sufficient to support reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant was stealing hydro.  The court thus set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial.  The applicant challenges the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the experts’ opinion was sufficient to meet the reasonable and probable grounds standard required for an authorization to search.

RÉSUMÉ DE L’AFFAIRE:

Droit constitutionnel – Charte des droits – Fouilles, perquisitions et saisies – Mandats – L’affirmation non étayée d’un expert privé portant qu’une infraction a été commise suffit‑elle à satisfaire à la norme des « motifs raisonnables et probables » imposée en matière d’autorisation de perquisitionner?

Le demandeur a été acquitté d’accusations de production de marijuana, de possession de marijuana en vue d’en faire le trafic et de vol d’électricité de moins de 5000 $. En application d’un mandat de perquisition délivré relativement à la saisie d’éléments de preuve se rapportant à l’accusation de vol d’électricité, la police a fait une descente à son domicile et a trouvé des plants de marijuana ainsi que des éléments de preuve établissant qu’il avait détourné de l’électricité. Le fondement premier de la délivrance du mandat tenait à l’opinion d’experts en sécurité de B.C. Hydro, communiquée à la GRC par télécopieur, portant qu’un vol d’électricité était en cours. L’opinion était fondée sur l’observation des experts que la quantité totale d’électricité qui entrait dans la maison était plus grande que celle inscrite sur le compteur aux fins de facturation. La juge du procès a exclu la preuve saisie en exécution du mandat au motif que les renseignements fournis à l’officier de justice ayant donné l’autorisation ne suffisaient pas à en justifier la délivrance. Le demandeur a été acquitté de toutes les accusations. Après avoir conclu que l’opinion des experts suffisait à établir l’existence de motifs raisonnables de croire que le demandeur volait de l’électricité, la Cour d’appel de la C.‑B. a infirmé la décision de la juge du procès quant à l’admissibilité. La Cour a donc annulé l’acquittement et ordonné la tenue d’un nouveau procès. Le demandeur conteste la conclusion de la Cour d’appel selon laquelle l’opinion des experts suffisait à satisfaire à la norme des motifs raisonnables et probables imposée en matière d’autorisation de perquisitionner.

OCTOBER 20 2006 / LE 20 OCTOBRE 2006

31464                    Ik Sang Lee v. Gary Robert Dawson, James Western Star Ltd. (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram :                   McLachlin C.J. and Charron and Rothstein JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA031066, 2006 BCCA 159, dated March 31, 2006, is dismissed with costs and the conditional leave to cross‑appeal is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie‑Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA031066, 2006 BCCA 159, daté du 31 mars 2006, est rejetée avec dépens et la demande conditionnelle d’autorisation d’appel incident est rejetée avec dépens.

CASE SUMMARY:

Canadian Charter  - Civil - Torts - Damages - Assessment -  Whether the common law rule stemming from Thornton (Next Friend of) v. Prince George School District No. 57, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 267, Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229, and Arnold v. Teno (Next Friend of), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 287 is inconsistent with Charter  values, or in need of reconsideration.

In 1997, the Applicant, Ik Sang Lee, was a passenger in a car travelling on the Trans Canada Highway in British Columbia. A transport truck hauling two trailers spilled its load of lumber as it rounded a corner. The lumber crushed a portion of the vehicle in which Mr. Lee was riding.

The accident caused Mr. Lee a traumatic brain injury, dramatic personality changes, permanent psychological injury, major chronic depression, permanent facial scarring and other physical injuries causing permanent, constant and disabling pain.

On February 14, 2003, a jury delivered their verdict awarding Mr. Lee damages of over $3,000,000, including $2,000,000 in non-pecuniary losses, 782,000 in future loss of diminished earning capacity and $88,000 in future special damages.

The Respondents sought to reduce the award for non-pecuniary damages to the $100,000 cap set by this Court in Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229; Arnold v. Teno, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 287 and Thornton v. Prince George School District No. 57, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 267 (the “Trilogy”). The Respondents also sought an order that $68,000 of the $88,000 awarded for future special damages, and $500,000 of the award for the future loss of diminished earning capacity be paid as a structured settlement under s. 55 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 231.

RÉSUMÉ DE L’AFFAIRE:

Charte canadienne  - Civil - Responsabilité civile - Dommages-intérêts - Évaluation - La règle de common law issue des arrêts Thornton (mineur représenté ad litem) c. Prince George School District No. 57, [1978] 2 R.C.S. 267, Andrews c. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., [1978] 2 R.C.S. 229 et Arnold c. Teno (mineure représentée ad litem), [1978] 2 R.C.S. 287 est-elle incompatible avec les valeurs de la Charte , ou doit-elle être revue?

En 1997, le demandeur, Ik Sang Lee, était passager d’une automobile roulant sur la route transcanadienne en Colombie‑Britannique. Un camion de transport tirant deux remorques a renversé son chargement de bois de sciage en négociant un virage. Le bois a écrasé une partie du véhicule à bord duquel M. Lee circulait.

L’accident a causé à M. Lee un grave traumatisme crânien, des changements dramatiques de personnalité, des blessures psychologiques permanentes, une dépression chronique majeure, des cicatrices permanentes au visage et d’autres blessures physiques lui occasionnant des douleurs permanentes, constantes et invalidantes.

Le 14 février 2003, le jury a prononcé son verdict accordant à M. Lee des dommages-intérêts s’élevant à plus de trois millions de dollars, dont deux millions de dollars au titre des pertes non pécuniaires, 782 000 $ au titre des pertes de la capacité de gagner des gains futurs et 88 000 $ au titre des dommages-intérêts spéciaux futurs.

Les intimés ont demandé que le montant accordé au titre des dommages-intérêts non pécuniaires soit réduit au plafond de 100 000 $ établi par la Cour dans les arrêts Andrews c. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., [1978] 2 R.C.S. 229, Arnold c. Teno, [1978] 2 R.C.S. 287 et Thornton c. Prince George School District No. 57, [1978] 2 R.C.S. 267 (la « trilogie »). Les intimés ont également demandé une ordonnance déclarant que 68 000 $ des 88 000 $ accordés au titre de dommages-intérêts spéciaux futurs et que 500 000 $ du montant accordé au titre des pertes de la capacité de gagner des gains futurs soient payés sous forme de règlement échelonné prévu à l’art. 55 de la Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, ch. 231.

31373                    James William Stapley v. Victor Lloyd Hejslet (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram :                   Binnie, Deschamps and Abella JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA031706, 2006 BCCA 34, dated January 26, 2006, is dismissed with costs, Binnie J. dissenting.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie‑Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA031706,  2006 BCCA 34, daté du 26 janvier 2006, est rejetée avec dépens.  Le juge Binnie est dissident.

CASE SUMMARY:

Torts - Damages - Non-pecuniary damages - Upper limit - Jury award - Whether jury awards on non-pecuniary damages should be reviewed by comparison to those made by judge - What impact should the rough upper limit have in the review of jury awards on non-pecuniary damages - When should juries be instructed about the range of damages awarded in comparable judge alone trials?

In 2000, Stapley suffered a whiplash type injury when the tractor he was driving was struck from behind by a motor vehicle operated by the Respondent, Hejslet.  From 1979, Stapley had been employed as a mechanic on a large ranch where he raised his family.  The ranch provided them with many financial, recreational and lifestyle benefits and it was Stapley’s intention to work there until he retired.  At trial, the jury awarded Stapley non-pecuniary damages of $275,000, an amount reduced to $255,750  on the finding that he was 7 per cent contributorily negligent.  He required surgery, physiotherapy and massage therapy to alleviate his shoulder, neck and back pain and was left with some permanent disability, chronic pain and headaches. He was no longer able to work to the same extent and his social and recreational activities were curtailed.  Most importantly to him, he anticipated that because of his injuries, he would soon be forced to leave his employment and the life he loved on the ranch.

RÉSUMÉ DE L’AFFAIRE:

Responsabilité civile - Dommages‑intérêts - Dommages‑intérêts non pécuniaires - Plafond - Indemnité accordée par le jury - Les indemnités accordées par les jurys au titre des dommages‑intérêts non‑pécuniaires devraient‑elles être examinées en comparaison de celles accordées par les juges? - Quelle incidence le plafond approximatif devrait‑il avoir sur l’examen de ces indemnités? - Quand devrait‑on informer les jurys de la fourchette des dommages‑intérêts accordés dans des procès semblables instruits devant juge seul?

En l’an 2000, Stapley a subi une blessure du type coup de fouet cervical lorsque le tracteur qu’il conduisait a été frappé par derrière par un véhicule motorisé conduit par l’intimé, Hejslet. Depuis 1979, Stapley occupait un emploi de mécanicien dans un grand ranch où il avait élevé sa famille. Le ranch leur procurait de nombreux avantages financiers, récréatifs et sociaux, et Stapley avait l’intention d’y travailler jusqu’à sa retraite. Au procès, le jury a accordé à Stapley des dommages‑intérêts de 275 000 $, montant qui a été réduit à 255 750 $ à la suite de la conclusion selon laquelle il était responsable de négligence concourante dans une proportion de 7 pour cent. Il a dû subir une intervention chirurgicale et suivre des traitements de physiothérapie et de massothérapie pour soulager son épaule, sa nuque et son dos, et s’est trouvé aux prises avec une incapacité permanente, de la douleur chronique et des maux de tête. Il n’était plus en mesure de travailler comme avant, et il a dû réduire ses activités sociales et récréatives. Plus important encore pour lui, il prévoyait qu’en raison de ses blessures, il serait bientôt forcé de quitter son emploi et la vie qu’il aimait sur le ranch.

31434                    Jennifer Lee McGarva, Daniel Douglas Butt v. Dmetro (Matt) Wepruk (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram :                   Binnie, Deschamps and Abella JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA032913, 2006 BCCA 107, dated February 28, 2006, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie‑Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA032913, 2006 BCCA 107, daté du 28 février 2006, est rejetée avec dépens.

CASE SUMMARY:

Torts - Intentional torts - Damages - Whether plaintiff in a personal injury action should be barred from claiming income-related damages  for past and future income loss if that plaintiff has, prior to the personal injury action, failed to file income tax returns - Effect of failure to file income tax returns on the burden of proof required to establish a plaintiff’s income.

McGarva was the owner and Butt the driver of a motor vehicle that struck and injured Wepruk as he was standing in his driveway in the early morning hours on November 3, 2000, following an angry dispute between the parties.  Wepruk, a man of 68 at that time, was the owner of a scrap yard that was located a short distance from his home.  He was also a commercial fisherman and was unusually vigorous for a man of his age.  He had not filed income tax returns in twenty years.  Wepruk suffered injuries to his back, shoulders, leg and knee.  Four years after the accident he still suffered extensive pain and was unable to work.  He brought an action for damages.

The trial judge held that McGarva and Butt were wholly responsible for Wepruk’s injuries and awarded $279,132.08 in damages, including $119,250 for past loss of capacity to earn income and $87,000 for future loss of capacity to earn income.  The judgment was upheld on appeal.

RÉSUMÉ DE L’AFFAIRE:

Responsabilité civile - Délits intentionnels - Dommages-intérêts - Le demandeur à l’action pour préjudice corporel devrait-il être privé de la possibilité de réclamer des dommages-intérêts pour perte de revenu passé et futur dans le cas où il n’a pas, avant l’action, produit de déclarations de revenus? - Effet de l’omission de produire des déclarations de revenus sur la charge de la preuve exigée pour établir le revenu du demandeur.

Madame McGarva était la propriétaire et M. Butt le conducteur d’un véhicule motorisé qui a heurté et blessé M. Wepruk alors que celui-ci était debout dans son entrée de cour en début de matinée le 3 novembre 2000, après une violente dispute entre les parties. Monsieur Wepruk, un homme de 68 ans à l’époque, était le propriétaire d’un parc à ferrailles situé près de son domicile. Il était aussi un pêcheur commercial remarquablement vigoureux pour un homme de son âge. Il n’avait pas produit de déclarations de revenus depuis vingt ans. Monsieur Wepruk a été blessé au dos, aux épaules, à une jambe et à un genou. Quatre ans après l’accident, il éprouve toujours des douleurs intenses et n’a pas pu reprendre le travail. Il a intenté une action en dommages-intérêts.

Le juge de première instance a conclu que M^me McGarva et M. Butt étaient entièrement responsables des blessures de M. Wepruk, et a accordé 279 132,08 $ en dommages-intérêts, dont 119 250 $ pour perte de capacité de gagner un revenu par le passé et 87 000 $ pour perte de capacité de gagner un revenu dans l’avenir. Le jugement a été confirmé en appel.

31480                    Gestion Martin Lajeunesse Inc., Charles Faucher, Martin Lajeunesse et Services Financiers OPCO Inc. c. Gestion A.V.D. Verville Inc. (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram :                   Les juges Binnie, Deschamps et Abella

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel des arrêts de la Cour d’appel du Québec (Québec), numéros 200‑09‑005408‑056 et 200‑09‑005422‑057, daté du 10 avril 2006, est rejetée avec dépens.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgments of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Quebec), Numbers 200‑09‑005408‑056 and 200‑09‑005422‑057, dated April 10, 2006, is dismissed with costs.

CASE SUMMARY:

Commercial law – Company law – Investment in consideration of issuance of shares – Action to assert claim – Action for performance of contract and reimbursement of advances – Whether Court of Appeal erred in interpreting art. 501(4.1) of Quebec Code of Civil Procedure by disregarding tests established by courts requiring caution and restraint in exercise of its discretion – Whether Court of Appeal transformed appeal as of right provided for in art. 26 of Quebec Code of Civil Procedure into appeal mechanism requiring leave.

In 1999, Alain Verville’s company, Gestion AVD Verville Inc., decided to invest in Services Financiers Opco Inc.  Verville entered into a memorandum of understanding with Opco’s shareholders, Gestion Martin Lajeunesse and Charles Faucher, under which 25 percent of Opco’s common shares would be transferred to it for $80,000 and class C shares for $220,000.  AVD paid the amounts in accordance with the memorandum, but no shares were issued in return as agreed.  During the months that followed, AVD invested more pursuant to a verbal agreement, but this went beyond what had been provided for in the memorandum.  AVD claimed reimbursement of all the amounts paid, alleging that Gestion Martin Lajeunesse and Charles Faucher had not fulfilled their obligations.  The Superior Court ordered them solidarily to pay AVD $300,000 for the purchase of the shares.

RÉSUMÉ DE L’AFFAIRE:

Droit commercial – Droit des compagnies – Investissement en contrepartie de l’émission d’actions –  Action en réclamation – Recours en exécution d’un contrat et remboursement d’avances – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erronément interprété le par. 4.1 de l’art. 501 du Code de procédure civile du Québec en faisant fi des critères établis par la jurisprudence commandant la prudence et la retenue dans l’exercice de son pouvoir discrétionnaire? – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle transformé l’appel de plein droit prévu à l’art. 26 du Code de procédure civile du Québec en mécanisme d’appel sur permission?

En 1999, la compagnie d’Alain Verville, Gestion AVD Verville Inc., décide d'investir dans Services Financiers Opco Inc. Verville conclut un protocole d'entente avec les actionnaires d'Opco, Gestion Martin Lajeunesse et Charles Faucher, selon lequel 25% des actions ordinaires d'Opco lui seraient transférées en contrepartie de 80 000 $, ainsi que des actions de catégorie C en contrepartie de 220 000 $. AVD verse les montants conformément au protocole, sans qu’il n’y ait en contrepartie, comme convenu, d’émissions d’actions.  Dans les mois qui suivent, suite à une entente verbale, AVD investit davantage, mais ce sera au-delà de ce que prévoit le protocole. AVD réclame le remboursement de toutes les sommes versées, alléguant que Gestion Martin Lajeunesse et Charles Faucher n’ont pas exécuté leurs obligations. La Cour supérieure les condamne, conjointement et solidairement, à verser à AVD la somme de 300 000$ pour l’acquisition des actions.

31519                    S.C. v. J.C. (N.B.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram :                   Binnie, Deschamps and Abella JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick, Number 129/05/CA, 2006 NBCA 46, dated April 27, 2006, is dismissed without costs.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Nouveau‑Brunswick, numéro 129/05/CA, 2006 NBCA 46, daté du 27 avril 2006, est rejetée sans dépens.

CASE SUMMARY:

Family law - Divorce - Maintenance - Under what circumstances should the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines: A Draft Proposal  (SSAG) be referenced and applied - What impact should the SSAG have on Orders for spousal support made pursuant to Section 15  of the Divorce Act  ,R.S.C. 1985 (2^nd) Supp. (c.3) -  Should the SSAG be used to determine quantum of spousal support or also their duration - Whether the lower courts placed too much emphasis on the economic self-sufficiency test in the SSAG to the exclusion of the compensatory support principles as set out in previous Supreme Court of Canada decisions - What evidence should be before the court to support a finding of economic self-sufficiency, particularly in cases where there has been a long term marriage and where the dependant spouse has no long-term employment.

The Applicant and Respondent separated after 25 years of marriage.  S.C. had not worked during the marriage, since J.C.’s army career caused them to move frequently, and they had two children. S.C. had taken some bookkeeping courses, and upon separation she obtained work on contract. At the time of their divorce their children were not eligible for child support, and the main issue became the quantum of spousal support payable.

RÉSUMÉ DE L’AFFAIRE:

Droit de la famille – Divorce – Aliments – Dans quelles circonstances devrait‑on avoir recours aux Lignes directrices facultatives en matière de pensions alimentaires pour époux – Ébauche d’une proposition (Lignes directrices) et les appliquer – Quelle devrait être l’incidence des Lignes directrices sur les ordonnances alimentaires au profit de l’époux rendues en vertu de l’art. 15 de la Loi sur le divorce, L.R.C. 1985 (2^e) suppl. (ch. 3)? – Les Lignes directrices devraient‑elles être utilisées pour fixer le montant ainsi que la durée des pensions alimentaires au profit de l’époux? – Les tribunaux inférieurs ont‑ils accordé trop d’importance au critère de l’indépendance économique dans les Lignes directrices à l’exclusion des principes de la pension alimentaire compensatoire qui ont été énoncés dans des arrêts antérieurs de la Cour suprême du Canada? – Quels éléments de preuve devraient être soumis au tribunal pour lui permettre de conclure à l’indépendance économique, en particulier lorsqu’il s’agit d’un mariage de longue durée et que le conjoint à charge n’a pas d’emploi à long terme?

La demanderesse et l’intimé se sont séparés après 25 ans de mariage. S.C. n’avait pas travaillé pendant qu’elle était mariée étant donné que J.C. était militaire de carrière, ce qui les obligeait à déménager souvent; le couple avait deux enfants. S.C. avait pris des cours de tenue de livres et, après la séparation, elle a obtenu du travail à contrat. Au moment du divorce, les enfants n’étaient pas admissibles à une pension alimentaire et la principale question en litige est devenue le montant auquel devait être fixée l’ordonnance alimentaire au profit de l’épouse.

12 juillet 2005

Cour du Banc de la Reine du Nouveau‑Brunswick

(Juge Clendening)

Pension alimentaire au profit de l’épouse de 1 625 $ par mois, devant prendre fin en août 2008

27 avril 2006

Cour d’appel du Nouveau-Brunswick

(Juges Turnbull, Larlee et Robertson)

Appel de la demanderesse visant à obtenir que la pension mensuelle soit fixée à 1 800 $ et une prorogation indéterminée de sa durée de cinq ans, rejeté

23 juin 2006

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

31527                    Nidal Joad c. Sa Majesté la Reine (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram :                   Les juges Binnie, Deschamps et Abella

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‑10‑003437‑066, daté du 29 mai 2006, est rejetée sans dépens.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‑10‑003437‑066, dated May 29, 2006, is dismissed without costs.

CASE SUMMARY:

Procedural law – Civil procedure – Revocation of judgment – Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing Applicant’s motion in revocation of judgment.

On September 13, 2002, Mr. Joad received a statement of offence accusing him of failing to stay at the scene of an accident and driving in reverse without making sure this was safe for traffic.  At the hearing on May 21, 2004, Judge Girouard of the Court of Québec convicted Mr. Joad of the offences with which he was charged.  On June 23, 2005, Paul J. of the Superior Court dismissed Mr. Joad’s appeal, finding that the evidence of the offences could not have been any clearer and that the trial judge had acted properly by putting an end to the oral argument of Mr. Joad, who was trying by every possible means to prevent his trial from being held.

On March 27, 2006, the Court of Appeal dismissed two motions brought by Mr. Joad, one seeking to have two cases joined and another entitled [translation] “motion to annul trial”, which was treated as a motion for leave to appeal the Superior Court’s judgment.  On May 29, 2006, the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Joad’s motion in revocation of the judgments of March 27, 2006.

RÉSUMÉ DE L’AFFAIRE:

Procédure – Procédure civile – Rétractation de jugement – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en rejetant la requête du demandeur en rétractation de jugement?

Le 13 septembre 2002, M. Joad a reçu un constat d’infraction lui reprochant de ne pas être resté sur les lieux d’un accident et d’avoir fait marche arrière sans s’assurer de l’absence de danger pour la circulation. Le 21 mai 2004, le juge Girouard de la Cour du Québec a, à l’audience, déclaré M. Joad coupable des infractions reprochées. Le 23 juin 2005, le juge Paul de la Cour supérieure a rejeté l’appel de M. Joad. Il a jugé que la preuve des infractions était « on ne peut plus claire » et que le juge de première instance avait correctement agi en mettant fin à la plaidoirie de M. Joad, qui avait tenté d’empêcher la tenue de son procès par tous les moyens.

Le 27 mars 2006, la Cour d’appel a rejeté deux requêtes de M. Joad, l’une pour que deux dossiers soient joints, l’autre, intitulée « requête pour annuler le procès » mais traitée comme une requête en autorisation d’appel du jugement de la Cour supérieure. Le 29 mai 2006, la Cour d’appel a rejeté une requête de M. Joad en rétractation des jugements du 27 mars 2006.

31529                    John David Castle v. Ontario Securities Commission (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram :                   Binnie, Deschamps and Abella JJ.

 The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C‑44433, dated April 21, 2006, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande de prorogation du délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C‑44433, daté du 21 avril 2006, est rejetée avec dépens.

CASE SUMMARY:

Procedural law - Judgments and orders - Appeal - Res judicata - Abuse of Process - Whether the lower courts erred in staying the Applicant’s action against the Respondent - Whether the lower courts erred in granting an order pursuant to s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act,  R.S.O. 1990, c. C43.

The Applicant, on behalf of Hamilton Airlines (2000) Inc., has attempted to file a preliminary prospectus for a proposed distribution of up to 10,000,000 “rights certificates” for aggregate proceeds of $2.5 million. The Respondent has found that revised versions of the preliminary prospectus do not meet the requirements of the Securities Act (Ontario).  The Applicant has applied for reviews and reconsiderations of decisions of the Respondent and has commenced various court proceedings against it. In the action to which this application relates the Applicant claims, inter alia,  injurious falsehood, breach of duty of good faith, intentional interference with economic relations and other torts.

RÉSUMÉ DE L’AFFAIRE:

Procédure - Jugements et ordonnances - Appel - Chose jugée - Abus de procédure - Les tribunaux d’instance inférieure ont-ils eu tort de surseoir à l’action intentée par le demandeur contre l’intimée ? - Les tribunaux d’instance inférieure ont-ils commis une erreur en prononçant une ordonnance en application de l’article 140 de la Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires, L.R.O. 1990, ch. C.43?

Le demandeur, qui agissait au nom de Hamilton Airlines (2000) Inc., a tenté de déposer un prospectus provisoire pour le placement proposé d’un maximum de 10 000 000 « certificats de droits » pour un produit total de 2,5 millions de dollars. L’intimée a jugé que des versions révisées du prospectus provisoire ne satisfont pas aux exigences énoncées dans la Loi sur les valeurs mobilières (Ontario). Le demandeur a demandé que les décisions de l’intimée soient revues et réexaminées. Il a aussi intenté diverses procédures contre elle. Dans l’action qui est à l’origine de la présente demande, le demandeur allègue notamment le mensonge préjudiciable, le manquement au  devoir de bonne foi, l’ingérence intentionnelle dans les relations économiques et d’autres délits civils.

31573                    Robert Bélanger c. Jacques Guilbault, ingénieur, ès qualités de syndic adjoint de l’Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram :                   Les juges Binnie, Deschamps et Abella

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‑09‑016153‑058, daté du 18 mai 2006, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de l’intimé.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‑09‑016153‑058, dated May 18, 2006, is dismissed with costs to the respondent.

CASE SUMMARY:

Procedural law – Pre‑trial procedure – Administrative law – Appeal – Doctrine of abuse of process – Whether judicial system can maintain coherence and credibility if inferior tribunal makes decision on individual’s conduct even though superior court has already examined same circumstances – Whether principle of [translation] “separate forums” allows of exceptions, as in instant case – Whether, under hierarchy of norms, Ordre des ingénieurs can give precedence to regulations (Code of ethics of engineers) over Act respecting occupational health and safety, which is public statute and law of public order – Whether, in such circumstances, doctrine of abuse of process can be applied and stay of disciplinary proceedings ordered.

The syndic accused Robert Bélanger of acts contrary to the Code of ethics of engineers.  Mr. Bélanger brought a motion for a stay of proceedings to prevent the complaints filed from being heard by the committee on discipline of the Ordre des ingénieurs.  Mr. Bélanger alleged that, in hearing another motion, Tingley J. of the Superior Court had considered the same issue covered by the complaint before the committee on discipline.  According to Mr. Bélanger, the Superior Court had cleared him of all blame. Mr. Bélanger argued that hearing the complaint would be unfair because the complaint could not be allowed without contradicting the decision of Tingley J.

RÉSUMÉ DE L’AFFAIRE:

Procédure – Procédure préalable au procès – Droit administratif – Appel – Doctrine de l’abus de procédure – La cohérence et la crédibilité du système judiciaire peuvent-elles permettre qu’un tribunal inférieur puisse statuer à nouveau sur le comportement d’un individu alors que les mêmes circonstances ont déjà été examinées par une cour supérieure? – Le principe des  « forums distincts » souffre-t-il d’exceptions comme en l’espèce? – Selon la hiérarchie des normes, l’Ordre des ingénieurs peut-il faire prévaloir un règlement (le Code de déontologie des ingénieurs) sur la Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail, Loi d’intérêt et d’ordre public? – Peut-on, dans de telles circonstances, recourir à la doctrine de l’abus de procédure et prononcer l’arrêt des procédures disciplinaires?

Le syndic reproche à Robert Bélanger des actes contraires au Code de déontologie des ingénieurs. Monsieur Bélanger s'oppose, par le biais d’une requête en arrêt des procédures, à l'audition des plaintes déposées par le Comité de discipline de l'Ordre des ingénieurs. En effet, M. Bélanger allègue qu’à l’occasion d’une autre requête, la Cour supérieure, sous la plume du juge Tingley, s’était penchée sur la même question que celle qui fait l’objet de la plainte devant le Comité de discipline. Or, selon M. Bélanger, la Cour supérieure l’aurait exonéré de tout blâme. Monsieur Boulanger prétend que l’audition de la plainte constituerait une injustice parce qu’elle ne saurait être accueillie sans contredire la décision du juge Tingley.

03.10.2006

Before / Devant : LEBEL J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by counsel on behalf of the Respondents, The Vancouver Sun, the Province and BCTV (the “CanWest Respondents”) for orders relating to the partial unsealing of the file and the hearing of the within appeal, coming on for hearing on August 2, 2006;

AND FURTHER to the Order of this Court issued on June 22, 2006;

AND HAVING READ the material filed for the hearing of August 2, 2006;

AND HAVING ADJOURNED that hearing in part to await the receipt of further materials, which have now been filed and read;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1.         The file shall remain sealed until the disposition of the appeal and will only be made available to counsel for the appellants, the Named Person and Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the Requesting State; counsel for the respondents; their respective Ottawa agents; Patricia Graham, Ian Haysom, Wayne Moriarty and Steve Pasternak, for review in the presence of counsel for the CanWest Respondents; the individual representatives of the other Respondents to whom the Extradition Judge provided, or may provide, access to the Reasons for Judgment that were the basis for the Redacted Reasons for Judgment, and who have filed, or may file, an Undertaking of Confidentiality with the court below, for review in the presence of their respective counsel; members of this Court; Court staff; and other persons as the parties may, in writing, agree or this Court may further order.

2.         Counsel for the media are permitted to submit the information and documents in their hands to the designated representatives of their clients, who must sign undertakings of confidentiality, in the same form as in the trial court.

3.         This file continues to be recorded only as “In the Supreme Court of Canada, in the Matter of a Named Person”, but shall identify as part of the style of cause that this matter originates from the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

4.         This Court’s Orders of May 30, 2005, December 13, 2005, and June 22, 2006, shall be unsealed and, along with the within Order, placed in the “Public File”.

5.         Any person or entity may publish or broadcast, in addition to being permitted to (re)publish, or (re)broadcast any of the matters that the Supreme Court of British Columbia has previously allowed to be published or broadcast:

a)         that this Court has granted leave to appeal from the Order that resulted from the Redacted Reasons for Judgment; and

b)         any other document, or fact, contained within the “Public File”.

6.         The hearing of this appeal shall be conducted in open court subject to the following directions:

a)         there shall be a ban on the publication of anything said during the course of the appeal.  At the conclusion of the hearing any of the parties can request that the ban be vacated or varied;

b)         at the hearing of this appeal no reference shall be made to any information not contained in the “Public File” without first obtaining leave of the Court.

7.         The redacted copy of the reasons for judgment of the trial judge and statement of the generic facts will be put on the public Court file.  The statement of the generic facts will be attached to the formal order for publication in this Court’s Bulletin of Proceedings.

8.         Copies of the redacted copy of the reasons for judgment of the trial judge and statement of the generic facts may be communicated to third parties.

9.         Only the redacted copy of the reasons for judgment of the trial judge and statement of the generic facts may be used for the drafting of the public factum for the public Court file.

10.        The appellants shall file one copy of their record in the “Public File” which will include the Redacted Reasons for Judgment, and such other material as required by this Court’s Rules.  This record may contain other redacted documents as agreed to by the parties.  If they are unable to agree, then an application to settle the contents of the record shall be made to the Court.

11.        In the event that the respondents elect to file a record, one copy shall be filed in the “Public File”, and may contain redacted documents as agreed to by the parties.  If they are unable to agree, then an application to settle the contents of the record shall be made to the Court.

12.        The appellants shall file in the “Sealed File” twelve copies of their record in unredacted form, save and except that it will not be necessary to include copies of documents which have been redacted only by the removal of the references to the dates on which they were created and / or filed, or the Supreme Court of British Columbia file number and registry.

13.        In the event that the respondents file a record containing redacted material, then they shall file in the “Sealed File” twelve copies of their record in unredacted form, save and except that it will not be necessary to include copies of documents which have been redacted only by the removal of the references to the dates on which they were created and / or filed, or the Supreme Court of British Columbia file number and registry.

14.        Any party is at liberty to apply to vary or set aside this Order on 10 days notice.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

1.         The appeal is scheduled to be heard on April 24, 2007.

2.         The factum, record and book of authorities, of the appellant, the Named Person, shall be served and filed on or before November 1, 2006.

3.         The factum, record and book of authorities of the appellant, the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the Requesting State, shall be served and filed on or before December 1, 2006.

4.         The factum, record and book of authorities of the respondents shall be served and filed on or before January 30, 2007.

5.         The interveners who shall be granted leave to intervene shall file their factum and book of authorities on or before February 28, 2007.

6.         The parties are required to file a motion if they wish to file a reply factum to the interventions.

A.            PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

1.             Background to Matters Under Appeal

1.             The appeal to this Court is from an Order pronounced in the course of an extradition hearing (the “Hearing”) before a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia sitting as an extradition judge (the “Extradition Judge”).

2.             The person whose extradition was sought (the “Named Person”) is charged with an offence in the Requesting State.

3.             At some point during the Hearing, the Named Person applied for an Order that the proceedings continue in camera.  The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the Requesting State consented to the application.  The Extradition Judge granted the application.

4.             After the Court ordered that the Hearing continue in camera, the Named Person applied for relief in advance of an intended application for a stay of the extradition proceedings on the ground that his or her rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  had been breached  (the “Proposed Stay Application”).  In support of the Proposed Stay Application, the Named Person informed the Extradition Judge that:

(a)           The Named Person was a confidential police informer;

(b)           The Named Person provided information to authorities (in Canada or in the Requesting State) against an individual (the “Co-Conspirator”) relating to that person’s involvement in criminal activity;

(c)           Both the Co-Conspirator and the Requesting State are aware that the Named Person is a confidential police informer and that he or she provided information to the authorities;

(d)           The Named Person was involved in criminal activity and has been charged in the Requesting State in that connection;

(e)           The Co-Conspirator has now provided evidence to the authorities in the Requesting State implicating the Named Person.

2.             Matters Under Appeal

5.             While the Hearing was in camera the Extradition Judge asked counsel for submissions as to whether the Hearing should continue to be held in camera.  Counsel for the Named Person and counsel for the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the Requesting State both submitted that the Hearing should continue in camera.

6.             The Extradition Judge then sought the assistance of amicus curiae on issues relating to the Hearing continuing in camera.   Amicus curiae was provided with all exhibits and documents provided to the Court, together with transcripts of all of the Hearing held in camera (the “Amicus Documents”).  Amicus curiae filed submissions.

7.             Following submissions by amicus curiae, a letter was written on behalf of the Extradition Judge to a number of counsel who from time to time act for members of the media.  The letter provided that counsel could attend a hearing on a specified date provided that they filed undertakings of confidentiality and provided that they did not disclose any details to their clients.

8.             A number of counsel who regularly appear on behalf of members of the media subsequently attended at the in camera Hearing, having filed undertakings of confidentiality with the Court.  After hearing counsel, the Extradition Judge directed that the issue of the applicability of the informer privilege rule would be addressed at the next hearing and if a further hearing was necessary it would be left to another day.  The bifurcation process was ordered over the objection of counsel for the media.  The Extradition Judge ordered that counsel could report to their clients but that their clients could publish very little about the events of the Hearing.

9.             Later the argument on the applicability of the informer privilege rule was heard.  Following argument, the Extradition Judge held that “the informant privilege rule does not act as a bar to proceeding otherwise than in camera” and that the issue of whether or not to proceed in camera “must be decided in accordance with the principles established in Dagenais, Mentuck and Re Vancouver Sun”.  At that time the Extradition Judge permitted the media to publish only the facts that the Court had heard the matter scheduled to be heard in camera and that the Court determined that it would require further hearings, which are to proceed in camera, to ascertain what (if any) part of the proceedings could be made public.

10.           Subsequently, the Extradition Judge heard submissions regarding the materials that would be disclosed to media counsel and specific client representatives on an interim basis to enable the clients to instruct counsel, and counsel to make submissions, on whether Dagenais/Mentuck requires that the Named Person’s applications be heard in camera. The media applied for an Order that counsel and specific representatives of each member of the media be permitted to review the Amicus Documents upon each individual filing an undertaking of confidentiality.  The various media applicants filed affidavits in support of the application.   Judgment was reserved.

11.           Subsequently, the Extradition Judge allowed the media’s application and ordered that counsel for the media and specific representatives of each member of the media be entitled to review copies of the Amicus Documents on terms and upon each individual filing an undertaking of confidentiality with the Court (the “Dagenais Interim Disclosure Order”).  The Extradition Judge stayed the Dagenais Interim Disclosure Order for 60 days to allow the Named Person and the Attorney General to consider whether to seek leave to appeal from it to the Supreme Court of Canada (the “Stay Order”).  The Stay Order was extended from to time and remains in force.  Subsequently, the Extradition Judge ordered that the reasons for judgment in support of the Dagenais Interim Disclosure Order (the “Dagenais Interim Disclosure Reasons”) could be reviewed by specific representatives of the media Respondents upon each representative filing an undertaking of confidentiality with the Court.

B.            PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

12.           Both the Named Person and the Attorney General of Canada on Behalf of the Requesting State applied for leave to appeal to this Court from the Dagenais Interim Disclosure Order on the issues of whether the Extradition Judge erred:

(1)           in interpreting and applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test in the context of a claim of informer privilege; and

(2)           in allowing:

(i)            media counsel; and

(ii)           media representatives

to have access on confidentiality undertakings to information that is subject to an interim sealing order to enable media organizations to make submissions to the court on whether the Dagenais/Mentuck test permits the grant of a permanent sealing order.

The current Respondents to that appeal are The Vancouver Sun, The Province, BCTV, CBC, CKNW, CityTV, and CTV, a Division of Bell Globemedia. The appeal has provisionally been set for hearing in April 2007.

13.           The appeal in this Court is subject to a sealing Order pronounced by the Honourable Mr. Justice LeBel on 30 May 2005 and continued on 22 June 2006 (the “Sealing Order”), copies of which are attached as Schedules “A” and “B” to this statement.

14.           Attached as Schedule “C” to this statement is a redacted copy of the Dagenais Interim Disclosure Reasons. That document, and this statement, have been prepared for the purpose of public distribution, pursuant to an Order pronounced by the Honourable Mr. Justice LeBel.

3.10.2006

Before / Devant : LEBEL J.

10.10.2006

Before / Devant : THE CHIEF JUSTICE

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the appellant for an order stating constitutional questions in the above appeal;

AND THE MATERIAL FILED having been read;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion to state constitutional questions is dismissed.

11.10.2006

Before / Devant : ROTHSTEIN J.

GRANTED IN PART / ACCORDÉES EN PARTIE

UPON APPLICATION by the Canadian Police Association and the Police Association of Ontario for an extension of time to apply for leave to intervene and for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

AND THE MATERIAL FILED having been read;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion for an extension of time to apply for leave to intervene and for leave to intervene of the applicants, the Canadian Police Association and the Police Association of Ontario, is granted and the applicants shall be entitled to serve and file a single factum not to exceed 10 pages in length on or before October 20, 2006.

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

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

Pursuant to Rule 59(1)(a) the intervener shall pay to the appellant and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondents by their intervention.

11.10.2006

Before / Devant : THE CHIEF JUSTICE

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the appellants for a further order extending the time to serve and file their record, factum and book of authorities to February 25, 2007;

AND THE MATERIAL FILED having been read;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1)         The motion is granted.

2)         The time to serve and file the appellants’ factum, record and book of authorities is extended to February 25, 2007.

3)         The appeal is adjourned and shall be scheduled to be heard on May 25, 2007.

12.10.2006

Before / Devant : CHARRON J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association for an extension of time to apply for leave to intervene and for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

AND THE MATERIAL FILED having been read;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion for an extension of time to apply for leave to intervene and for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a single factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before November 10, 2006.

The request to present oral argument is deferred to a date following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the intervener.

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

Pursuant to Rule 59(1)(a) the intervener shall pay to the appellant and respondent any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondent by its intervention.

12.10.2006

Before / Devant : CHARRON J.

UPON APPLICATIONS by the Alberta Federation of Labour, by the Public School Boards’ Association of Alberta, by the Canadian Teachers’ Federation and by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

AND THE MATERIAL FILED having been read;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Alberta Federation of Labour, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before October 20, 2006.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Public School Boards’ Association of Alberta, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before October 20, 2006.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Canadian Teachers’ Federation, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before October 20, 2006.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, is dismissed.

The requests to present oral argument are deferred to a date following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the interveners.

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

Pursuant to Rule 59(1)(a) the interveners shall pay to the appellants and respondent any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellants and respondent by their intervention.

16.10.2006

Coram:                    The Chief Justice McLachlin and Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ 

17.10.2006

Coram:    Bastarache, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ 

OCTOBER 20, 2006 / LE 20 OCTOBRE 2006

30695 / 30849    Her Majesty the Queen v. Imperial Oil Limited - AND BETWEEN - Her Majesty the Queen v. Inco Limited - and - Teck Cominco Limited (F.C.) 2006 SCC 46 / 2006 CSC 46

Coram:    McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.

The appeals from the judgments of the Federal Court of Appeal, Numbers A‑142‑04, 2004 FCA 361, and A‑564‑04, 2005 FCA 38, dated October 26, 2004 and January 27, 2005, heard on February 7, 2006 are allowed.  The judgments of the Federal Court of Appeal are set aside and the Minister’s assessments are confirmed, as varied by Miller J. in the Imperial Oil case, with costs throughout.  Binnie, Fish and Charron JJ. are dissenting.

Les appels interjetés contre les arrêts de la Cour d’appel fédérale, numéros A‑142‑04, 2004 CAF 361, et A‑564‑04, 2005 CAF 38, en date du 26 octobre 2004 et du 27 janvier 2005, entendus le 7 février 2006 sont accueillis.  Les jugements de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont annulés et les cotisations établies par le ministre sont confirmées, telles que le juge Miller les a modifiées dans l’affaire Compagnie pétrolière Impériale, et ce, avec dépens dans toutes les cours.  Les juges Binnie, Fish et Charron sont dissidents.

Her Majesty the Queen v. Imperial Oil Limited (Ont.) (30695) /

Her Majesty the Queen v. Inco Limited (Ont.) (30849)

Indexed as:  Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Canada; Inco Ltd. v. Canada

Répertorié : Compagnie pétrolière Impériale ltée c. Canada; Inco ltée c. Canada

Neutral citation:  2006 SCC 46. / Référence neutre : 2006 CSC 46.

Hearing: February 7,2006 / Judgment: October 20, 2006

Audition : Le 7 février 2006 / Jugement : Le 20 octobre 2006

Present:  McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.

Taxation — Income tax — Computation of business income — Capital losses — Discount on certain obligations — Foreign exchange losses — Debentures issued by taxpayer companies in U.S. dollars — Appreciation of U.S. dollar against Canadian dollar resulted in foreign exchange losses on redemption of debt obligations — Whether s. 20(1)(f) of Income Tax Act  permits deductions from income of foreign exchange losses incurred on redemption of debt obligations —  Whether s. 20(1)(f) limited to deduction of original issue discounts — Whether foreign exchange losses constitute capital losses pursuant to s. 39(2)  of Income Tax Act  — Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp .), ss. 20(1)(f), 39(2) .