Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

April 27, 2001  760 - 791                                                                      le 27 avril 2001

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Guy Matte

Guy Matte

c. (28488)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)

Germain Tremblay

Procureur général du Québec

DATE DE PRODUCTION 28.3.2001

Sébastien Brousseau

Julius H. Grey

Grey Casgrain

v. (28479)

Barreau du Québec et al. (Que.)

Gérald R. Tremblay, Q.C.

McCarthy Tétrault

FILING DATE 28.3.2001

Patrick David Campbell Lees

Jeffrey Green

Green & Claus

v. (28499)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Kate Ker

A.G. of British Columbia

FILING DATE 5.4.2001

Thomas Robert Zinck

J. Paul Dubé

Dubé & Associate

v. (28367)

Her Majesty the Queen (N.B.)

Michael O. Leblanc

FILING DATE 5.4.2001

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation et al.

Marlys Edwardh

Ruby & Edwardh

v. (28477)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Michal Fairburn

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 12.4.2001

Compagnie d’assurance Continental du Canada

Guy Pépin, c.r.

Pépin, Letourneau

c. (28522)

Technilab Inc. et al. (Qué.)

Sophie Beauchemin

Dunton Rainville

DATE DE PRODUCTION 12.4.2001

Jeanette Dechant

Jeanette Dechant

v. (28293)

The Law Society of Alberta (Alta.)

A. Webster MacDonald Jr., Q.C.

Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

FILING DATE 17.4.2001

Steven Kong Tang

Neil L. Cobb

Cobb & Co.

v. (28506)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Cory Stolte

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 17.4.2001

Raymond F. Pasquan

Raymond F. Pasquan

v. (28478)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

Derek Edwards

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 20.3.2001

Bara Academy of Business Sciences Limited and Mary L. Bara

Mary L. Bara

v. (28467)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta et al. (Alta.)

Timothy Hurlburt

A.G. of Alberta

FILING DATE 20.3.2001

Madame Ghislaine Paquette et al.

Madame Ghislaine Paquette

c. (28490)

Monsieur Jacques Delfosse (Qué.)

Jean Renaud

Parent, Renaud

DATE DE PRODUCTION 22.3.2001

Mohamed Zeki Mahjoub

Rocco Galati

Galati, Rodrigues, Azevedo & Associates

v. (28528)

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration et al. (F.C.)

Donald McIntosh

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 23.3.2001

Bryan Latham

Richard Litkowski

Ruby & Edwardh

v. (28529)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Sadian Campbell

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 2.4.2001

James Blair Down, et al.

Mark D. Andrews

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP

v. (28496)

Interclaim Holdings Limited et al. (B.C.)

John Sandrelli

Heenan Blaikie

FILING DATE 2.4.2001

Domenico Scalise

Lucille Brisson

Alarie, Legault, Beauchemin, Paquin, Jobin, Brisson & Philpot

c. (28492)

Tribunal administratif du Québec (Qué.)

Murielle LaHaye

Lemieux, Chrétien, LaHaye & Corriveau

DATE DE PRODUCTION 2.4.2001

Robert Larry Bouvier

Bruce J. Slusar

v. (28523)

Her Majesty the Queen (Sask.)

John D. Whyte, Q.C.

A.G. for Saskatchewan

FILING DATE 3.4.2001

Le Procureur général du Québec

Serge Brodeur

Procureur général du Québec

c. (28417)

Laurent Laroche et al. (Qué.)

Christian Desrosiers

Desrosiers, Turcotte, Marchand, Massicotte

DATE DE PRODUCTION 9.4.2001

ITV Technologies Inc.

Paul D. Gornall

v. (28525)

WIC Television Ltd. (F.C.)

Brian D. Edmonds

McCarthy Tétrault

FILING DATE 9.4.2001

Christopher Fenton, an infant by his Guardian Ad Litem, Suzann Fenton

Josiah Wood, Q.C.

Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

v. (28502)

Daniel Robert Baldo et al. (B.C.)

Scott B. Stewart

Stewart & Company

FILING DATE 10.4.2001

Her Majesty the Queen

Renee Pomerance

A.G. for Ontario

v. (28527)

William Briggs (Ont.)

John Norris

Ruby & Edwardh

FILING DATE 10.4.2001

Charlie Pinteric

A. Patrick Wymes

v. (28504)

People’s Bar and Eatery Limited et al. (Ont.)

James A. Ermacora

FILING DATE 10.4.2001

The Corporation of the City of Toronto also known as The City of Toronto, et al.

Thomas G. Andrews

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

v. (28524)

Donna Myshrall et al. (Ont.)

James D. Singer

FILING DATE 11.4.2001

Joaquim Penedo

Stanley C. Ehrlich

v. (28480)

Gary Fane (Ont.)

Lewis N. Gottheil

CAW - Canada Legal Department

FILING DATE 21.3.2001

Thomas Ian McKeen

Joseph A. MacDonell

Carruthers & MacDonell

v. (28481)

Her Majesty the Queen, as represented by the Attorney General of Nova Scotia (N.S.)

Kenneth W.F. Fiske, Q.C.

A.G. of Nova Scotia

FILING DATE 22.3.2001

Visual Education Centre Limited et al.

Darryl T. Mann

Torkin Manes Cohen Arbus LLP

v. (28484)

Stuart Grant et al. (Ont.)

Douglas Hodgson

Hodgson Orkin Post LLP

FILING DATE 23.3.2001

La Caisse Populaire Desjardins de Val-Brillant

P. Michel Bouchard

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin

c. (28483)

Métivier & Associés Inc. (Qué.)

Jean-Patrick Bédard

Brisset des Nos, Gravel

DATE DE PRODUCTION 23.3.2001

Zellers Inc. - Val d’Or No. 467

Michel Gélinas

Lavery, De Billy, S.E.N.C.

c. (28485)

Me Jean Lalonde, ès qualités de Commissaire du travail (Qué.)

DATE DE PRODUCTION 26.3.2001

Monique Parent

Monique Parent

c. (28486)

Sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec (Qué.)

Louis Pelletier

Veillette & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION 26.3.2001

John Susin

John Susin

v. (28482)

Bono General Construction Limited et al. (Ont.)

Rocco A. Grilli

Mackesy, Smye, Turnbull, Grilli, Jones, Winward & Mahler

FILING DATE 27.3.2001

Charles Ferenczi

Charles Ferenczi

v. (28489)

The Financial Services Commission of Ontario et al. (Ont.)

John T. Petrosoniak

Financial Services Commission of Ontario Legal Services Branch

FILING DATE 29.3.2001

Ville de Kirkland

Louis Bouchart d’Orval

Bouchart d’Orval Cadrin

c. (28491)

Les Immeubles Yale Ltée et al. (Qué.)

Alfred Bélisle

Bélisle, Bertrand, Dubé, St-Jean

DATE DE PRODUCTION 2.4.2001

Sadasivarao Byrapaneni

Sadasivarao Byrapaneni

v. (28520)

Curtis Raymond et al. (N.B.)

Curtis Raymond

FILING DATE 2.4.2001

Robert Caya

Irwin Koziebrocki

v. (28495)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Stacey Young

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 4.4.2001

Lucille Dubé

Lucille Dubé

c. (28493)

Commission scolaire des Portages de l’Outaouais (Qué.)

Guy Régimbal

Letellier et Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION 4.4.2001

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Joel E. Pink, Q.C.

Pink, Murray, Graham

v. (28500)

Her Majesty the Queen (N.S.)

Duncan R. Beveridge, Q.C.

Beveridge, Lambert & Duncan

FILING DATE 6.4.2001

Chimitec Ltée

Jacques Ladouceur

Cliche Lortie Ladouceur

c. (28501)

Ordre des Chimistes du Québec (Qué.)

Jean Lanctot

Ferland Marois Lanctot

DATE DE PRODUCTION 6.4.2001

The Cook’s Road Maintenance Association

Robert J. Reynolds

Reynolds, O’Brien, Kline & Selick

v. (28497)

Crowhill Estates and the Attorney General of Ontario (Ont.)

William E. Baker

FILING DATE 9.4.2001

United Parcel Service du Canada Ltée

Gérard Dugré

Fraser Milner Casgrain S.R.L.

c. (28503)

Communauté Urbaine de Montréal (Qué.)

Michel Locas

Dunton Rainville, S.E.N.C.

DATE DE PRODUCTION 9.4.2001

Walter Gordon McOuat

Walter Gordon McOuat

v. (28519)

The Law Society of British Columbia (B.C.)

Gerald A. Cuttler

Walsh & Company

FILING DATE 12.4.2001

Francine Mayville et als

Pierre Laplante

Laplante et associés

c. (28511)

Nortel (Northern Télécom Canada Ltée) (Qué.)

Benoît Turmel

Fasken, Martineau, Dumoulin, s.r.l.

DATE DE PRODUCTION 12.4.2001

Francine Mayville et als

Pierre Laplante

Laplante et associés

c. (28509)

L’Union canadienne des travailleurs en communications (Unité 4) et al.

Marco Gaggino

Castiglio & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION 12.4.2001

Ronald G. Stevens et al.

J. Patrick Peacock

Peacock, Linder & Halt

v. (28514)

Jeanette Dechant (Alta.)

Jeanette Dechant

FILING DATE 12.4.2001

Gilles Tousignant

Jean-Philippe Gervais

Gervais & Gervais, s.e.n.c.

c. (28521)

Banque de Nouvelle-Écosse (Qué.)

William Assels

St-Onge & Assels

DATE DE PRODUCTION 12.4.2001

Marian Plucinski

Marian Plucinski

v. (28512)

Roderick H. Mackenzie (B.C.)

Michael G. Armstrong

Armstrong & Company

FILING DATE 12.4.2001

Federated Co-operatives Limited

Michael E. Barrack

McCarthy Tétrault

v. (28505)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

Christopher Rupar

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 17.4.2001

Banque Nationale de Paris (Canada) et al.

Thomas G. Heintzman, Q.C.

McCarthy Tétrault

v. (28508)

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al. (Ont.)

Patrick O’Kelly

Stikeman, Elliott

FILING DATE 17.4.2001

Jean-Marie Pelletier

Jean-Marie Pelletier

c. (28515)

André Dionne (Qué.) 

Rene Chamard

Chamard Grand’Maison

DATE DE PRODUCTION 17.4.2001

Les Laboratoires Bio-Recherches Ltée

Eric L. Clark

Clark & Partners

v. (28507)

Technilab Inc.  (Qué.)

Sophie Beauchemin

FILING DATE 17.4.2001

National Bank of Canada

Ronald J. LeBlanc

LeBlanc Boudreau Desjardins Maillet

v. (28517)

Western Surety Company (N.B.)

E.J. Mockler, Q.C.

Mockler, Peters, Oley, Rouse & Williams

FILING DATE 18.4.2001

Tara Maria Bell

Martin F. Allen

Brooks & Marshall Associates

v. (28518)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Marian K. Brown

A.G. for Ontario - Crown Law Office

FILING DATE 4.4.2001

Communauté Urbaine de Montréal

Anne Marie Babkine

Joli-Coeur, Lacasse, Geoffrion, Jetté, St-Pierre

c. (28531)

Les Immeubles Yale Ltée et al. (Qué.)

Alfred Bélisle

Bélisle, Bertrand, Dubé, St-Jean

FILING DATE 2.4.2001

APRIL 23, 2001 / LE 23 AVRIL 2001

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Bastarache

Serge Gagnon

c. (28356)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en rejetant l’appel du requérant pour le seul motif que la question était relative à la crédibilité des témoins sans se pencher sur les erreurs manifestes du juge de première instance? Le juge de première instance a-t-il perpétré un déni de justice envers le requérant en écartant d’emblée l’ensemble de la théorie de la défense sans le justifier? Le verdict de culpabilité est-il déraisonnable compte tenu de l’ensemble de la preuve?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 16 janvier 2001

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée

Ian Verner MacDonald

v. (28393)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, The Attorney General of Ontario and the Honourable Charles Harnick, William Malcolm Bishop, Terrance Sterling Bishop, Michael Chinkiwsky

and S. Bergau (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

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

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Raymond Errol Conley

v. (28316)

Tracy Lynn Beaudoin, Christine Dawn Renshaw, Andrea Lenore Fyfe (Man.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Limitation of actions - Actions for injuries to the person founded on a tort or any breach of duty - Actions grounded on other equitable ground of relief not specifically dealt with - Can injuries to the person constitute a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty? - Did the Applicant have a fiduciary duty toward the Respondents? - When were the alleged injuries discoverable? - What is the applicable statutory limitation provision?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ian Verner MacDonald

v. (28395)

Her Majesty the Queen, The Professional Institute of the Public Service (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Extension of time - Whether the Federal Court, Trial Division erred in failing to grant a motion to extend the time to file an appeal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

592123 B.C. Ltd.

v. (28127)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia, City of Kamloops, Baron Enterprises Ltd., British Columbia Wilderness Tours Inc., A & A Estates Ltd., A & A Foods Ltd., Canadian Western Bank, Giovanni Camporese, AIC International Resources Corporation and 415669 B.C. Ltd. (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property Law - Mortgages - Judicial Sale - Conduct of sale - Foreclosure proceedings - Whether a trustee, receiver or other person designated to conduct negotiations in the context of a sale requiring judicial approval must have the ability to effectively conclude such arrangements with third parties and whether those third parties must have a corresponding ability to rely upon and enter into good faith negotiations with a view to confidently concluding an agreement - Whether preference should be applied for the interests of provincial or municipal governments over those of private parties - What principles should be considered in deciding when a trustee, receiver or other such person has acted improvidently - Whether third parties should enjoy certainty in negotiations leading to judicial approval to justify their expenditure of time and money, and to promote overall order in the marketplace

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Cumberland Asset Management, Berner & Company Inc., Global Securities Corporation, Peel Brooke Inc., Robert N. Granger and Adrian M.S. White

v. (28333)

1235866 Ontario Inc., KPMG Inc. as Interim Receiver of Curragh Inc. and Deloitte & Touche Inc. as Interim Receiver of Anvil Range Mining Corporation (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Contracts - Agreement of purchase and sale -  Motions judge confirming that transfer of assets under general conveyance included right to seek remedies against former employees of mining company in relation to certain mines - Court of Appeal affirming decision - Whether courts below erred in law in holding that earlier agreement of purchase and sale did not include mining company’s interest in confidentiality and other agreements relating to those mines.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Arbour et LeBel

M.S.

c. (28256)

L.C. (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit de la famille - Garde - Modification d’ordonnance provisoire de garde - La Cour d’Appel a-t-elle erré dans son interprétation des dispositions de l’article 17  de la Loi sur le divorce  en concluant que, depuis le jugement rendant une ordonnance provisoire de garde, il n’était survenu aucun fait nouveau justifiant la modification de cette ordonnance.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Marie‐Louis Lessard

c. (28201)

Corporation municipale de Courcelles (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit Municipal - Expropriation - Procédure - Procédure civile - Appel - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en déclarant qu’un exproprié puisse être déclaré vexatoire après que ce dernier ait obtenu un désistement total - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en concluant qu’une ville a le droit d’exproprier les terrains privés adjacents aux terrains qu’elle possède pour effectuer une voie d’accès dite l’expropriation nécessaire - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en déterminant qu’un propriétaire a le droit de céder sa propriété pour un prix minime - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en concluant qu’un exproprié n’a pas le droit à une description selon le Code Civil du Québec?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

The Estate of the Late Frederick J. Haas

v.(28338)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Income tax - Capital gain - Deemed disposition on death - Canada - United States Tax Convention, 1980 reduction of capital gain - Assets acquired prior to Valuation Day - Meaning of “gain” in Article XIII(9) of the 1980 Canada-United States Income Tax Convention - Proper approach to the interpretation of Canada’s income tax treaties and the weight to be given to extrinsic materials such as the Technical Explanation and Senate Committee hearings.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Arnold Tracey and Kanatherm Limited

v. (28328)

Vibron Limited (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Mechanics’ liens - Contractor’s and subcontractor’s trust - Trial judge granting Respondent’s action against Applicants for damages for breach of trust under s. 8 of Construction Lien Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30 - Court of Appeal affirming decision - Whether Court of Appeal and trial court have applied the trust provisions of the Construction Lien Act in such a broad fashion as to significantly increase the personal liability of the officers, directors and employees of construction companies.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Régent Millette

c. (28045)

Marcel Dagenais, Saul Yaros, Marie‐Laure Hébert, Diane Yaros, Alice Perreault, Denise Côté, Jean Louis Cliche, Elise Brunet, Pierre Côté, Léonie Couture, Suzanne Hervieux, Roger Côté, Gérard B. Côté et Francine Couture (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit civil – Hypothèque – Code civil du Bas-Canada, art. 1040a – Défaut des débiteurs d’exécuter leur obligation en vertu l’acte de prêt de rembourser le capital dû et les intérêts courus – Action personnelle hypothécaire – La Cour d’appel a t-elle erré en prononçant un jugement rectificatif sans donner l’occasion au demandeur d’être entendu au préalable? – La règle audi alteram partem a-t-elle été enfreinte?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

CORAM:   Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Major et Binnie

Angelina Codina

v. (28434)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law - Fraud - Falsifying Documents - Whether a trial judge’s blatant and serious error with respect to the burden of proof should be excused on the basis that a correct self-direction was also expressed - Whether a trial judge may rely on protestations of innocence as negatively affecting credibility - Whether in a credibility centred case, the motivation of animus of the Crown’s key witness can be entirely disregarded - Whether a trial judge may infer concoction of a defence - Whether the ethical duty of a lawyer to report misconduct supports a corollary right for authorities to receive and retain documents seized without a warrant - Whether a search warrant authorizing a search of a lawyer’s office can be justified where there are alternative means available to the authorities to obtain the information sought - Whether a search warrant lacking in particularity with respect to items sought to be seized, accompanied by a massive overseizure is reasonable - Whether the verdict was unreasonable

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

November 27, 1997

Superior Court of Justice

Humphrey J.

Conviction: defrauding the Ontario Legal Aid Plan and falsifying a document with intent to defraud the Ontario Legal Aid Plan

J.R.L.

v. (28381)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Search and seizure - Whether the motions judge had jurisdiction to conduct a review of the Applicant’s psychiatric records seized pursuant to a search warrant - Whether the procedures provided in the Ontario Mental Health Act should be followed with respect to a seizure of psychiatric records under the Criminal Code  - Whether the psychiatric records are privileged - Whether the procedure developed in O’Connor could be applied to the psychiatric records of an accused person

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Law Society of Alberta

v. (28275)

Craig Charles Krieger, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Alberta (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes - Interpretation - Constitutional law - Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction of law society to discipline a member for conduct during exercise of prosecutorial discretion in criminal proceeding - Who should oversee the conduct of prosecutors exercising prosecutorial discretion to ensure that the conduct is ethical - Does the review of a prosecutor’s exercise of discretion by his employer, the Attorney General, preclude scrutiny of the conduct by the Law Society - Whether Rule 28 of the Alberta Code of Professional Conduct is intra vires - Whether the power to make rules of professional conduct is ultra vires the Law Society - Legal Profession Act, S.A. 1990, c. L-9.1.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Gabor L. Zsoldos

v. (28262)

Banfill Holovaci (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Civil -  Procedural Law - Civil Procedure - Apprehension of bias - Whether judge should not have heard motion for leave to appeal because he demonstrated bias during a prior hearing in other proceedings - Whether evidence suppressed - Whether Court of Appeal disregarded argument - Whether Charter breached.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Gabor L. Zsoldos

v. (28263)

The Ontario Association of Architects (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Civil - Procedural Law - Civil Procedure - Whether Court of Appeal erred regarding advice given on release of reasons for decision - Whether Court of Appeal disregarded intention to appeal - Whether extension of time should have been granted - Apprehension of bias created by appointments of judges - Appearances of prejudgment of issues - Charter  rights to pursuit of livelihood, fair and impartial court or tribunal, equal benefit of law without discrimination, and Charter  remedies.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

October 20, 1993

Discipline Committee of Ontario Association of Architects

(Sievenpiper, Tawadros, Goldenberg Mbrs.)

Applicant guilty of professional misconduct. Certificate of practice suspended for four months.  Order to attend seminars, write exams, and pay $18,000

February 11, 1997

Ontario Court (General Division), Divisional Court

(Southey J.)

Motion for extension of time to appeal order of Oct. 20, 1993 dismissed

September 15, 1998

Discipline Committee of Ontario Association of Architects

(Martel, Bacon and Camenzuli Mbrs.)

Applicant’s license and certificate of practice suspended and order to pay $20,000 for failure to comply with order of Oct. 20, 1993

February 11, 1999

Ontario Court (General Division), Divisional Court

(Rosenberg J.)

Motion to stay decision of Sept. 15, 1998 dismissed

August 12, 1999  

Ontario Superior Court, Divisional Court

(MacFarland, Ferrier and Winkler JJ.)

Motions to accept fresh evidence, to set aside order of Feb. 11, 1999 and to stay appeal dismissed; Appeal from decision of Sept. 15, 1998 dismissed

August 27, 1999  

Ontario Superior Court, Divisional Court

(Nordheimer J.)

Application for judicial review of decision of August 12, 1999 dismissed

February 22, 2000

Ontario Court of Appeal

(Finlayson J.A.)

Motions to adjourn dismissed; Motion to extend time to appeal from decisions of August 12, 1999 and August 27, 1999 dismissed

December 12, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

Applications for leave to appeal and extension of time filed

17.4.2001

Before / Devant:  THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

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

ECU-Line N.V.

v. (28472)

Z.I. Pompey Industrie, et al. (F.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la réponse des intimés

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to May 23, 2001.

19.4.2001

Before / Devant:  THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondent’s book of authorities

Giacinto Arcuri

v. (27797)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et  déposer le recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’intimée

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to April 9, 2001.

19.4.2001

Before / Devant:  THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the book of authorities of the interveners Friends of the Earth, West Coast Environmental Law Association and Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment

John Hollick

v. (27699)

The City of Toronto (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et  déposer le recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’intervenants Les Ami(e)s de la terre, West Coast Environmental Law Association et Association canadienne des médecins pour l’environnement

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to April 2, 2001.

19.4.2001

Before / Devant:  THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum and book of authorities of the intervener the Attorney General of Alberta

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (27717)

Ford Ward (Nfld.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les mémoire et recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’intervenant le Procureur général de l’Alberta

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to May 11, 2001.

19.4.2001

Before / Devant:  THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Motion for permission to file the appellant’s record without marginal numbering

Cherie Gronnerud, by her Litigation Guardians, Glenn Gronnerud and Judith Ann Farr, et al.

v. (27993)

Harold Robert (Bud) Gronnerud, as Executor of the Estate of Harold Rusell Gronnerud (Sask.)

Requête visant à obtenir l’autorisation de déposer le dossier de l’appelante sans numérotation dans la marge

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

20.4.2001

Before / Devant:  BASTARACHE J.

Motion for extension of time and leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Law Foundation of Ontario

IN/DANS:              John Hollick

v. (27699)

The City of Toronto (Ont.)

Requête visant à obtenir une prorogation de délai et l’autorisation d'intervenir

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the Law Foundation of Ontario for an extension of time and for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion for an extension of time and for leave to intervene of the applicant Law Foundation of Ontario is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length to be filed on or before May 18, 2001.

The request to present oral argument is denied.

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

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

20.4.2001

Before / Devant:  THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum of the respondents

539938 Ontario Limited, et al.

v. (27524)

Tyler Derksen, a minor, by his litigation guardian William Derksen, et al. (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire des intimés

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Motion by 539938 Ontario Ltd. et al. in their uninsured capacity is granted.  Time extended to April 4, 2001.

23.4.2001

Before / Devant:  LEBEL J.

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

Charles Morley Slinn

v. (28347)

The Workers’ Compensation Board, et al. (Sask.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt d’une demande d'autorisation

DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS / REJETÉE SANS DÉPENS

The motion for extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal to May 1, 2001 and for a further extension to June 15 and its supporting material do not set out any valid reason for an extension of time.  Moreover, a reading of the material confirms that the intended appeal does not have any possibility of success, given the apparent nature of the grounds of appeal.  For these reasons, the motion is dismissed without costs.

23.4.2001

Before / Devant:  LEBEL J.

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

Charles Morley Slinn

v. (28348)

The Workers’ Compensation Board, et al. (Sask.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt d’une demande d'autorisation

DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS / REJETÉE SANS DÉPENS

The motion for extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal to May 1, 2001 and for a further extension to June 15 and its supporting material do not set out any valid reason for an extension of time.  Moreover, a reading of the material confirms that the intended appeal does not have any possibility of success, given the apparent nature of the grounds of appeal.  For these reasons, the motion is dismissed without costs.

11.4.2001

David Malmo-Levine

v. (28026)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

11.4.2001

Victor Eugene Caine

v. (28148)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

17.4.2001

Christopher James Clay

v. (28189)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

BY/PAR:                Attorney General for Saskatchewan

IN/DANS:              Chief Councillor Mathew Hill, also known as Tha-Iathatk, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Kitkatla Band and the Kitkatla Band

  v. (27801)

The Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, et al. (B.C.)

25.4.2001

Douglas Hillier

v. (28274)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

(Leave)

23.4.2001

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

Peter William Fliss

v. (27998)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)(Crim.)(As of Right)

Richard C.C. Peck, Q.C. for the appellant.

William F. Ehrcke, Q.C. for the respondent.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - Evidence -Voir dire - Charge to jury - Whether the trial judge erred in admitting the viva voce evidence of Sgt. Haslett of his conversations with the Appellant on January 29, 1997, having previously ruled that the tape recorded intercept of that same conversation was inadmissible.

Nature de la cause:

Charte des droits et libertés - Droit criminel - Preuve - Voir‐dire - Directives au jury - Le juge du procès a‐t‐il erré en jugeant recevable le témoignage de vive voix du sergent Haslett concernant sa conversation avec l’appelant le 29 janvier 1997, puisqu’il avait déjà décidé que l’enregistrement de cette conversation était irrecevable?

23.4.2001

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

Bernard Gerardus Maria Berendsen, et al.

v. (27312)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Richard D. Lindgren and Donald R. Good for the appellants.

William J. Manuel and James W. Smith for the respondent.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Procedural law - Limitation of actions - Public authorities - Whether s. 7 of the Public Authorities Protection Act applies to protect the Crown in historic environmental contamination cases - Whether an action involving historic environmental contamination is reasonably discoverable until the tortfeasor is identified - Whether the phrase “continuance of injury or damage” in s. 7 of the Public Authorities Protection Act includes acts, omissions and breaches of duty which occur or continue after environmental contamination has

 Nature de la cause:

Droit procédural - Prescription - Pouvoirs publics - L'article 7 de la Loi sur l'immunité des personnes exerçant des attributions d'ordre public protège‐t‐il l'État dans le cas d'une contamination de l'environnement antérieure à la réglementation - Dans une action relative à la contamination de l'environnement à une époque antérieure à la réglementation, la communication préalable peut-elle raisonnablement avoir lieu avant que l'identité de l'auteur du délit ne soit établie? - L'expression « le

commenced, so as to prevent reliance upon a limitation defence - Whether express or implied representations and conduct constitute waiver or promissory estoppel so as to prevent reliance upon a limitation defence.

préjudice s'est poursuivi » employé à l'art. 7 de la Loi sur l'immunité des personnes exerçant des attributions d'ordre public englobe-t-elle les actes, les omissions et les inexécutions qui surviennent ou se poursuivent après le début de la contamination de l'environnement, de façon à exclure le moyen de défense fondé sur la prescription? - Les déclarations et les comportements explicites ou implicites emportent-ils renonciation ou préclusion promissoire de telle sorte que le moyen de défense fondé sur la prescription ne puisse être invoqué?

25.4.2001

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

539938 Ontario Limited, et al.

v. (27524)

Tyler Derksen, a minor, by his litigation guardian William Derksen, et al. (Ont.)(Civil)(By Leave)

Steven Stieber and Heleni Maroudas for the appellants.

Earl A. Cherniak, Q.C., S. Alexander Zaitzeff and Kirk F. Stevens for the respondents 539938 Ontario Limited, et al (with respect to Wawanesa Automobile Policy Number 3556895).

Kristopher H. Knutsen, Q.C. and Wesley Derksen for the respondents Tyler Derksen, et al.

Lawrence G. Phillips for the respondents 539938 Ontario Limited, et al. (in their uninsured capacity).

L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ J. (orally for the Court):

We are all of the view that this appeal should be dismissed with costs, reasons to follow.

LE JUGE L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ (oralement au nom de la Cour):

Nous sommes tous d’avis qu’il y a lieu de rejeter le présent pourvoi avec dépens, motifs à suivre.

Nature of the case:

Commercial law - Insurance - Automobile insurance - General liability insurance - Coverage - Exclusions - Concurring causes - Whether in a case involving multiple sources of causation, coverage under a liability policy should be afforded where one of the sources of causation is excluded from coverage while others are not - Whether the exclusion clause in the Commercial General Liability policy is triggered in that the loss arose out of the ownership, use or operation of an automobile.

Nature de la cause:

Droit commercial - Assurance - Assurance-automobile - Assurance de la responsabilité civile - Garantie - Exclusions - Causes concomitantes - Lorsque les causes d’un sinistre sont multiples, la garantie prévue dans un contrat d’assurance responsabilité s’applique-t-elle lorsque l’une de ces causes est exclue? - La clause d’exclusion figurant dans le contrat d’assurance de la responsabilité civile commerciale s’applique‐t‐elle du fait que le sinistre résulte de la propriété, de l’utilisation ou du fonctionnement d’une automobile?

26.4.2001

CORAM:               Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

Lenore Rideout

v. (27675)

Her Majesty the Queen (Nfld.)(Crim.)(As of Right)

Jerome P. Kennedy for the appellant.

Kathleen Healey for the respondent.

DISMISSED / REJETÉ

MAJOR J. (orally):

It is common ground that the defence counsel was an experienced and competent one.  The appellant contends, however, that trial counsel’s decision in this case was a mistake and led to a miscarriage of justice.

We do not agree with his submission and the appeal is dismissed substantially for the reasons of the majority in the Newfoundland Court of Appeal.

[traduction] LE JUGE MAJOR (oralement) :

Il est admis que l’avocat de la défense était expérimenté et compétent. Toutefois, l’appelante prétend que la décision prise par son avocat au procès était erronnée et a entraîné une erreur judiciaire.

Nous ne souscrivons pas à cet argument et le pourvoi est rejeté, essentiellement pour les motifs exposés par les juges majoritaires en Cour d’appel de Terre-Neuve.

Nature of the case:

Criminal law - Evidence - Jury Charge - Conviction of second degree murder - Victim dies before trial - Victim makes hearsay statements before dying - Crown admits some hearsay statements but not others with consent of defence counsel - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that trial counsel had made a tactical decision which should not be interfered with on appeal - Was Marshall J.A. correct in finding that trial counsel made a material and manifest error which could have affected the verdict? - If so, is there any scope for a Court of Appeal to interfere where such error falls short of the standard definition of incompetence of counsel?

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel - Preuve - Directives au jury - Déclaration de culpabilité de meurtre au deuxième degré  - Décès de la victime avant la tenue du procès - Avant son décès, la victime a fait des déclarations qui ont ensuite été relatées - L’avocat du ministère public et l’avocat de la défense ont convenu de la recevabilité de certaines des déclarations relatées, à l’exclusion des autres - La majorité des juges de la Cour d’appel a‐t‐elle erré en droit en concluant que les avocats avaient pris une décision de nature tactique qui ne devait pas être modifiée en appel? - Le juge Marshall, J.C.A. a‐t‐il eu raison de conclure que les avocats avaient commis une erreur importante et manifeste ayant pu influencer le verdict?  - Le cas échéant, la Cour d’appel peut‐elle intervenir lorsqu’une telle erreur ne relève pas de l’incompétence des avocats au sens où on l’entend habituellement?

26.4.2001

CORAM:               Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (28226)

Lloyd Alfred Pakoo (Man.)(Crim.)(As of Right)

Gregg Lawlor and Manfred Pflug for the appellant.

Aaron M. London for the respondent.

DISMISSED / REJETÉ

MAJOR J. (orally):

We are all in agreement, substantially for the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal for Manitoba, that this appeal should be dismissed.

The Court of Appeal applied the governing principles in R. v. Yebe, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168 and R. v. Biniaris, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381, and there has been no reason demonstrated in this Crown appeal as of right for this Court to interfere.

[traduction]  LE JUGE MAJOR (oralement) :

Nous sommes tous d’avis, essentiellement pour les motifs exposés par les juges majoritaires en Cour d’appel du Manitoba, que le présent pourvoi doit être rejeté.

La Cour d’appel a appliqué les principes pertinents énoncés dans les arrêts R. c. Yebe, [1987] 2 R.C.S. 168 et R. c. Biniaris, [2000] 1 R.C.S. 381, et il n’a été présenté, dans le présent appel formé de plein droit par le ministère public,  aucune raison justifiant notre Cour d’intervenir.

Nature of the case:

Criminal law - Evidence - Alleged sexual assaults - Child complainant - Unreasonable verdict -  Whether the Court of Appeal for Manitoba erred in law in finding that the verdict of the trial judge was unreasonable.

Nature de la cause:

Droit pénal - Preuve - Agression sexuelle alléguée - Plaignant enfant - Verdict déraisonnable - La Cour d’appel du Manitoba a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en trouvant que le verdict du juge de première instance était déraisonnable.

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME

2000

- 2001 -