Bulletins

CONTENTS                                                                                                                                                                                       TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Applications for leave to appeal                                                                                  336 - 337                                        Demandes d'autorisation d'appels

filed                                                                                                                                                                                                        produites

Applications for leave submitted                                                                                 338 - 346                                          Demandes soumises à la Cour depuis la

to Court since last issue                                                                                                                                                                  dernière parution

Oral hearing ordered                                                                                                          -                              Audience ordonnée

Oral hearing on applications for                                                                                -                                 Audience sur les demandes d'autorisation

leave                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Judgments on applications for                                                                                    347 - 357                                          Jugements rendus sur les demandes

leave                                                                                                                                                                                                     d'autorisation

Motions                                                                                                                                358 - 362                                          Requêtes

Notices of appeal filed since last                                                                                363                                 Avis d'appel produits depuis la dernière

issue                                                                                                                                                                           parution

Notices of intervention filed since                                                                                   364                                           Avis d'intervention produits depuis la

last issue                                                                                                                                                                                              dernière parution

Notices of discontinuance filed since                                                                             365                                 Avis de désistement produits depuis la

last issue                                                                                                                                                                                              dernière parution

Appeals heard since last issue and                                                                             366 - 371                                     Appels entendus depuis la dernière

disposition                                                                                                                                                                                           parution et résultat

Pronouncements of appeals reserved                                                                         -                                 Jugements rendus sur les appels en

délibéré

Headnotes of recent judgments                                                                                  372 - 378                                     Sommaires des arrêts récents

Weekly agenda                                                                                                                     379                                 Ordre du jour de la semaine

Summaries of the cases                                                                                                      -                         Résumés des affaires

Cumulative Index ‐ Leave                                                                                             380 - 388                 Index cumulatif ‐ Autorisations

Cumulative Index ‐ Appeals                                                                                         389 - 390                                   Index cumulatif ‐ Appels

Appeals inscribed ‐ Session                                                                                                -                                 Pourvois inscrits ‐ Session

beginning                                                                                                                                                                  commençant le

Notices to the Profession and                                                                                            -                            Avis aux avocats et communiqué

Press Release                                                                                                                                                                                     de presse

Deadlines: Motions before the Court                                                                            391                                           Délais: Requêtes devant la Cour

Deadlines: Appeals                                                                                                              392                                        Délais: Appels

Judgments reported in S.C.R.                                                                                            393                                           Jugements publiés au R.C.S.

Joseph Pilon

John D. McAlpine, Q.C.

McAlpine & Hordo

v. (23866)

Dr. A. Bouaziz et al. (B.C.)

`                       Paul T. McGivern

Harper, Grey, Easton

FILING DATE  14.2.1994

Lisa Colleen Neve

Felicity C. Hunter

v. (23991)

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

Bart Rosborough

A.G. of Alberta

FILING DATE  28.2.1994

Richard Dubois

Richard Wagner

Lavery, de Billy

c. (23993)

Raymond, Chabot, Fafard, Gagnon Inc. (Qué.)

Jean LeFrançois

Guy & Gilbert

DATE DE PRODUCTION  9.2.1994

332415 Alberta Ltd. et al.

Weir Bowen

v. (23994)

Edmonton Oilers Hockey Corp. (Alta.)

Ogilvie & Co.

FILING DATE  21.2.1994

David Partridge

Damien R. Frost

Lomer, Frost

v. (23995)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE  14.2.1994

Major A.G. Johnstone

Sandra A. Forbes

v. (23996)

Her Majesty The Queen (M.A.C.C.)(Ont.)

FILING DATE  21.2.1994

Patricia Morley

Parlee McLaws

v. (23997)

Kalaka Housing Co-Operative Ltd. et al. (Alta.)

Brownlee Fryett

FILING DATE  8.2.1994

Foyer de Val d'Or Inc.

Chantal Boyer

Ayotte Martineau McGuire Boyer

v. (23998)

Syndicat des employés du Foyer de Val d'Or Inc. (CSN) et al. (Qué.)

Pierre Gauthier

Sauvé, Ménard & Associés

FILING DATE  10.2.1994

Lakeview National Hotels Inc. et al.

W.G. Ryall

Fillmore & Riley

v. (23999)

The Assessor for the City of Winnipeg et al. (Man.)

M.S. Samphir

H.R.R. Klapecki

FILING DATE  11.2.1994

David Attis et al.

Neil Finkelstein

Blake, Cassels & Graydon

v. (24002)

The Board of School Trustees, District No. 15 et al. (N.B.)

James C. Letcher, Q.C.

FILING DATE  11.2.1994

Mainland Sand & Gravel Ltd.

D.B. Kirkham, Q.C.

Owen, Bird

v. (24003)

Zoltan Tutinka (B.C.)

Kevin C. Blair

Taylor & Blair

FILING DATE  15.2.1994

The Corporation of the City of Stratford et al.

John W.T. Judson

Lerner & Assoc.

v. (24004)

Albert Large et al. (Ont.)

Kim Twohig

A.G. of Ontario

FILING DATE  17.2.1994

Sequa Chemicals Inc.

Rogert T. Hughes, Q.C.

v. (24005)

United Color and Chemical Ltd. (F.C.A.)

Thomas A. McDougall, Q.C.

Perley-Robertson, Panet, Hill & McDougall

FILING DATE  18.2.1994

Redpath Industries Ltd.

Vincent M. Prager

Stikeman, Elliott

v. (24006)

The Ship ("Cisco") et al. (F.C.A.)

Victor DeMarco

Brisset Bishop

FILING DATE  18.2.1994

James Gerald Frederick Robert Skinner

Walsh, Micay & Co.

v. (24007)

Her Majesty The Queen (Man.)

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE  18.2.1994

Sandra Florence Vout

Joseph M. Steiner

v. (24009)

Earl Hay et al. (Ont.)

FILING DATE  21.2.1994

                                                                                                                                               MARCH 3, 1994 / LE 3 MARS 1994

CORAM:  THE CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER AND CORY AND IACOBUCCI JJ. /

LE JUGE EN CHEF LAMER ET LES JUGES CORY ET IACOBUCCI

                                                                                                                                        Rafeeq Ahmad Khan

                                                                                                                                                    v. (23947)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Sexual assault - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that cross-examination of an accused requiring him to explain why allegations have been made against him is not improper - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding, that in a trial by judge alone where credibility of the accused is in issue, it is sufficient for the trial judge to find that he accepts the evidence of the complainant without making a further evaluation of and finding in relation to the evidence of the accused.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                                                          Consolidated Enfield Corporation

                                                                                                                                                    v. (23887)

                                                                                                                                     Michael F. Blair (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Procedural law - Company law - Costs - Standard of conduct required of chairmen of public corporation meetings - Whether chairmen are required to act quasi-judicially -Interpretation of the directors' and officers' indemnity provision in the business corporations statutes - Whether the fact that a chairman received legal advice in respect of a decision and followed such advice is determinative of his or her entitlement to an indemnity against costs arising from litigation over that decision - Standard of conduct required of a chairman during litigation concerning his or her ruling.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                                                                  Thalayasingam Sivakumar

                                                                                                                                                    v. (23962)

                                                                                            The Minister of Employment and Immigration (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Immigration - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - International law - Criminal law - Procedural law - Evidence - Exclusion clause - Convention refugee status denied on the basis of crimes against humanity - Proper criteria for denying protection to persons who would otherwise be declared Convention refugees - Degree of complicity required to be found responsible for crimes against humanity - Whether a claimant's right under s. 7  of the Charter  has been infringed by holding him to a standard of absolute liability for criminal acts under the exclusion clause - Whether the effect of invoking the exclusion clause on such a low standard of proof amounts to cruel and unusual treatment contrary to s. 12  of the Charter  - Whether the evidence of a refugee claimant at his hearing might open him to charges under the Criminal Code  and if so, whether this violates ss. 7 , 11(c)  and 13  of the Charter  - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal is being faithful to the principles enunciated by this Court in Singh and M.E.I., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177, to guide and govern the relationship between immigration and refugee law and the Charter .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                                                                      Edward James Attridge

                                                                                                                                                    v. (23926)

                                                                                                                             Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Business tax - Applicant reporting sales of shares in business in income tax returns at an adjusted cost - Minister of National Revenue revising adjusted cost - Tax Review Board dismissing Applicant's appeal of Notices of Reassessment - Federal Court, Trial Division, allowing Applicant's appeal - Whether the evidence of value found in the course of the trial to determine the fair market value of the business for the purpose of deriving an adjusted cost base under subdivision C of Part 1 of the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, and s. 26 of the Income Tax Application Rules, 1971, can be "adjusted" on the basis of principles applicable to a determination of "fair value" under s. 199 of the Canada Business Corporations Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-44 , as was done by the trial judge.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:  LA FOREST, SOPINKA AND MAJOR JJ. /

LES JUGES LA FOREST, SOPINKA ET MAJOR

                                                                                                                                  Melvin Darnell Engerdahl

                                                                                                                                                    v. (23758)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Defence counsel inadequately prepared and inexperienced -  Whether trial judge erred in not directing complainant as to appropriate manner for answering questions - Should defence have been allowed to examine complainant as to her previous sexual conduct - Introduction of fresh evidence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                                                                  The Royal Bank of Canada,

                                                                                                                              and Doane Raymond Limited,

                                                                                              Receiver and Manager of Pegasus Helicopters Incorporated

                                                                                    and Peat Marwick Thorne Inc., Trustee of the Estate of the Bankrupt,

                                                                                                                          Pegasus Helicopters Incorporated

                                                                                                                                                    v. (23914)

                                                                                                                          Mitsui & Co. (Canada) Ltd. (N.S.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Contracts - Sale - Lease - Whether the agreements between the parties were true leases or conditional sales contracts - Whether the Conditional Sales Act of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and the North West Territories apply to leases of goods which contain a provision whereby the lessee has the right to become the owner of the goods - Did the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal err in its interpretation and application of the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Re Nishi Industries (1978), 28 C.B.R. (N.S.) 261, such that conflict now exists between the law governing conditional sales agreements as described by the two provincial Courts of Appeal?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                                                                               Bradley Young

                                                                                                                                                    v. (23893)

                                                                                                Her Majesty's Attorney General for Newfoundland (Nfld.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Occupier's Liability - Crown - Whether the standard of care required of the Crown in occupier's liability cases can be less than that accorded individuals - What is the standard of care in such a case.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                                                                     Manship Holdings Ltd.

                                                                                                                                                    v. (23941)

                                                                                                                                   Eric A. Muise et al. (N.B.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Real property - Land titles - Easements - Licenses - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in characterizing the grants in question as easements rather than as personal licences.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                                                                 Eileen Mary Tierney-Hynes

                                                                                                                                                    v. (23930)

                                                                                                                         Adrian Francis Mary Hynes (Man.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family Law - Maintenance - Respondent physician undertaking a four year residency program to upgrade his qualifications - Reasonableness of voluntarily creating a change in circumstances - Consequences of change on children - Assessment of child support to be based on unified or divided family.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:  L'HEUREUX-DUBÉ, GONTHIER AND McLACHLIN JJ. /

LES JUGES L'HEUREUX-DUBÉ, GONTHIER ET McLACHLIN

                                                                                                                                          Henri-Paul Loubier

                                                                                                                                                    c. (23969)

                                                                                                                         Sa Majesté La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Infractions - Procès - Plaidoyer de culpabilité par l'intermédiaire d'un avocat - Requête du demandeur pour être relevé de son plaidoyer de culpabilité rejetée - Appel rejeté - La Cour d'appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en restreignant le temps accordé au demandeur pour présenter sa cause par suite du congédiement de son avocat?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

                                                                                                                            MacMillan Bloedel Limited and

                                                                                                                     Canadian Transport Company Limited

                                                                                                                                                    v. (23899)

John Richard Ludbrooke Youell (Representative Under-writer), Orion Insurance Co. Ltd., The Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Co.(U.K.) Ltd., Commercial Union Assurance Co. Ltd., Sphere Insurance Co. Ltd., Drake Insurance Co. Ltd., The Threadneedle Insurance Co. Ltd., Insurance Company of North America (U.K.) Ltd. Bishopgate Insurance Co. Ltd., Indemnity Marine Assurance Co. Ltd. British Law Insurance Co. Ltd., La Réunion Française Soc. Anon. D'Assurances et de Réassurances, Albion Insurance Co. Ltd. Ocean Marine Insurance Co. Ltd., Scottish Lion Insurance Co. Ltd., Provincial Insurance Co. Ltd., Minister Insurance Co. Ltd. Andrew Weir Insurance Co. Ltd., Insurance Corporation of Ireland Ltd., and Hansa Marine Insurance Co.(U.K.) Ltd. (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Maritime law - Insurance marine - Damages - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Applicants' claim against the Respondents for recovery of mitigation costs be denied.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                                                                       Helo Enterprises Ltd.

                                                                                                                                                    v. (23924)

                                                                                                                          Ernst & Young Inc. Liquidators for

                                                                                                       the Standard Trust Company in Liquidation (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Administrative law - Criminal law - Statutes - Interpretation - Loan - Creditor and debtor - Interest - Judicial review - Standard of review - Interpretation and application of section 347  of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 , which prohibits agreements to receive interest at a criminal rate, in civil proceedings - Company retained to find a lender for a condominium project - Mortgage agreement and a participation agreement between lender and borrower - Actuary finding that the effective annual rate of interest was over 60 per cent - Mortgage broker's facility fee included in calculation of interest - Whether the mortgage broker's facility fee was a cost to the borrower as found in the "soft costs" and was rightly included in the calculation of interest under section 347  of the Criminal Code  - Whether the Court of Appeal for British Columbia erred in not making reference to the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in William E. Thompson Associates v. Carpenter (1989) 61 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 69 O.R. (2d) 545 (C.A.).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                                                                  Omineca Enterprises Ltd.

                                                                                                                                                    v. (23939)

                                                                                    Minister of Forests and the Appeal Board appointed pursuant to the

                                                                                  Forest Act by Order in Council number 349 dated March 6, 1992 (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Procedural law - Appeal - Jurisdiction - Barristers and solicitors - Bias - Audi alteram partem - Whether an appeal tribunal is entitled to have a lawyer advise it on matters raised on the appeal - Whether a denial of natural justice arises where the lawyer for the appeal tribunal and the lawyer for the respondent are both appointed and paid by the Attorney General.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                                                                                  Milk Board

                                                                                                                                                    v. (23927)

                                                                                                              Ronald Grisnich and Gilbert Grisnich (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Statutes - Statutory instruments - Interpretation - Series of orders enacted by the Milk Board as part of its regulation of the dairy industry - Whether statutory bodies with powers derived from multiple sources should be able to exercise those powers concurrently or whether they must choose one power or the other when enacting a particular rule or order - Whether statutory bodies with powers derived from multiple sources are required to specify on the face of each rule or order enacted by the statutory body which power is being exercised in the particular rule or order.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

MARCH 3, 1994 / LE 3 MARS 1994

23777            COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE CO. OF CANADA v. THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, a Canadian Chartered Bank (N.S.)

CORAM:      La Forest, Sopinka and Major JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Insurance - Interpretation - Applicant issuing fire insurance policy for house on which Respondent was mortgagee - Policy lapsing without notice to Respondent -House burning after policy lapsed and Applicant rejecting Respondent's claim for loss - Obligation of an insurer to notify mortgagees of the lapse of policy coverage - Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Trial Division, holding Applicant liable to Respondent - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the standard mortgage clause in the insurance policy so as to impose on the Applicant an obligation to notify the Respondent of the lapse of the insurance policy by the passage of time.

23835            ALLAHYER SOHRABIAN v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.) (Ont.)

CORAM:      La Forest, Sopinka and Major JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Offences - Narcotics - Conspiracy - Whether an agreement between two parties for the sale and purchase of narcotics where the seller knows that the buyer will re-sell the drugs constitutes a conspiracy to traffic in narcotics? - Section 4 of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1 - R. v. Sokoloski, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 523.

23831            ROY KENSHIN LEE v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.) (Ont.)

CORAM:      La Forest, Sopinka and Major JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Procedural law - Trial - Evidence - Applicant charged with first degree murder - Witness giving statement, after his arrest on a robbery charge, to the police and testifying at trial that Applicant described how he committed the murder - Applicant's counsel, in cross-examination, attempting to question the witness as to the circumstances under which he admitted to robbery - Trial judge holding that the evidence concerning the admission of robbery was collateral - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial judge did not err in denying Applicant's counsel the right to call evidence to contradict a portion of the testimony of a key Crown witness on the basis that this evidence was collateral to the main issue.

23838            RAYMOND MERCER v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.) (Nfld.)

CORAM:      La Forest, Sopinka and Major JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Procedural law - Sentencing - Applicant having unprotected sexual intercourse with two women knowing of his possible infection with the HIV virus, and and after receiving results confirming this - Applicant convicted on two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and one count of breach of bail undertaking and sentenced to a total of 27 months imprisonment - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding evidence establishing aggravating factors for sentence to be proved beyond reasonable doubt - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not directing itself to the burden of proof required to establish aggravating factors on sentence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to specifically state the acts or omissions which constituted the criminal negligence in this case - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in including a consent analysis in its determination of the aggravating actions of the Applicant - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by placing too much weight on the Applicant's silence as an aggravating factor in sentence.

23782            BHIM SINGH MAYER v. BHAGWAN SINGH MAYER, BHORA SINGH MAYER and MHINDER SINGH MAYER, and BHAGWAN SINGH MAYER and BHORA SINGH MAYER, executors of the will of WELBIER SINGH MAYER, also known as WELBIER S. MAYER, deceased (B.C.)

CORAM:      La Forest, Sopinka and Major JJ.

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

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Pre-trial procedure - Court - Jurisdiction - Settlement agreement - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that a misstatement of law could not give rise to a right of rescission for innocent misrepresentation - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that a Court has jurisdiction to set aside a settlement agreement that has been unfairly obtained.

23680            Y.L. v. CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY OF HALIFAX (N.S.)

CORAM:      La Forest, Sopinka and Major JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family law - Custody - Adoption - Infants - Child welfare proceedings - Proceedings begun under the Children's Services Act - Numerous delays - New legislation enacted during course of proceedings - Family Court Judge ordering that child be placed in care and custody of the Respondent - Court of Appeal allowing Applicant's appeal as a result of the conclusion that the Family Court Judge was without jurisdiction - Child reapprehended - Disposition order made by subsequent Family Court Judge - Mother of the child having improved her life considerably by the time she testified in the second proceeding - Family Court Judge concluding that the improvements made by the Appellant came too late - Court of Appeal concluding that Family Court Judge made a disposition order in the best interests of the child, which remains the governing consideration under the legislation.

23770            THE GOVERNMENT OF MANITOBA v. A.J. - and - DOUGLAS CALMAIN and KARYN JUNE POWELL as the Executors and Trustees of the Estate of JUNE IRIS CAIRNIE and W.D. (Man.)

CORAM:      La Forest, Sopinka and Major JJ.

The application for leave to appeal and the application for leave to cross-appeal are dismissed.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel et la demande d'autorisation d'appel incident sont rejetées.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Actions - Appeals - Limitations - Statutes - Interpretation - Application for leave to bring action that would otherwise be barred by reason of limitation periods - Criteria for extension of time - Impact of other legislation - Effect of limitation period applying to representatives of an estate contained in the Trustee Act - Whether the limitation period in Public Officers Act prevents the commencement or continuation of proceedings against the Government of Manitoba - Did Court of Appeal err in substituting its discretion for that of the chambers judge - Was Court of Appeal correct in its reasons on the issue of prejudice - Reasons of Court of Appeal on motion to settle terms of Certificate of Judgment.

23823            REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, LARRY ARTHUR WISOTZKI and DOUGLAS K. BURROWS, Chief of Police of the Regional Municipality of Peel v. NOORJAHAN ANDANI, Administratrix of the Estate of AMIRALI ANDANI, deceased, and the said NOORJAHAN ANDANI - AND - REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, LARRY ARTHUR WISOTZKI and DOUGLAS K. BURROWS, Chief of Police of the Regional Municipality of Peel v. LAURA BANNON, Administratrix of the Estate of PETER ALLAN BANNON, deceased, and the said LAURA BANNON and NOORJAHAN ANDANI, NOORJAHAN ANDANI as Administratrix of the Estate of AMIRALI ANDANI, deceased, and WILLOWDALE DODGE CHRYSLER LTD., THE HOME INSURANCE CO. and COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE CO. (Ont.)

CORAM:      La Forest, Sopinka 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

Procedural law - Civil procedure - Judgments and orders - Interest - Prejudgment interest -Significant decreases in interest rates between date action commenced and date of judgment - Whether trial judge and Court of Appeal erred in refusing to apply averaging to rate of prejudgment interest and approving prejudgment rates of over 20%.

23828            DONALD E. CRAIG and ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL, Saint John, New Brunswick, a body corporate v. ROSEMARY LAHEY, Executrix, Estate of EDWARD J. LAHEY, and in her own right - AND - ROSEMARY LAHEY, Executrix, Estate of EDWARD J. LAHEY, and in her own right v. DONALD E. CRAIG and ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL (N.B.)

CORAM:      La Forest, Sopinka and Major JJ.

The two applications for leave to appeal are dismissed, each with costs.

Les deux demandes d'autorisation d'appel sont rejetées, chacune avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Procedural law - Actions - Appeals - Physicians and surgeons - Did Court of Appeal err in conducting trial de novo and making findings of fact without seeing witnesses; thereby reaching conclusions as to Applicant's liability.

23837            CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION and PACIFIC PRESS LTD. v. LOUISE PIERRE (B.C.)

CORAM:      La Forest, Sopinka and Major JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Procedural Law - Crown - Actions - Civil Procedure - Damages - Trial - Trial without a jury in a proceedings against the Crown - Whether this Court's decision National Harbours Board v. Langelier, [1969] S.C.R. 60, means, as held by the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, that agents of the Crown, individual or corporate, are disentitled in tort actions to rely on the special defences and procedures of the Crown as provided by the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, S.C. 1990, c. 8 ("CPLA") and, in particular, from relying upon s. 26 of the CPLA which prohibits jury trials as against the Crown, even where, as in this case, any damages recovered against the Crown agent would be ultimately recovered from the assets of the Crown - Whether the Court should strive to avoid two modes of trial within the same action by the same trial judge, one with a jury and one without a jury.

23854            TAMARA ARNDT v. HANS-JOACHIM ARNDT (Ont.)

CORAM:      La Forest, Sopinka 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

Family law - Division of property - Divorce - Applicant ordered to make an equalization payment based on valuation date property value - Real estate market declining considerably in the period between the valuation date and the date of trial - Whether a constructive trust is available to redress unfairness caused by post-separation events, such as a decrease in property values - Whether the Family Law Act (Ontario), R.S.O. c. F-3 permits the consideration of post-separation events, such as decline in property values - The nature of the relationship between the doctrine of constructive trust and s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act (Ontario) concerning post-separation events - Application of Rawluk v. Rawluk, [1990] 1 S.C.R. to the issue of post-separation events and specifically a post-separation decline in property value.

23869            LEONE LIBERATI and JAMES L. LABONTE v. THE CANADA EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION COMMISSION and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (Ont.) (F.C.A.)

CORAM:      La Forest, Sopinka and Major JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes - Interpretation - Unemployment insurance - Treatment of vacation pay for purposes of unemployment insurance benefits - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal's decisions respecting the treatment of vacation pay appear to be inconsistent, are in conflict, and are not in line with the decision of this Court in Bryden v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 443, and have the affect of treating individuals in identical situations differently.

23840            LEONARD J. OTTO and ELSIE V. COMIN v. HAMILTON & OLSEN SURVEYS LTD. (Alta.)

CORAM:      La Forest, Sopinka 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

Labour law - Pensions - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Respondent's unilateral reduction in the pension and vacation benefit terms of the employment contracts did not constitute constructive dismissal of the Applicants - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by holding that the Respondent's economic circumstances justified its unilateral change to the employment contracts of the Applicants - Law governing employment and the termination of employment found to be of central importance to Canadian society in Machtinger v. HOJ Industries Ltd., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 986.

23879            JAMES ALASTAIR THOMAS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.) (Sask.)

CORAM:      La Forest, Sopinka and Major JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Offences - Evidence - Trial by a jury - Uttering a threat to cause death - Possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace - Whether the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal erred by failing to find that the trial record disclosed that there was a breach of the Applicant's rights under sections 8  and 9  of the Charter  - Whether the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal erred by failing to grant a new trial to determine the appropriate remedy for the said breaches notwithstanding that the Applicant did not raise the issue at trial - Whether the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal erred by failing to find that the trial judge's charge to the jury was deficient.

23868            SHORE BOAT BUILDERS LTD. v. CHARLES J. MOSES (B.C.)

CORAM:      La Forest, Sopinka 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

International law - Conflict of laws - Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments - Whether the "real and substantial connection" test for recognition and enforcement of extraprovincial judgments pronounced by the Supreme Court of Canada in Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077, should be applied simpliciter to default judgments entered by the courts of truly foreign states.

23707            FRANCK CÔTÉ, PETER DECONTIE ET ALS c. SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE (Qué.)

CORAM:      Les juges L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et Gonthier

La demande d'autorisation d'appel et la demande d'autorisation d'appel incident sont accordées.

The application for leave to appeal and the application for leave to cross-appeal are granted.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Indiens - Droit constitutionnel - Législation - Interprétation - Pêcheries - Demandeurs accusés d'avoir pêché sur le territoire de la Z.E.C. Bras-Coupé-Désert, sans avoir payé le tarif d'accès requis par l'art. 5 du Règlement sur les zones d'exploitation contrôlée - Demandeur Côté accusé d'avoir pêché sans permis sur le territoire de la Z.E.C., en contravention à l'art. 4(1) du Règlement de pêche du Québec - Les Algonquins de la rivière Désert ont-ils des droits ancestraux existants, d'accès et de pêche, sur le territoire de la Z.E.C. Bras-Coupé-Désert? - La Proclamation royale du 7 octobre 1763 confirme-t-elle la protection de l'exercice des droits d'accès et de pêche des Algonquins sur leurs terres ancestrales? - Les droits d'accès des Algonquins, issus du Traité de Swegatchy, sont-ils protégés de l'application du Règlement sur les zones d'exploitation contrôlée, en vertu de l'art. 88 de la Loi sur les Indiens? - Les Algonquins bénéficient-ils de la protection de l'art. 35(1)  de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 , quant à leur libre accès à la Z.E.C. et à leur droit d'y pêcher, qui rendrait inopérants quant à eux les règlements créant les infractions reprochées?

23762            GUY BELLEFLEUR, les héritiers de feu JEAN-ROBERT BELLEFLEUR, et al c. LE PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL DU QUÉBEC (Qué.)

CORAM:      Les juges L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et McLachlin

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Indiens - Droit administratif - Droit de l'environnement - Législation - Interprétation - Contrôle judiciaire - Énergie - Action directe en nullité d'un décret administratif autorisant la réalisation d'un projet hydro-électrique rejetée - Le gouvernement du Québec et le ministre de l'Environnement ont-ils erré en appliquant les art. 31.1 ss. de la Loi sur la qualité de l'environnement, L.R.Q., ch. Q-2? - L'étude d'impact environnementale était-elle conforme à la Loi? - La procédure de consultation publique réalisée respectait-elle les dispositions de la Loi? - La décision arbitraire du ministre de l'environnement de juger "satisfaisante" l'étude d'impact environnementale ouvre-t-elle la voie au contrôle judiciaire de l'erreur manifeste dans l'appréciation des faits? - Lors de la réactivation du dossier, six ans après la consultation officielle et neuf ans après l'avis de projet initial, le promoteur Hydro-Québec avait-il l'obligation de respecter des règles de procédure - Application de la doctrine de l'attente légitime dans la mesure où la réactivation du dossier nécessitait le respect d'une forme d'équité procédurale impliquant une consultation des demandeurs.

23716            JEAN-YVES DUCHESNEAU c. SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE (Crim.) (Qué.)

CORAM:      Les juges L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et McLachlin

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Procédure - Preuve - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle erré en ne décrétant pas que la tenue d'un voir-dire était nécessaire avant d'admettre une déclaration antérieure incompatible d'un témoin aux fins d'attaquer sa crédibilité? - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle erré dans son interprétation de l'arrêt R. v. B.(K.G.), 79 C.C.C.(3d) 257, [1993] 1 R.C.S. 750? - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle erré en ne décrétant pas que le juge de première instance aurait dû proprio motu ordonner la tenue d'un voir-dire, avant d'autoriser l'utilisation d'une déclaration incompatible d'un témoin, un suspect, qui apparaissait avoir été obtenue à la suite de la violation des droits fondamentaux du déclarant? - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle erré en ne décrétant pas que l'utilisation d'une déclaration antérieure incompatible d'un témoin, extorquée et obtenue en violation de ses droits fondamentaux, était de nature à porter atteinte à l'équité du procès et à ternir l'image de la justice? - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle erré en n'intervenant pas dans l'appréciation de la crédibilité accordée au témoin de la défense par le juge de première instance? - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle erré en maintenant une condamnation alors qu'un élément essentiel de l'accusation n'a pas été prouvé?

23880            1229-1605 QUÉBEC INC. c. MARCHÉ A.J.T. (Qué.)

CORAM:      Les juges L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et McLachlin

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Procédure civile - Appel - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle appliqué correctement les principes juridiques devant prévaloir en matière de rejet d'appel en raison de son caractère abusif ou dilatoire? - Peut-il exister autorité de la chose jugée entre d'une part, le jugement d'un tribunal de première instance déterminant qui, du locataire ou du locateur, doit supporter les coûts d'exploitation d'un centre commercial en vertu d'un bail et, d'autre part, l'interprétation dudit bail quant à la fixation d'un loyer maximum?

23915            J.W.S. Jr. v. H.A.D. and R.M.D. (Alta.)

CORAM:      L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and McLachlin 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

Family law - Custody and access - Adoption - International law - Conflict of laws - Infants -American born child given up for adoption by birth mother without consent of Applicant, the child's father - Alberta courts awarding custody of child to Respondents and allowing them to adopt child - Did trial judge err in not considering the Convention on the Civil Aspect of  Child Abduction (the Hague Convention) prior to determining questions of custody and guardianship - Did Court of Appeal err in saying Convention did not apply since child was not customarily resident in United States when removed to Canada and that removal was not wrong - Did courts err in not taking into account proper administration of justice in determining issues before them.

23871            DAVID LYNN BISHOP v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.) (Alta.)

CORAM:      The Chief Justice and Cory and Iacobucci JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Sentencing - Detention - Whether the Alberta Court of Appeal erred in law in not finding that Applicant's constitutional rights, guaranteed by s. 12  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , were violated or infringed by the imposition of the sentence of indeterminate incarceration - If the answer is in the affirmative, whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in not applying the provisions of s. 24(1)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  and, as a remedy thereunder, in imposing a determinate sentence on the Applicant.

23907            DANIEL LEWIS GYORI v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.) (Alta.)

CORAM:      The Chief Justice and Cory and Iacobucci JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Offences - Failing to provide breath samples - Right to counsel - Whether the Court of Appeal of Alberta erred in law in not upholding the conclusion of the Summary Conviction Appeal Court judge that the Applicant's right to counsel under section 10(b)  of the Charter  had been violated or infringed and that, pursuant to section 24(2)  of the Charter , the evidence of the Applicant's refusal to take the breathalyser test was properly excluded from evidence.

23460/90     RJR - MACDONALD INC. v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC and THE HEART AND STROKE FOUNDATION OF CANADA, THE CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY, THE CANADIAN COUNCIL   ON SMOKING AND HEALTH, and PHYSICIANS FOR A SMOKE-FREE CANADA and between  IMPERIAL TOBACCO LTD. v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR QUEBEC and THE HEART AND STROKE FOUNDATION OF CANADA, THE CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY, THE CANADIAN COUNCIL ON SMOKING AND HEALTH, and PHYSICIANS FOR A SMOKE-FREE CANADA (Que)

CORAM:      The Chief Justice and La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.                                                                            

The applications for a stay are dismissed with costs to the successful party on the appeal.

Les demandes de sursis sont rejetées avec dépens adjugés à la partie qui aura gain de cause en appel.

[See headnote at p. 372 / Voir sommaire à la p. 372.]

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          24.2.1994

Before / Devant:  THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE  Time extended to February 15, 1994 nunc pro tunc.

24.2.1994

Before / Devant:  THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE  Time extended to February 25, 1994.

25.2.1994

Before / Devant:  LE REGISTRAIRE ADJOINT

ACCORDÉE / GRANTED  Délai prorogé au 23 février 1994.

28.2.1994

Before / Devant:  THE REGISTRAR

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

28.2.1994

Before / Devant:  LE REGISTRAIRE

ACCORDÉE / GRANTED  Délai prorogé au 16 février 1994.

28.2.1994

Before / Devant:  THE REGISTRAR

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE  Time extended to March 2, 1994.

28.2.1994

Before / Devant:  THE REGISTRAR

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE  Time extended to February 10, 1994.

28.2.1994

Before / Devant:  THE REGISTRAR

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE  Time extended to February 11, 1994.

1.3.1994

Before / Devant:  THE REGISTRAR

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE  Time extended to April 11, 1994.

1.3.1994

Before / Devant:  THE REGISTRAR

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE 

1.3.1994

Before / Devant:  THE REGISTRAR

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE  Time extended to March 9, 1994.

1.3.1994

Before / Devant:  THE REGISTRAR

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE  Time extended to February 16, 1994.

1.3.1994

Before / Devant:  THE REGISTRAR

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE  Time extended to February 28, 1994.

1.3.1994

Before / Devant:  CORY J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to February 21, 1994.

22.2.1994

Jasmine Bisson, Carmen Lortie-Fleury, Robert Lortie

     c. (24010)

Procureur général du Canada (Crim.)(Qué.)

DE PLEIN DROIT

21.2.1994

Bruno Jacques

     c. (24012)

Sa Majesté La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

DE PLEIN DROIT

1.3.1994

Antonio Silveira

v. (24013)

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

AS OF RIGHT

1.3.1994

Telecommunications Workers Union

v. (23778)

Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission et al (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

1.3.1994

Kwong Hung Chan

v. (23813)

The Minister of Employment and Immigration (F.C.A.)(B.C.)

BY/PAR:       Attorney General of British Columbia

IN/DANS:    Stanley Gordon Johnson

v. (23593)

Her Majesty the Queen (N.S.)

BY/PAR:       Indian Taxation Advisory Board (ITAB)

IN/DANS:    Matsqui Indian Band Council

v. (23643)

Canadian Pacific Ltd. et al. (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

                                                                                                                                               28.2.1994

Attorney General of British Columbia

     v. (23767)

Lachlan McCallumet al. (B.C.)

   and between

B.J. Shulman et al.

v. (23767)

Lachlan McCallum et al. (B.C.)

(motion)

                                                                                                                                               24.2.1994

CORAM:      The Chief Justice Lamer and La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

25.2.1994

CORAM:      The Chief Justice Lamer and La Forest, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

25.2.1994

CORAM:      The Chief Justice Lamer and La Forest, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

28.2.1994 and / et 1.3.1994

CORAM:      The Chief Justice Lamer and L'Heureux-Dubé, La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.  (L'Heureux-Dubé J. absent)

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

1.3.1994

CORAM:      The Chief Justice Lamer and L'Heureux-Dubé, La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.  (L'Heureux-Dubé J. absent)

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

R.J.R. MacDonald Inc. and the Attorney General of Canada (Qué.) - and - Imperial Tobacco Ltd. and the Attorney General of Canada (Qué.) (23460 / 23490)

Applications for interlocutory relief rendered March 3, 1994 / Demandes de redressement interlocutoire rendues le 3 mars 1994

Indexed as:  R.J.R. - Macdonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) / Répertorié:  R.J.R. ‐ Macdonald Inc. c. Canada (Procureur général)

Present:  Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‐Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

Practice ‐‐ Interlocutory motions to stay implementation of regulations pending final decision on appeals and to delay implementation if appeals dismissed ‐‐ Leave to appeal granted shortly after applications to stay heard ‐‐ Whether the applications for relief from compliance with regulations should be granted -- Tobacco Products Control Act, S.C. 1988, c. 20, ss. 3(a), (b), (c), 4-8, 9, 11-16, 17(f), 18. -- Tobacco Products Control Regulations, amendment, SOR/93‐389 -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , ss. 1, 2(b), 24(1) -- Rules of the Supreme Court, SOR/83‐74, s. 27 -- Supreme Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. S‐26, s. 65.1 .

The Tobacco Products Control Act regulates the advertisement of tobacco products and the health warnings which must be placed upon those products.  Both applicants successfully challenged the Act's constitutional validity in the Quebec Superior Court on the grounds that it was ultra vires Parliament and that it violates the right to freedom of expression in s. 2( b )  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .  The Court of Appeal ordered the suspension of enforcement until judgment was rendered on the Act's validity but declined to order a stay of the coming into effect of the Act until 60 days following a judgment validating the Act.  The majority ultimately found the legislation constitutional.

The Tobacco Products Control Regulations, amendment, would cause the applicants to incur major expense in altering their packaging and these expenses would be irrecoverable should the legislation be found unconstitutional.  Before a decision on applicants' leave applications to this Court in the main actions had been made, the applicants brought these motions for stay pursuant to s. 65.1  of the Supreme Court Act , or, in the event that leave was granted, pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.  In effect, the applicants sought to be released from any obligation to comply with the new packaging requirements until the disposition of the main actions.  They also requested that the stays be granted for a period of 12 months from the dismissal of the leave applications or from a decision of this Court confirming the validity of Tobacco Products Control Act.

This Court heard applicants' motions on October 4 and granted leave to appeal the main action on October 14.  At issue here was whether the applications for relief from compliance with the Tobacco Products Control Regulations, amendment should be granted.  A preliminary question was raised as to this Court's jurisdiction to grant the relief requested by the applicants.

Held:  The applications should be dismissed.

The powers of the Supreme Court of Canada to grant relief in this kind of proceeding are contained in s. 65.1 of the Supreme Court of Canada Act and rule 27 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The words "other relief" in Rule 27 of the Supreme Court Rules are broad enough to permit the Court to defer enforcement of regulations that were not in existence when the appeal judgment was rendered.  It can apply even though leave to appeal may not yet be granted.  In interpreting the language of the rule, regard should be had to its purpose:  to facilitate the "bringing of cases" before the Court "for the effectual execution and working of this Act".  To achieve its purpose the rule can neither be limited to cases in which leave to appeal has already been granted nor be interpreted narrowly to apply only to an order stopping or arresting execution of the Court's process by a third party or freezing the judicial proceeding which is the subject matter of the judgment in appeal.

Section 65.1  of the Supreme Court Act  was adopted not to limit the Court's powers under Rule 27 but to enable a single judge to exercise the jurisdiction to grant stays in circumstances in which, before the amendment, a stay could be granted by the Court.  It should be interpreted as conferring the same broad powers as are included in Rule 27.  The Court, pursuant to both s. 65.1  and rule 27, can not only grant a stay of execution and of proceedings in the traditional sense but also make any order that preserves matters between the parties in a state that will, as far as possible, prevent prejudice pending resolution by the Court of the controversy, so as to enable the Court to render a meaningful and effective judgment.  The Court must be able to intervene not only against the direct dictates of the judgment but also against its effects.  The Court therefore must have jurisdiction to enjoin conduct on the part of a party acting in reliance on the judgment which, if carried out, would tend to negate or diminish the effect of the judgment of this Court.

Jurisdiction to grant the relief requested by the applicants exists even if the applicants' requests for relief are for "suspension" of the regulation rather than "exemption" from it.  To hold otherwise would be inconsistent with Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd. which established that the distinction between "suspension" and "exemption" cases is made only after jurisdiction has been otherwise established.  If jurisdiction under s. 65.1 of the Act and Rule 27 were wanting, jurisdiction would be found in s. 24(1)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .  A Charter remedy should not be defeated because of a deficiency in the ancillary procedural powers of the Court to preserve the rights of the parties pending a final resolution of constitutional rights.

The three‐part American Cyanamid test (adopted in Canada in Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd.) should be applied to applications for interlocutory injunctions and as well for stays in both private law and Charter  cases. 

At the first stage, an applicant for interlocutory relief in a Charter  case must demonstrate a serious question to be tried.  Whether the test has been satisfied should be determined by a motions judge on the basis of common sense and an extremely limited review of the case on the merits.  The fact that an appellate court has granted leave in the main action is, of course, a relevant and weighty consideration, as is any judgment on the merits which has been rendered, although neither is necessarily conclusive of the matter.  A motions court should only go beyond a preliminary investigation into the merits when the result of the interlocutory motion will in effect amount to a final determination of the action, or when the constitutionality of a challenged statute can be determined as a pure question of law.  Instances of this sort will be exceedingly rare.  Unless the case on the merits is frivolous or vexatious, or the constitutionality of the statute is a pure question of law, a judge on a motion for relief must, as a general rule, consider the second and third stages of the Metropolitan Stores test.

At the second stage the applicant is required to demonstrate that irreparable harm will result if the relief is not granted.  `Irreparable' refers to the nature of the harm rather than its magnitude.  In Charter cases, even quantifiable financial loss relied upon by an applicant may be considered irreparable harm so long as it is unclear that such loss could be recovered at the time of a decision on the merits.

The third branch of the test, requiring an assessment of the balance of inconvenience to the parties, will normally determine the result in applications involving Charter  rights.  A consideration of the public interest must be taken into account in assessing the inconvenience which it is alleged will be suffered by both parties.  These public interest considerations will carry less weight in exemption cases than in suspension cases.  When the nature and declared purpose of legislation is to promote the public interest, a motions court should not be concerned whether the legislation has in fact this effect.  It must be assumed to do so.  In order to overcome the assumed benefit to the public interest arising from the continued application of the legislation, the applicant who relies on the public interest must demonstrate that the suspension of the legislation would itself provide a public benefit.

As a general rule, the same principles would apply when a government authority is the applicant in a motion for interlocutory relief.  However, the issue of public interest, as an aspect of irreparable harm to the interests of the government, will be considered in the second stage.  It will again be considered in the third stage when harm to the applicant is balanced with harm to the respondent including any harm to the public interest established by the latter.

Here, the application of these principles to the facts required that the applications for stay be dismissed. 

The observation of the Quebec Court of Appeal that the case raised serious constitutional issues and this Court's decision to grant leave to appeal clearly indicated that these cases raise serious questions of law.                                            

Although compliance with the regulations would require a significant expenditure and, and in the event of their being found unconstitutional, reversion to the original packaging would require another significant outlay, monetary loss of this nature will not usually amount to irreparable harm in private law cases.  However, where the government is the unsuccessful party in a constitutional claim, a plaintiff will face a much more difficult task in establishing constitutional liability and obtaining monetary redress.  The expenditures which the new regulations require will therefore impose irreparable harm on the applicants if these motions are denied but the main actions are successful on appeal. 

Among the factors which must be considered in order to determine whether the granting or withholding of interlocutory relief would occasion greater inconvenience are the nature of the relief sought and of the harm which the parties contend they will suffer, the nature of the legislation which is under attack, and where the public interest lies.  Although the required expenditure would impose economic hardship on the companies, the economic loss or inconvenience can be avoided by passing it on to purchasers of tobacco products.  Further, the applications, since they were brought by two of the three companies controlling the Canadian tobacco industry, were in actual fact for a suspension of the legislation, rather than for an exemption from its operation.  The public interest normally carries greater weight in favour of compliance with existing legislation.  The weight given is in part a function of the nature of the legislation and in part a function of the purposes of the legislation under attack.  The government passed these regulations with the intention of protecting public health and furthering the public good.  When the government declares that it is passing legislation in order to protect and promote public health and it is shown that the restraints which it seeks to place upon an industry are of the same nature as those which in the past have had positive public benefits, it is not for a court on an interlocutory motion to assess the actual benefits which will result from the specific terms of the legislation.  The applicant, rather, must offset these public interest considerations by demonstrating a more compelling public interest in suspending the application of the legislation.  The only possible public interest in the continued application of the current packaging requirements, however, was that the price of cigarettes for smokers would not increase.  Any such increase would not be excessive and cannot carry much weight when balanced against the undeniable importance of the public interest in health and in the prevention of the widespread and serious medical problems directly attributable to smoking.

APPLICATIONS for interlocutory relief ancillary to constitutional challenge of enabling legislation following judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal, [1993] R.J.Q. 375, 53 Q.A.C. 79, 102 D.L.R. (4th) 289, 48 C.P.R. (3d) 417, allowing an appeal from a judgment of Chabot J., [1991] R.J.Q. 2260, 82 D.L.R. (4th) 449, 37 C.P.R. (3d) 193, granting the application.  Applications dismissed.

Colin K. Irving, for the applicant R.J.R. - Macdonald Inc.

Simon V. Potter, for the applicant Imperial Tobacco Inc.

Claude Joyal and Yves Leboeuf, for the respondent.

W. Ian C. Binnie, Q.C., and Colin Baxter, for the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Council on Smoking and Health, and Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada.

Solicitors for the applicant R.J.R. - Macdonald Inc.:  Mackenzie, Gervais, Montreal.

Solicitors for the applicant Imperial Tobacco Inc.:  Ogilvy, Renault, Montreal.

Solicitors for the respondent:  Côté & Ouellet, Montreal.

Solicitors for the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Council on Smoking and Health, and Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada:  McCarthy, Tétrault, Toronto.

Présents:  Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges La Forest, L'Heureux‐Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci et Major.

Pratique ‐‐ Demandes interlocutoires visant à surseoir à l'application d'un règlement en attendant la décision finale sur des appels et à en retarder la mise en oeuvre si les appels sont rejetés ‐‐ Autorisations d'appel accordées peu après l'audition des demandes de sursis ‐‐ Les demandes de dispense de l'application du règlement devraient‐elles être accordées? ‐‐ Loi réglementant les produits du tabac, L.C. 1988, ch. 20, art. 3a), b), c), 4 à 8, 9, 11 à 16, 17f), 18 ‐‐ Règlement sur les produits du tabac ‐ Modification (DORS/93‐389) ‐‐ Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, art. 1 , 2b) , 24(1)  ‐‐ Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada, DORS/83‐74, art. 27 ‐‐ Loi sur la Cour suprême, L.R.C. (1985), ch. S‐26, art. 65.1 .

La Loi réglementant les produits du tabac vise à réglementer la publicité des produits du tabac et les mises en garde qui doivent être apposées sur ces produits.  Les deux requérantes ont eu gain de cause devant la Cour supérieure du Québec lorsqu'elles ont contesté la constitutionnalité de la Loi au motif qu'elle était ultra vires du Parlement et contrevenait à l'al. 2 b )  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés .  La Cour d'appel a ordonné la suspension du contrôle d'application jusqu'à ce que jugement soit rendu sur la validité de la Loi, mais elle a refusé de suspendre l'application de la Loi pendant une période de 60 jours suivant un jugement déclarant la Loi valide.  La Cour d'appel à la majorité a ultérieurement déclaré la loi constitutionnelle.

Le Règlement sur les produits du tabac ‐ Modification obligerait les requérantes à engager des dépenses considérables pour modifier leurs emballages, et ces dépenses ne seraient pas recouvrables si la législation était déclarée inconstitutionnelle.  Avant la décision relative aux autorisations de pourvoi dans les actions principales, les requérantes ont demandé un sursis d'exécution en vertu de l'art. 65.1  de la Loi sur la Cour suprême  ou, dans l'éventualité où les autorisations d'appel seraient accordées, en vertu de la règle 27 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada.  En réalité, les requérantes demandent d'être libérées de toute obligation de se conformer aux nouvelles exigences en matière d'emballage jusqu'aux décisions sur les actions principales.  Elles ont aussi demandé que le sursis soit accordé pour une période de 12 mois à compter d'un refus des autorisations d'appel ou d'un arrêt de notre Cour confirmant la validité de la Loi réglementant les produits du tabac.

Notre Cour a entendu les demandes des requérantes le 4 octobre et a accordé, le 14 octobre, les autorisations d'appel relativement aux actions principales.  La question est de savoir si les demandes visant à obtenir une dispense de l'application du Règlement sur les produits du tabac ‐ Modification devraient être accordées.  Une question préliminaire a été soulevée relativement à la compétence de notre Cour d'accorder le redressement demandé par les requérantes.

Arrêt:  Les demandes sont rejetées.

Les pouvoirs de la Cour suprême du Canada d'accorder un redressement dans des procédures de ce genre sont prévus à l'art. 65.1  de la Loi sur la Cour suprême  du Canada et à la règle 27 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada.

L'expression *autre redressement+ à la règle 27 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada est suffisamment générale pour permettre à notre Cour de retarder l'application d'un règlement qui n'existait pas au moment où la cour d'appel a rendu son jugement.  La règle peut s'appliquer même si l'autorisation d'appel n'a pas encore été accordée.  Dans l'interprétation du libellé de la règle, il faut en examiner l'objet:  faciliter les *recours+ devant la Cour et *prendre les mesures nécessaires à l'application de la présente loi+.  Pour réaliser son objet, la règle ne peut être limitée aux cas où l'autorisation d'appel a déjà été accordée ni recevoir une interprétation restrictive de façon à s'appliquer seulement à une ordonnance qui suspend ou arrête l'exécution des procédures de la Cour par une tierce partie ou encore qui bloque l'exécution du jugement objet de l'appel.

L'adoption de l'art. 65.1  de la Loi sur la Cour suprême  ne visait pas à restreindre les pouvoirs de notre Cour en vertu de la règle 27, mais à permettre à un seul juge d'exercer la compétence d'accorder un sursis dans les cas où, avant la modification, c'était la Cour qui pouvait accorder un sursis.  Il faut l'interpréter comme conférant les mêmes pouvoirs généraux que ceux de la règle 27.  La Cour est habilitée, tant en vertu de l'art. 65.1  que de la règle 27, non seulement à accorder un sursis d'exécution et une suspension d'instance dans le sens traditionnel, mais aussi à rendre toute ordonnance visant à maintenir les parties dans une situation qui, dans la mesure du possible, ne sera pas cause de préjudice en attendant le règlement du différend par la Cour, de façon que cette dernière puisse rendre une décision qui ne sera pas dénuée de sens et d'efficacité.  Notre Cour doit être en mesure d'intervenir non seulement à l'égard des termes mêmes du jugement, mais aussi à l'égard de ses effets.  Notre Cour doit donc posséder la compétence d'interdire à une partie d'accomplir tout acte fondé sur le jugement, qui, s'il était accompli, tendrait à annuler ou à diminuer l'effet de la décision de notre Cour.

Notre Cour possède la compétence d'accorder le redressement demandé par les requérantes, même si les requérantes demandent une *suspension+ du règlement plutôt qu'une *exemption+ de son application.  Une conclusion différente sur ce point irait à l'encontre de l'arrêt Manitoba (Procureur général) c. Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd., selon lequel la distinction entre les cas de *suspension+ et d'*exemption+ ne se fait qu'après que la compétence a été par ailleurs établie.  Si la compétence de notre Cour ne pouvait reposer sur l'art. 65.1 de la Loi et la règle 27, le fondement de cette compétence pourrait être le par. 24(1) de la Charte canadienne des droits et des libertés.  Une lacune dans les pouvoirs accessoires de notre Cour en matière de procédure permettant de préserver les droits des parties en attendant le règlement final d'un différend touchant des droits constitutionnels ne devrait pas faire obstacle à une réparation fondée sur la Charte .

Le critère en trois étapes de l'arrêt American Cyanamid (adopté au Canada dans Manitoba (Procureur général) c. Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd.) devrait s'appliquer aux demandes d'injonction interlocutoire et de suspension d'instance, tant en droit privé que dans des cas relevant de la Charte .

À la première étape, le requérant d'un redressement interlocutoire dans un cas relevant de la Charte  doit établir l'existence d'une question sérieuse à juger.  Le juge de la requête doit déterminer s'il est satisfait au critère, en se fondant sur le bon sens et un examen extrêmement restreint du fond de l'affaire.  Le fait qu'une cour d'appel a accordé une autorisation d'appel relativement à l'action principale constitue une considération pertinente et importante, de même que tout jugement rendu sur le fond, mais ni l'un ni l'autre n'est concluant sur ce point.  Le tribunal saisi de la requête ne devrait aller au‐delà d'un examen préliminaire du fond de l'affaire que lorsque le résultat de la requête interlocutoire équivaudra en fait à un règlement final de l'action, ou que la question de constitutionnalité d'une loi se présente comme une pure question de droit.  Les cas de ce genre sont extrêmement rares.  Sauf lorsque la demande est futile ou vexatoire ou que la question de la constitutionnalité d'une loi se présente comme une pure question de droit, le juge de la requête doit en général procéder à l'examen des deuxième et troisième étapes du critère de l'arrêt Metropolitan Stores.

À la deuxième étape, le requérant doit établir qu'il subira un préjudice irréparable en cas de refus du redressement.  Le terme *irréparable+ a trait à la nature du préjudice et non à son étendue.  Dans les cas relevant de la Charte , même une perte financière quantifiable, invoquée à l'appui d'une demande, peut être considérée comme un préjudice irréparable s'il n'est pas évident qu'il pourrait y avoir recouvrement au moment de la décision sur le fond.

La troisième étape du critère, l'appréciation de la prépondérance des inconvénients, permettra habituellement de trancher les demandes concernant des droits garantis par la Charte .  Il faut tenir compte de l'intérêt public dans l'appréciation des inconvénients susceptibles d'être subis par les deux parties.  Les considérations d'intérêt public auront moins de poids dans les cas d'exemption que dans les cas de suspension.  Si la nature et l'objet affirmé de la loi sont de promouvoir l'intérêt public, le tribunal des requêtes ne devrait pas se demander si la loi a réellement cet effet.  Il faut supposer que tel est le cas.  Pour arriver à contrer le supposé avantage de l'application continue de la loi que commande l'intérêt public, le requérant qui invoque l'intérêt public doit établir que la suspension de l'application de la loi serait elle‐même à l'avantage du public.

En règle générale, les mêmes principes s'appliquent lorsqu'un organisme gouvernemental présente une demande de redressement interlocutoire.  Cependant, c'est à la deuxième étape que sera examinée la question de l'intérêt public, en tant qu'aspect du préjudice irréparable causé aux intérêts du gouvernement.  Cette question sera de nouveau examinée à la troisième étape lorsque le préjudice du requérant est examiné par rapport à celui de l'intimé, y compris le préjudice que ce dernier aura établi du point de vue de l'intérêt public.

En l'espèce, l'application de ces principes aux faits aboutit au rejet des demandes de sursis.

L'observation de la Cour d'appel du Québec que l'affaire soulève des questions constitutionnelles sérieuses, ainsi que les autorisations d'appel accordées par notre Cour, indiquent clairement que l'affaire soulève des questions de droit sérieuses.

Bien que l'application du règlement obligerait les requérantes à faire des dépenses importantes et, si ce règlement était déclaré inconstitutionnel, à engager d'autres dépenses considérables pour revenir à leurs méthodes actuelles d'emballage, une perte monétaire de cette nature n'équivaudra habituellement pas à un préjudice irréparable dans des affaires de droit privé.  Toutefois, lorsque le gouvernement est la partie qui échoue dans une affaire de nature constitutionnelle, un demandeur aura beaucoup plus de difficulté à établir la responsabilité constitutionnelle et à obtenir une réparation monétaire.  Les dépenses nécessitées par le nouveau règlement causeront donc un préjudice irréparable aux requérantes si les demandes sont rejetées, mais les actions principales accueillies en appel.

Pour déterminer lequel de l'octroi ou du refus du redressement interlocutoire occasionnerait le plus d'inconvénients, il faut notamment procéder à l'examen de la nature du redressement demandé et du préjudice invoqué par les parties, de la nature de la loi contestée et de l'intérêt public.  Les dépenses nécessaires imposeraient un fardeau économique aux sociétés, mais la perte ou les inconvénients économiques peuvent être reportés sur les acheteurs des produits du tabac.  Par ailleurs, puisqu'elles sont présentées par deux des trois sociétés qui contrôlent l'industrie canadienne du tabac, les demandes constituent en réalité un cas de suspension plutôt qu'un cas d'exemption de l'application de la législation.  L'intérêt public pèse habituellement plus en faveur du respect de la législation existante.  Le poids accordé aux préoccupations d'intérêt public dépend en partie de la nature de la loi et en partie de l'objet de la loi contestée.  Le gouvernement a adopté le règlement dans l'intention de protéger la santé publique et donc de promouvoir le bien public.  Si le gouvernement déclare qu'il adopte une loi pour protéger et favoriser la santé publique et s'il est établi que les limites qu'il veut imposer à l'industrie sont de même nature que celles qui, dans le passé, ont eu des avantages concrets pour le public, il n'appartient pas à un tribunal saisi d'une requête interlocutoire d'évaluer les véritables avantages qui découleront des exigences particulières de la loi.  Les requérantes doivent plutôt faire contrepoids à ces considérations d'intérêt public en établissant que la suspension de l'application de la loi serait davantage dans l'intérêt public.  Pour ce qui est du maintien de l'application des exigences actuelles en matière d'emballage, seule la non‐majoration du prix des cigarettes pour les fumeurs pourrait être dans l'intérêt du public.  Une telle majoration ne serait vraisemblablement pas excessive et ne peut avoir beaucoup de poids face à l'importance incontestable de l'intérêt public dans la protection de la santé et la prévention de problèmes médicaux répandus et graves directement attribuables à la cigarette.

DEMANDES de redressement interlocutoire faisant partie d'une contestation de la constitutionnalité d'une loi habilitante à la suite d'un arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec, [1993] R.J.Q. 375, 53 Q.A.C. 79, 102 D.L.R. (4th) 289, 48 C.P.R. (3d) 417, qui a accueilli un appel de la décision du juge Chabot, [1991] R.J.Q. 2260, 82 D.L.R. (4th) 449, 37 C.P.R. (3d) 193, qui avait fait droit à la demande.  Demandes rejetées.

Colin K. Irving, pour la requérante R.J.R. ‐ Macdonald Inc.

Simon V. Potter, pour la requérante Imperial Tobacco Inc.

Claude Joyal et Yves Leboeuf, pour l'intimé.

W. Ian C. Binnie, c.r., et Colin Baxter, pour la Fondation des maladies du coeur du Canada, la Société canadienne du cancer, le Conseil canadien sur le tabagisme et la santé et Médecins pour un Canada sans fumée.

Procureurs de la requérante R.J.R. ‐ Macdonald Inc.:  Mackenzie, Gervais, Montréal.

Procureurs de la requérante Imperial Tobacco Inc.:  Ogilvy, Renault, Montréal.

Procureurs de l'intimé:  Côté & Ouellet, Montréal.

Procureurs de la Fondation des maladies du coeur du Canada, de la Société canadienne du cancer, du Conseil canadien sur le tabagisme et la santé et des Médecins pour un Canada sans fumée:  McCarthy, Tétrault, Toronto.

AGENDA for the week beginning March 7, 1994.

ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 7 mars 1994.

Date of Hearing/                                                                  Case Number and Name/    

Date d'audition                                              NO.                Numéro et nom de la cause

The Court is not sitting this week

La Cour ne siège pas cette semaine

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              NOTE: 

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

This index includes applications for leave to appeal standing for judgment at the beginning of 1994 and all the applications for leave to appeal filed or heard in 1994 up to now.

Cet index comprend les requêtes en autorisation de pourvoi en délibéré au début de 1994 et toutes celles produites ou entendues en 1994 jusqu'à maintenant.

*01         Refused/Refusée

*02         Refused with costs/Refusée avec dépens

*03         Granted/Accordée

*04         Granted with costs/Accordée avec dépens

*05         Discontinuance filed/Désistement produit

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

*B           Submitted to the Court/Soumises à la Cour

*C           Oral Hearing/Audience

*D           Reserved/En délibéré

                                                                                                 Status/              Disposition/

 CASE/AFFAIRE                                                                         Statut                   Résultat

                                                                                                                Page

1229-1605 Québec Inc. c. Marché A.J.T. Inc. (Qué.),

   23880, *02 3.3.94                                                                                                                                                                                       2373(93)                                            355(94)

146919 Canada Ltd. v. Sherwin (Ont.), 23559, *B                                                                                                                                    1182(93)

332415 Alberta Ltd. v. Edmonton Oilers Hockey Corporation

   (Alta.), 23994, *A                                                                                                                                                                                        336(94)

715341 Ontario Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue (F.C.A.)(Ont.),

   23912, *B                                                                                                                                                                                                      165(94)

A.J. v. Government of Manitoba (Man.), 23770, *01 3.3.94                                                                                                                  2250(93)                                            349(94)

A.J.L. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23919, *B                                                                                                                                              207(94)

A.K. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 23808, *B                                                                                                                                               88(94)

Accurpress Manufacturing Ltd. v. Stoddard (B.C.), 23882, *A                                                                                                              2282(93)

Alain v. Attorney General of Canada (B.C.), 23373, *A                                                                                                                           4(93)

Alberta Human Rights Commission v. Co-operators General

   Insurance Co. (Alta.), 23951, *A                                                                                                                                                            159(94)

Allam c. Nessia Investments Ltd. (Qué.), 23168, *A                                                                                                                                2048(92)

Alouette Amusements Canada Inc. c. Sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec

   (Qué.), 23954, *B                                                                                                                                                                                       281(94)

Arndt v. Arndt (Ont.), 23854, *02 3.3.94                                                                                                                                                       2367(93)                                            351(94)

Atta c. Malouf (Qué.), 23672, *02 27.1.94                                                                                                                                                   2138(93)                                            93(94)

Attis v. Board of School Trustees, District No. 15

   (N.B.), 24002, *A                                                                                                                                                                                        337(94)

Attorney General for the Province of Ontario v. Pamajewon

   (Ont.), 23986, *A                                                                                                                                                                                        236(94)

Attorney General of British Columbia v. McCallum (B.C.),

   23767, *05 28.2.94                                                                                                                                                                                    282(94)                                               365(94)

Attridge v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Alta.), 23926, *B                                                                                                                                       340(94)

Auto Concrete Curb Ltd. v. South Nation River

   Conservation Authority (Ont.), 23090, *A                                                                                                                                         1732(92)

Baldwin v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23737, *B                                                                                                                                         7(94)

Baron c. Karas (Qué.), 23967, *A                                                                                                                                                                    197(94)

Baroni v. The Queen (N.S.), 23439, *A                                                                                                                                                          478(93)

Barrons v. Hyundai Auto Canada Inc. (Ont.),

   23853, *B                                                                                                                                                                                                      166(94)

Barrys Ltd. v. Fishermen, Food and Allied Workers' Union

   (Nfld.), 23877, *A                                                                                                                                                                                       2242(93)

Bateman v. Doiron (N.B.), 23980, *A                                                                                                                                                            199(94)

Bazinet c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 23714, *01 13.1.94                                                                                                                            1843(93)                                            16(94)

Bekar v. Bekar (B.C.), 23971, *A                                                                                                                                                                     198(94)

Bell v. The Queen (B.C.), 23756, *01 3.2.94                                                                                                                                                2363(93)                                            173(94)

Bellefleur c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.),

   23762, *02 3.3.94                                                                                                                                                                                       2140(93)                                            354(94)

Bempong v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23856, *01 10.2.94                                                                                                                    2362(93)                                            215(94)

Benner v. Secretary of State of Canada (F.C.A.), 23811, *B                                                                                                                  2287(93)

Biddle v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23734, *03 10.2.94                                                                                                                           1842(93)                                            218(94)

Biddle  v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23885, *01 3.2.94                                                                                                                       2361(93)                                            173(94)

Bishop v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23871, *01 3.3.94                                                                                                                            2363(93)                                            356(94)

Boileau c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 23942, *B                                                                                                                                              168(94)

Brault c. Fontaine (Qué.), 23953, *A                                                                                                                                                              196(94)

Bremner v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23789, *01 13.1.94                                                                                                                      2200(93)                                            14(94)

Brock v. Attorney General of Canada (B.C.), 23774, *02

   27.1.94   2209(93)                                                                                                                                                                                      93994)

Butchart v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23956, *B                                                                                                                                        268(94)

C.C. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23920, *B                                                                                                                                                208(94)

C & M McNally Engineering Inc. v. Greater Moncton Sewage

   Commission (N.B.), 23768, *02 17.2.94                                                                                                                                             2206(93)                                            238(94)

C.A.S. v. J.F.T. (B.C.), 23796, *02 10.2.94                                                                                                                                                      2072(93)                                            216(94)

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Attorney General of the

   province of Saskatchewan (Crim.)(Sask.), 23738, *B                                                                                                                    1797(93)

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Pierre (B.C.), 23837, *02

   3.3.94      2367(93)                                                                                                                                                                                      351(94)

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Sayani (B.C.),

   23862, *B                                                                                                                                                                                                      9(94)

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. The Queen in right of Ontario (Crim.)(Ont.),

   23721, *03 10.2.94                                                                                                                                                                                    1940(93)                                            211(94)

Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Canada Labour Relations

   Board (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23989, *A                                                                                                                                                             199(94)

Castaldo v. Lento (Ont.), 23908, *B                                                                                                                                                               272(94)

Chaba v. Greschuk (Alta.), 23000, *A                                                                                                                                                            1216(92)

Chan v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (F.C.A.)(B.C.),

   23813, *03 10.2.94                                                                                                                                                                                    2246(93)                                            214(94)

Chen v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (F.C.A.),

   23984, *A                                                                                                                                                                                                      199(94)

Coalition of Citizens for a Charter Challenge v. Metropolitan

   Authority (N.S.), 23911, *02 27.1.94                                                                                                                                                    9(94)                                                    91(94)

Commercial Union Assurance Co. of Canada v. Bank

   of Nova Scotia (N.S.), 23777, *02 3.3.94                                                                                                                                            2204(93)                                            347(94)

Compagnie minière Lamaque Ltée c. Sous-ministre de

   l'Énergie et des Ressources du Québec (Qué.),

   23684, *01 10.2.94                                                                                                                                                                                    1561(93)                                            211(94)

Compagnie minière Québec Cartier c. Métallurgistes unis d'Amérique,

   local 6869 (Qué.), 23960, *B                                                                                                                                                                  280(94)

Consolidated Enfield Corporation v. Blair (Ont.), 23887, *B                                                                                                                  338(94)

Construction Amtron Inc. c. Corbeil (Qué.),

   22562, *A                                                                                                                                                                                                      1783(91)

Coopérative Forestière du Nord-Ouest c. Deschênes (Qué.),

   23779, *02 27.1.94                                                                                                                                                                                    2075(93)                                            92(94)

Coopers & Lybrand OYDL Inc. v. Royal Trust Co. (Ont.),

   23771, *B                                                                                                                                                                                                      78(94)

Cormier c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 23847, *01 3.2.94                                                                                                                              2251(93)                                            176(94)

Corporation of the City of Stratford v. Large (Ont.),

   24004, *A                                                                                                                                                                                                      337(94)

Côté c. La Reine (Qué.), 23707, *03 3.3.94                                                                                                                                                  1799(93)                                            353(94)

Cousineau c. Petitpas (Qué.), 23830, *02 13.1.94                                                                                                                                     2141(93)                                            17(94)

Craig v. Lahey (N.B.), 23828, *02 3.3.94                                                                                                                                                      2365(93)                                            350(94)

Crawford v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23711, *03 10.2.94                                                                                                                     2133(93)                                            212(94)

D.E.P. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23892, *B                                                                                                                                             11(94)

D.M.S. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23878, *01 10.2.94                                                                                                                         5(94)                                                    216(94)

D.S c. V.W. (Qué.), 23765, *B                                                                                                                                                                           2005(93)

Darryl C. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23852, *B                                                                                                                                       5(94)

Delgamuukw v. The Queen in right of the province of

   British Columbia (B.C.), 23799, *B                                                                                                                                                       82(94)

Delitcheva c. La Reine (C.A.F.)(Qué.), 23788, *01 27.1.94                                                                                                                     2141(93)                                            93(94)

Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue (F.C.A.)(Ont.),

   23842, *B                                                                                                                                                                                                      2211(93)

Descoteaux c. Banque nationale du Canada (Qué.),

   23863, *02 27.1.94                                                                                                                                                                                    2372(93)                                            94(94)

Deshane v. Deere & Co. (Ont.), 23870, *B                                                                                                                                                  206(94)

Desloges v. Canadian Kennel Club (Ont.), 23981, *A                                                                                                                              199(94)

Devereaux v. Morrow (Ont.), 23798, *A                                                                                                                                                      2068(93)

Doman v. Superintendent of Brokers (B.C.), 23938, *A                                                                                                                          3(94)

Doman v. Superintendent of Brokers (B.C.), 23979, *A                                                                                                                          199(94)

Dow Corning Corporation v. Hollis (B.C.), 23776, *B                                                                                                                               2202(93)

Dubois c. Raymond, Chabot, Fafard, Gagnon Inc. (Qué.),

   23993, *A                                                                                                                                                                                                      336(94)

Duchesneau c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 23716, *01 3.3.94                                                                                                                     2290(93)                                            354(94)

EBCO Industries Ltd. v. ICAM Technologies Corporation (B.C.),

   23963, *A                                                                                                                                                                                                      159(94)

Edwards v. Solicitor General of Ontario (Ont.), 23932, *B                                                                                                                      279(94)

Elliot v. Elliot (F.C.A.), 23896, *A                                                                                                                                                                      2282(93)

Engerdahl v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 23758, *B                                                                                                                                     340(94)

English v. The Queen (Nfld.), 23832, *B                                                                                                                                                       2287(93)

Eryomin v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (F.C.A.),

   23383, *A                                                                                                                                                                                                      4(93)

Firscliff Development Inc. c. Raymond, Chabot, Fafard, Gagnon Inc.

   (Qué.), 23850, *02 10.2.94                                                                                                                                                                      2291(93)                                            222(94)

Firscliff Development Inc. c. Raymond, Chabot, Fafard, Gagnon Inc.

   (Qué.), 23851, *02 10.2.94                                                                                                                                                                      2292(93)                                            222(94)

Fiumara v. Commissioner of Corrections (Crim.)(F.C.A.)(Ont.),

   23735, *01 20.1.94                                                                                                                                                                                    2244(93)                                            22(94)

Fletcher v. Corporation of the Township of Scugog (Ont.),

   23699, *B                                                                                                                                                                                                      79(94)

Foster v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23745, *01 13.1.94                                                                                                                           2047(93)                                            14(94)

Foyer de Val d'Or Inc. c. Syndicat des employés du Foyer de

  Val d'Or (Qué.), 23998, *A                                                                                                                                                                          336(94)

Frankie v. Commissioner of Corrections (Crim.)(F.C.A.)(Ont.),

   23736, *01 20.1.94                                                                                                                                                                                    2243(93)                                            21(94)

Friedman c. Sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec (Qué.), 23844, *02

   3.2.94      2253(93)                                                                                                                                                                                      171(94)

Friesen v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 23922, *B                                                                                                                                          164(94)

G.L.B. c. M.P. (Qué.), 23744, *B                                                                                                                                                                       1943(93)

Gaulin (Pierre André) c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.),

   23874, *B                                                                                                                                                                                                      167(94)

Gaulin (Raymonde) c. Centre des services sociaux de la

   Gaspésie et des Îles de la Madeleine (Qué.), 23793, *A                                                                                                              2045(93)

Gilbert c. La Reine (C.A.F.), 23723, *B                                                                                                                                                           2371(93)

Gill v. The Queen (B.C.)(Crim.), 23903, *B                                                                                                                                                   202(94)

Gillespie v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.B.), 22771, *01 27.1.94                                                                                                                      13(94)                                                 95(94)

Gladstone v. The Queen (B.C.), 23801, *B                                                                                                                                                  83(94)

Godin c. Société conadienne de la Croix-Rouge (Qué.),

   23702, *01 13.1.94                                                                                                                                                                                    1751(93)                                            15(94)

Godon v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23790, *B                                                                                                                                           6(94)

Gold v. Gold (B.C.), 23817, *02 13.1.94                                                                                                                                                        2254(93)                                            19(94)

Golden Horse Farms Inc. v. Household Trust Co. (B.C.),

   23710, *B                                                                                                                                                                                                      89(94)

Government of Manitoba v. A.J (Man.), 23770, *01 3.3.94                                                                                                                   2250(93)                                            349(94)

Greenbaum c. Public Curator of Quebec (Qué.),

   23700, *02 13.1.94                                                                                                                                                                                    2142(93)                                            17(94)

Greer v. Commission national des libérations conditionnelles

   (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23724, *01 13.1.94                                                                                                                                                        1844(93)                                            16(94)

Gresham v. Ernst & Young Inc. (Sask.), 22888, *A                                                                                                                                    716(92)

Gyori v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23907, *01 3.3.94                                                                                                                              162(94)                                               356(94)

Hamon c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 23857, *01 27.1.94                                                                                                                            2289(93)                                            94(94)

Harrigan v. The Queen (Ont.), 22958, *A                                                                                                                                                     916(92)

Harvey v. Attorney General for New Brunswick (N.B.), 23968, *B                                                                                                    203(94)

Harvey v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.B.), 23894, *B                                                                                                                                          78(93)

Haughton v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23665, *03 3.2.94                                                                                                                      1541(93)                                            173(94)

Hawrish v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 23898, *B                                                                                                                                      202(94)

Hecht v. Reid (B.C.), 23751, *02 13.1.94                                                                                                                                                      2209(93)                                            18(94)

Helo Enterprises Ltd. v. Ernst & Young Inc. (B.C.), 23924, *B                                                                                                                345(94)

Hibbert v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23815, *03 10.2.94                                                                                                                        2198(93)                                            213(94)

Hill v. The Registrar, South Alberta Land Registration District

   (Alta.), 23650, *02 10.2.94                                                                                                                                                                      1753(93)                                            221(94)

Horan v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23855, *01 3.2.94                                                                                                                             10(94)                                                 177(94)

Huot v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23849, *B                                                                                                                                               163(94)

Hutchins v. Commission nationale des libérations conditionnelles

   (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23725, *01 13.1.94                                                                                                                                                        1845(93)                                            16(94)

Hutter v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23950, *B                                                                                                                                            268(94)

Hynes v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 23718, *01 3.2.94                                                                                                                             2135(93)                                            174(94)

Industrielle-Alliance, compagnie d'assurance-vie c. Deslauriers

   (Qué.), 23824, *B                                                                                                                                                                                       89(94)

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v. Petersen (B.C.),

   23961, *A                                                                                                                                                                                                      197(94)

International Lottery Distributors Inc. v. Government of

   Manitoba (Man.), 23958, *A                                                                                                                                                                  197(94)

J.W.S. v. H.A.D. (Alta.), 23915, *02 3.3.94                                                                                                                                                    12(94)                                                 355(94)

Jaffe v. Hatch (Ont.), 23755, *01 20.1.94                                                                                                                                                     2049(93)                                            23(94)

Janes v. The Queen in right of Newfoundland (Nfld.), 22997, *01

   13.1.94   1544(93)                                                                                                                                                                                      20(94)

Johnstone v. The Queen (Ont.), 23996, *A                                                                                                                                                  336(94)

Jones (Ronald Stuart) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23667, *B                                                                                                              1467(93)

Jones (Scott David) v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 23916, *B                                                                                                                   162(94)

Jorgensen v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23787, *B                                                                                                                                     160(94)

Kettle River Sawills Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 23944, *A                                                                                                                     3(94)

Khan v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23947, *B                                                                                                                                              338(94)

Kopen v. 61345 Manitoba Ltd. (Man.), 23498, *B                                                                                                                                    940(93)

Kumar v. The Queen (B.C.), 23975, *A                                                                                                                                                         198(94)

L.M. c. L.L. (Qué.), 23829, *01 17.2.94                                                                                                                                                          2253(93)                                            239(94)

Laboratories Nordic Inc. c. Gagnon (Qué.), 23977, *A                                                                                                                             198(94)

Lahey v. Craig (N.B.), 23828, *02 3.3.94                                                                                                                                                      2365(93)                                            350(94)

Laisa v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.W.T.), 23819, *01 13.1.94                                                                                                                        2199(93)                                            15(94)

Lajoie v. The Queen (Ont.), 21436, *A                                                                                                                                                          975(89)

Lakeview National Hotels Inc. v. Assessor for the City of

   Winnipeg (Man.), 23999, *A                                                                                                                                                                  337(94)

Lee v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23831, *01 3.3.94                                                                                                                                  2247(93)                                            347(94)

Lewery v. Governing Council of the Salvation Army in Canada

   (N.B.), 23775, *02 13.1.94                                                                                                                                                                       2048(93)                                            21(94)

Lewis v. The Queen (B.C.), 23802, *B                                                                                                                                                           84(94)

Liberati v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission

   (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23869, *01 3.3.94                                                                                                                                                           2368(93)                                            352(94)

Lord v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 23943, *B                                                                                                                                                271(94)

Loubier c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 23969, *B                                                                                                                                              343(94)

Lunn v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23983, *A                                                                                                                                               199(94)

M.S. v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 23848, *01 13.1.94                                                                                                                               2251(93)                                            19(94)

MacGillivray v. The Queen (N.S.), 23933, *A                                                                                                                                             267(94)

MacKinlay v. MacKinlay (N.S.), 23783, *02 10.2.94                                                                                                                                2073(93)                                            220(94)

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Youell (B.C.), 23899, *B                                                                                                                                   344(94)

Maheu c. Ministère du Revenu national ((C.A.F.)(Qué.), 23873, *B                                                                                                   169(94)

Mainland Sand & Gravel Ltd. v. Tutinka (B.C.), 24003, *A                                                                                                                    337(94)

Manship Holdings Ltd. v. Muise (N.B.), 23941, *B                                                                                                                                   342(94)

Manson Insulation Inc. v. Wallace Construction Specialties Ltd.

   (Sask.), 23784, *02 10.2.94                                                                                                                                                                     2137(93)                                            220(94)

Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. v. Marystown Shipyard Ltd.

   (Nfld.), 23901, *B                                                                                                                                                                                       275(94)

Martin v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23761, *B                                                                                                                                           270(94)

Mastercraft Properties Ltd. v. El Ef Investments Inc.

   (Ont.), 23827, *02 3.2.94                                                                                                                                                                         2284(93)                                            172(94)

Mayer v. Mayer (B.C.), 23782, *02 3.3.94                                                                                                                                                   2248(93)                                            348(94)

Mayfield Investments Ltd. v. Stewart (Alta.), 23739,

   *03 10.2.94                                                                                                                                                                                                   77(94)                                                 213(94)

McCain Foods Ltd. v. National Transportation Agency

   (F.C.A.)(N.B.),   23318, *B                                                                                                                                                                483(93)

Mercer v. The Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.), 23838, *01 3.3.94                                                                                                                          2247(93)                                            348(94)

Merck & Co. v. Apotex Inc. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23905, *A                                                                                                                              2359(93)

Mercs v. Nanji (Alta.), 23497, *B                                                                                                                                                                     939(93)

Messinger v. Bramalea Ltd. (Ont.), 23797, *02 17.2.94                                                                                                                          2205(93)                                            238(94)

Michaud c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.), 23764, *B                                                                                                                 2207(93)

Milad v. Milad (Ont.), 23976, *A                                                                                                                                                                     198(94)

Milk Board v. Grisnich (B.C.), 23927, *B                                                                                                                                                       346(94)

Mills v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23728, *B                                                                                                                                               1842(93)

Millstream Enterprises Ltd. v. Corporation of the City of New

   Westminster (B.C.), 23959, *B                                                                                                                                                              278(94)

Minister of Employment and Immigration v. Nguyen (F.C.A.)(Man.),

   23834, *01 17.2.94                                                                                                                                                                                    2204(93)                                            237(94)

Modes Cohoes Inc. c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.),

   23929, *A                                                                                                                                                                                                      2(93)

Moisescu c. Garmaise (Qué.), 23949, *A                                                                                                                                                     75(94)

Moore v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 23810, *03 17.2.94                                                                                                                          2198(93)                                            237(94)

Morgan v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23579, *B                                                                                                                                         76(94)

Morley v. Kalaka Housing Co-Operative Ltd. (Alta.),

   23997, *A                                                                                                                                                                                                      336(94)

Moutisheva c. Solliciteur général du Canada (C.A.F.), 23884, *A                                                                                                        2358(93)

Mowers v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23891, *B                                                                                                                                        200(94)

Mumford v. Health Sciences Centre (F.C.A.)(Man.), 23715, *02 10.2.94                                                                                         1750(93)                                            217(94)

NTC Smokehouse Ltd. v. The Queen in right of the province

   of British Columbia (B.C.), 23800, *B                                                                                                                                                  83(94)

Nassif c. Nassif (Qué.), 23836, *02 13.1.94                                                                                                                                                 2210(93)                                            18(94)

National Automobile v. Wolverine Tube (Canada) Inc. (B.C.),

   23781, *B                                                                                                                                                                                                      2245(93)

National Party of Canada v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

   (Alta.), 23726, *02 3.2.94                                                                                                                                                                         2201(93)                                            170(94)

Naylor v. Naylor (Ont.), 23985, *A                                                                                                                                                                 236(94)

Neuzen v. Korn (B.C.), 23773, *03 10.2.94                                                                                                                                                  2137(93)                                            221(94)

Neve v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23991, *A                                                                                                                                             336(94)

Nicholson v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23821, *01 3.2.94                                                                                                                      2133(93)                                            170(94)

Nikal v. The Queen in right of Canada (B.C.), 23804, *B                                                                                                                        85(94)

No. 100 Sail View Ventures Ltd. v. Janwest Equities Ltd.

   (B.C.), 23965, *A                                                                                                                                                                                         197(94)

Norbert v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23952, *B                                                                                                                                         277(94)

O'Leary v. The Queen (N.B.), 23928, *B                                                                                                                                                      164(94)

Omineca Enterprises Ltd. v. Minister of Forests (B.C.),

   23939, *B                                                                                                                                                                                                      345(94)

Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board v. Hugh (Ont.),

   23720, *02 3.2.94                                                                                                                                                                                       1944(93)                                            175(94)

Orlesky v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23888, *B                                                                                                                                         11(94)

Otto v. Hamilton & Olsen Surveys Ltd. (Alta.), 23840, *02

   3.3.94      2369(93)                                                                                                                                                                                      352(94)

Ouaknine c. Cohen (Qué.), 23858, *02 17.2.94                                                                                                                                          2371(93)                                            239(94)

P.L. v. Director of Child Welfare (Nfld.), 23886, *B                                                                                                                                   2293(93)

Pacificador v. Republic of the Philippines (Ont.),

   23792, *B                                                                                                                                                                                                      204(94)

Partridge v. The Queen (Ont.), 23995, *A                                                                                                                                                    336(94)

Patrick Press Ltd. v. Pierre (B.C.), 23837, *A                                                                                                                                                2069(93)

Paulet v. Brandon University Faculty Association (Man.),

   22729, *A                                                                                                                                                                                                      4(92)

Peace Valley Ranch Ltd. v. Coconut Grove Management &

   Development Corporation (Ont.), 23814, *01 3.2.94                                                                                                                    2285(93)                                            172(94)

Pilon v. Bouaziz (B.C.), 23866, *A                                                                                                                                                                    336(94)

Prinse v. Fraser Valley Foods (B.C.), 23859, *B                                                                                                                                          87(94)

Procureur général du Québec c. Téléphones Guèvremont Inc.

   (Qué.), 23345, *03 10.2.94                                                                                                                                                                      2139(93)                                            222(94)

Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada v.

   Senate of Canada (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23934, *B                                                                                                                                     276(94)

Quick v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 23757, *B                                                                                                                                              273(94)

R. v. Barrett (Crim.)(Ont.), 23749, *B                                                                                                                                                             2000(93)

R. v. Bernshaw (Crim.)(B.C.), 23748, *03 10.2.94                                                                                                                                      1999(93)                                            212(94)

R. c. Charbonneau (Crim.)(Qué.), 23906, *B                                                                                                                                               207(94)

R. c. Chevrier (Qué.), 23126, *A                                                                                                                                                                       2510(92)

R. c. Côté (Qué.), 23707, *03 3.3.94                                                                                                                                                               1799(93)                                            353(94)

R. v. Crown Forest Industries Ltd. (F.C.A.), 23940, *A                                                                                                                              3(94)

R. v. Giesecke (Crim.)(Ont.), 23772, *01 10.2.94                                                                                                                                       2134(93)                                            213(94)

R. c. Gosselin (Crim.)(Qué.), 23833, *B                                                                                                                                                         2290(93)

R. v. Hawkins (Crim.)(Ont.), 23913, *B                                                                                                                                                         161(94)

R. v. Houlahan (Crim.)(Man.), 23786, *03 10.2.94                                                                                                                                    2244(93)                                            214(94)

R. v. MacLeod (Crim.)(N.S.), 23722, *01 13.1.94                                                                                                                                       1841(93)                                            20(94)

R. v. McIntosh (Crim.)(Ont.), 23843, *03 10.2.94                                                                                                                                      2284(93)                                            215(94)

R. v. Parks (Crim.)(Ont.), 23860, *B                                                                                                                                                                273(94)

R. v. Perry (Crim.)(N.B.), 23910, *B                                                                                                                                                                86(94)

R. v. R.H.J. (Crim.)(B.C.), 23972, *B                                                                                                                                                                270(94)

R. v. Sylliboy (Crim.)(N.S.), 21929, *A                                                                                                                                                            1015(90)

R. in right of Ontario v. Prete (Ont.), 23973, *A                                                                                                                                          198(94)

R. in right of the province of New Brunswick v. Coopers &

   Lybrand Ltd. (N.B.), 23740, *02 10.2.94                                                                                                                                             2001(93)                                            219(94)

R.B. c. G.F. (Qué.), 23953, *B                                                                                                                                                                            280(94)

R.C.D. v. B.B.D. (Alta.), 23937, *A                                                                                                                                                                   3(94)

Redpath Industries Ltd. v. The Ship ("Cisco") (F.C.A.),

   24006, *A                                                                                                                                                                                                      337(94)

Regional Assessment Commissioner v. Graham (Ont.), 23904, *A                                                                                                    196(94)

Regional Municipality of Peel v. Andani (Ont.), 23823, *02

   3.3.94      2288(93)                                                                                                                                                                                      350(94)

Riendeau c. Economical Compagnie mutuelle d'assurance

   (Qué.), 23902, *B                                                                                                                                                                                       209(94)

Rizzo v. Hanover Insurance Co. (Ont.), 23769, *02 3.2.94                                                                                                                     2136(93)                                            174(94)

Roy c. Corporation municipale de St-Jules, Cté Beauce (Qué.),

   23918, *B                                                                                                                                                                                                      209(94)

Royal Bank of Canada v. Mitsui & Co. (Canada) Ltd. (N.S.),

   23914, *B                                                                                                                                                                                                      341(94)

S. (Compton Winston) v. The Queen (Ont.), 23477, *A                                                                                                                           561(93)

SDC Sterling Development Corporation v. Katz (Ont.), 23897, *A                                                                                                     159(94)

Sagharichi v. Minister of Employment and Immigration

   (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23826, *01 17.2.94                                                                                                                                                        2203(93)                                            237(94)

Saint-Laurent c. Hétu (Qué.), 23982, *A                                                                                                                                                       199(94)

Salois c. Ville de Montréal (Crim.)(Qué.), 23785, *02 27.1.94                                                                                                               2075(93)                                            92(94)

Samsoondar v. Minister of Employment and Immigration

   (F.C.A.)(Man.), 23900, *B                                                                                                                                                                        76(94)

Schachtschneider v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23698, *B                                                                                                                     1747(93)

Scott v. Morrow (Ont.), 23798, *B                                                                                                                                                                  87(94)

Scottish & York Insurance Co. v. Co-Operators General

   Insurance Co. (Ont.), 23841, *B                                                                                                                                                            204(94)

Seafarers' International Union of Canada v. Canada Labour

   Relations Board (F.C.A.), 23696, *02 10.2.94                                                                                                                                   1558(93)                                            217(94)

Sept-Îles (Ville de) c. Lussier (Qué.), 23825, *02 3.2.94                                                                                                                           2208(93)                                            176(94)

Sequa Chemicals Inc. v. United Color and Chemical Ltd.

   (F.C.A), 24005, *A                                                                                                                                                                                      337(94)

Services M.L. Marengère Inc. c. Corporation de la copropriété La Caserne

   (Qué.), 23681, *02 13.1.94                                                                                                                                                                      2252(93)                                            19(94)

Shaw Cable Systems British Columbia Ltd. v. British Columbia

   Telephone Co. (F.C.A.), 23717, *03 10.2.94                                                                                                                                      1943(93)                                            218(94)

Shore Boat Builders Ltd. v. Moses (B.C.), 23868, *02 3.3.94                                                                                                                 8(94)                                                    353(94)

Shulman v. McCallum (B.C.), 23767, *05 28.2.94                                                                                                                                     1937(93)                                            365(94)

Singh v. University of Western Ontario (Ont.), 23883, *B                                                                                                                      275(94)

Siska Indian Band v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. (F.C.A.),