This Bulletin is published at the direction of the Registrar and is for general information only. It is not to be used as evidence of its content, which, if required, should be proved by Certificate of the Registrar under the Seal of the Court. While every effort is made to ensure accuracy, no responsibility is assumed for errors or omissions. |
|
Ce Bulletin, publié sous l'autorité du registraire, ne vise qu'à fournir des renseignements d'ordre général. Il ne peut servir de preuve de son contenu. Celle‐ci s'établit par un certificat du registraire donné sous le sceau de la Cour. Rien n'est négligé pour assurer l'exactitude du contenu, mais la Cour décline toute responsabilité pour les erreurs ou omissions. |
|
|
|
Subscriptions may be had at $200 per year, payable in advance, in accordance with the Court tariff. During Court sessions it is usually issued weekly. |
|
Le prix de l'abonnement, fixé dans le tarif de la Cour, est de 200 $ l'an, payable d'avance. Le Bulletin paraît en principe toutes les semaines pendant les sessions de la Cour. |
|
|
|
The Bulletin, being a factual report of recorded proceedings, is produced in the language of record. Where a judgment has been rendered, requests for copies should be made to the Registrar, with a remittance of $10 for each set of reasons. All remittances should be made payable to the Receiver General for Canada. |
|
Le Bulletin rassemble les procédures devant la Cour dans la langue du dossier. Quand un arrêt est rendu, on peut se procurer les motifs de jugement en adressant sa demande au registraire, accompagnée de 10 $ par exemplaire. Le paiement doit être fait à l'ordre du Receveur général du Canada. |
|
|
|
CONTENTS TABLE DES MATIÈRES
Applications for leave to appeal filed
Applications for leave submitted to Court since last issue
Oral hearing ordered
Oral hearing on applications for leave
Judgments on applications for leave
Judgment on motion
Motions
Notices of appeal filed since last issue
Notices of intervention filed since last issue
Notices of discontinuance filed since last issue
Appeals heard since last issue and disposition
Pronouncements of appeals reserved
Rehearing
Headnotes of recent judgments
Agenda
Summaries of the cases
Appeals inscribed ‐ Session beginning
Notices to the Profession and Press Release
Deadlines: Motions before the Court
Deadlines: Appeals
Judgments reported in S.C.R. |
760 - 766
767 - 778
-
-
-
-
779 - 782
783
784
785
786 - 789
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
790
791
- |
Demandes d'autorisation d'appel déposées
Demandes soumises à la Cour depuis la dernière parution
Audience ordonnée
Audience sur les demandes d'autorisation
Jugements rendus sur les demandes d'autorisation
Jugement sur requête
Requêtes
Avis d'appel déposés depuis la dernière parution
Avis d'intervention déposés depuis la dernière parution
Avis de désistement déposés depuis la dernière parution
Appels entendus depuis la dernière parution et résultat
Jugements rendus sur les appels en délibéré
Nouvelle audition
Sommaires des arrêts récents
Calendrier
Résumés des affaires
Appels inscrits ‐ Session commençant le
Avis aux avocats et communiqué de presse
Délais: Requêtes devant la Cour
Délais: Appels
Jugements publiés au R.C.S. |
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FILED |
|
DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION D'APPEL DÉPOSÉES |
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
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE
|
|
DEMANDES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
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 11 octobre 1996 Cour du Québec (Cartier, j.c.q.) |
|
Demandeur reconnu coupable de 103 chefs d’accusation en vertu des articles 158 a), 198 a), b) et g) de la Loi sur la Faillite, L.R.C. 1985, ch. B-3 |
|
|
|
Le 21 novembre 2000 Cour d'appel du Québec (Forget, Pidgeon, et Rochon [ad hoc], jj.c.a. |
|
Appel du demandeur rejeté
|
|
|
|
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
July 12, 1999 Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (Lemieux J.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Motions to strike and dismiss action grantedNovember 14, 2000 Federal Court of Appeal (Strayer, Rothstein and Malone JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
January 15, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
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
February 22, 2000 Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (MacInnes J.) |
|
Applicant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing Respondents’ claim granted; Respondents’ action for tortious assaults and breach of fiduciary duty dismissed on grounds that action was statute-barred |
|
|
|
September 20, 2000 Court of Appeal of Manitoba (Huband [dissenting], Philp, Helper, Monnin and Steel JJ.A.) |
|
Respondents’ appeal dismissed; appeal against dismissal allowed; issue of whether there was a breach of fiduciary duty ordered to proceed to trial |
|
|
|
December 28, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
February 1, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada (LeBel J.) |
|
Motion for an extension of time granted |
|
|
|
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
November 3, 1998 Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (Reed J.) |
|
Applicant’s application for extension of time for filing a notice of appeal denied |
|
|
|
November 14, 2000 Federal Court of Appeal (Strayer, Rothstein and Malone JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
January 15, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
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
December 8, 1999 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Smith J.) |
|
Master’s order set aside; order that property be sold to Applicant on terms and conditions contained in Province’s application |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 15, 2000 Court of Appeal of British Columbia (Esson, Huddart and Saunders JJ.A.) |
|
Respondent “Baron Enterprises Ltd.’s” appeal dismissed; Respondents “City of Kamloops’” and “B.C. Wilderness Tours’”appeals allowed; sale of property to “B.C. Wilderness Tours” for $1,150,000.00 approved |
|
|
|
September 13, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal and an extension of time filed |
|
|
|
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
December 27, 1999 Superior Court of Justice (Farley J.) |
|
Order confirming that transfer to 1235866 Ontario Inc. included right to seek remedies against Curragh’s former employees in relation to Kassandra Mines |
|
|
|
November 6, 2000 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Catzman, Abella and Sharpe JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
December 28, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
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
Le 9 août 2000 Cour supérieure du Québec (Rousseau j.c.s.) |
|
Requête en modification des mesures provisoires prévues par le jugement de la Cour supérieure du Québec en date du 19 avril 1999 accueillie |
|
|
|
Le 25 octobre 2000 Cour d'appel du Québec (Nuss, Vallerand et Pidgeon jj.c.a.) |
|
Appel accueilli |
|
|
|
Le 20 novembre 2000 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée
|
|
|
|
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
Le 13 juin 2000 Cour supérieure du Québec (Fournier j.c.s.) |
|
Requête de l’Intimée pour rejet de l’action intentée accueillie; Demandeur déclaré plaideur vexatoire; Ordonnance au Demandeur de n’intenter aucune procédure impliquant l’Intimée, notamment toute procédure reliée au contrat intervenu en 1975 entre l’Intimée et le Demandeur, toute procédure reliée aux immeubles dont le demandeur est propriétaire dans la Municipalité de Courcelles ou toute procédure reliée à l’expropriation qui a fait objet de débats entre la Société Québécoise d’assainissement des eaux et le Demandeur à moins qu’autorisation préalable |
|
|
|
Le 25 septembre 2000 Cour d'appel du Québec (Proulx, Forget et Thibault jj.c.a.) |
|
Requête de l’Intimée pour rejet d’appel accueillie; appel du Demandeur rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 17 octobre 2000 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée
|
|
|
|
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
October 14, 1999 Tax Court of Canada (Margeson J.T.C.C.) |
|
Applicant’s appeal from assessment made under Income Tax Act dismissed |
|
|
|
November 3, 2000 Federal Court of Appeal (Rothstein, Sexton and Evans JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
December 28, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
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
December 24, 1998 Superior Court of Justice (Low J.) |
|
Respondent’s action for damages for breach of trust under s. 8 of the Construction Lien Act granted; Applicants’ counterclaim dismissed |
|
|
|
October 25, 2000 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Morden, Charron and Sharpe JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed; cross‐appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
December 27, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
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
Le 16 juin 1993 Cour supérieure du Québec (Brassard, j.c.s.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Action personnelle hypothécaire contre les intimés accueillieLe 4 mai 2000 Cour d’appel du Québec (Mailhot, Beaudouin, Rousseau‐Houle, jj.c.a.) |
|
Pourvoi accueilli en partie à la fin de limiter à 112 000$ le montant dû par les intimés |
|
|
|
Le 10 mai 2000 Cour d’appel du Québec (Mailhot, Beaudouin, Rousseau‐Houle, jj.c.a.) |
|
Arrêt rectificatif émis ; montant total dû par les intimés est de 112 000$, représentant une somme de 37 333,33$ pour chaque dossier (ou immeuble) |
|
|
|
Le 9 août 2000 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée
|
|
|
|
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
December 13, 2000 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Osborne A.C.J.O., Carthy, and Laskin JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed
|
|
|
|
February 19, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 29, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada (Binnie J.) |
|
Motion to extend time to file and/or serve leave application to February 19, 2001 granted |
|
|
|
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
June 26, 2000 Superior Court of Justice (MacLeod J.) |
|
Order: Application to quash the search warrant dismissed |
|
|
|
September 6, 2000 Superior Court of Justice (MacLeod J.) |
|
Order: Applicant’s psychiatric records to be disclosed to Respondent
|
|
|
|
February 2, 2001 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Rosenberg, Moldaver, and Goudge JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed in part; jurisdiction declined in part |
|
|
|
February 5, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal and motion to extend time filed |
|
|
|
March 6, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada (Bastarache J.) |
|
Stay of execution granted |
|
|
|
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
June 26, 1997 Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (MacKenzie J.) |
|
Application for an order in the nature of certiorari, prohibition and declarations aimed at preventing the Applicant from continuing to proceed against the Respondent Krieger under section 51 of the Legal Profession Act, dismissed. |
|
|
|
September 27, 2000 Court of Appeal of Alberta (Fraser C.J., Sulatycky and Bracco JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed; Orders in the nature of certiorari and prohibition granted |
|
|
|
November 27, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
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
July 7, 1997 Small Claims Court (Cohen, D.J.) |
|
Award of $6000 to Respondent |
|
|
|
March 9, 2000 Ontario Superior Court, Divisional Court (O’Driscoll J.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
October 12, 2000 Ontario Court of Appeal (Finlayson, Weiler, Goudge JJ.A.) |
|
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed
|
|
|
|
December 12, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal and motion to extend time filed |
|
|
|
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
July 6, 2000 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Finlayson J.A.) |
|
Motion to adjourn re-hearing of decision of Feb. 22, 2000 dismissed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 6, 2000 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Morden, Catzman and Moldaver JJ.A.) |
|
Motion to refuse adjournment affirmed; Decision of Feb. 22, 2000 refusing time extension affirmed |
|
|
|
December 12, 2000
Supreme Court of Canada
Applications for leave to appeal and extension of time filed
MOTIONS |
|
REQUÊTES
|
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.
NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
|
AVIS D’APPEL DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
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.)
NOTICES OF INTERVENTION FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
|
AVIS D’INTERVENTION DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
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.)
NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
|
AVIS DE DÉSISTEMENT DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION
|
25.4.2001
Douglas Hillier
v. (28274)
Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
(Leave)
APPEALS HEARD SINCE LAST ISSUE AND DISPOSITION |
|
APPELS ENTENDUS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION ET RÉSULTAT
|
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.
DEADLINES: MOTIONS
|
|
DÉLAIS: REQUÊTES
|
BEFORE THE COURT:
Pursuant to Rule 23.1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, the following deadlines must be met before a motion before the Court can be heard: |
|
DEVANT LA COUR:
Conformément à l'article 23.1 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada, les délais suivants doivent être respectés pour qu'une requête soit entendue par la Cour :
|
Motion day : May 14, 2001
Service : April 23, 2001 Filing : April 27, 2001 Respondent : May 4, 2001
Motion day : June 11, 2001
Service : May 18, 2001 Filing : May 25, 2001 Respondent : June 1, 2001 |
|
Audience du : 14 mai 2001
Signification : 23 avril 2001 Dépôt : 27 avril 2001 Intimé : 4 mai 2001
Audience du : 11 juin 2001
Signification : 18 mai 2001 Dépôt : 25 mai 2001 Intimé : 1 juin 2001 |
DEADLINES: APPEALS
|
|
DÉLAIS: APPELS |
The Fall Session of the Supreme Court of Canada will commence October 1, 2001.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court Act and Rules, the following requirements for filing must be complied with before an appeal can be inscribed for hearing:
Appellant’s record; appellant’s factum; and appellant’s book(s) of authorities must be filed within four months of the filing of the notice of appeal.
Respondent’s record (if any); respondent’s factum; and respondent’s book(s) of authorities must be filed within eight weeks of the date of service of the appellant's factum.
Intervener's factum and intervener’s book(s) of authorities, if any, must be filed within four weeks of the date of service of the respondent's factum, unless otherwise ordered.
Parties’ condensed book, if required, must be filed on or before the day of hearing of the appeal.
Please consult the Notice to the Profession of October 1997 for further information.
The Registrar shall inscribe the appeal for hearing upon the filing of the respondent's factum or after the expiry of the time for filing the respondent's factum.
|
|
La session d’automne de la Cour suprême du Canada commencera le 1er octobre 2001.
Conformément à la Loi sur la Cour suprême et aux Règles, il faut se conformer aux exigences suivantes avant qu'un appel puisse être inscrit pour audition:
Le dossier de l’appelant, son mémoire et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine doivent être déposés dans les quatre mois du dépôt de l’avis d’appel.
Le dossier de l’intimé (le cas échéant), son mémoire et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine doivent être déposés dans les huit semaines suivant la signification du mémoire de l’appelant.
Le mémoire de l'intervenant et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine, le cas échéant, doivent être déposés dans les quatre semaines suivant la signification du mémoire de l'intimé, sauf ordonnance contraire.
Le recueil condensé des parties, le cas échéant, doivent être déposés au plus tard le jour de l’audition de l’appel.
Veuillez consulter l’avis aux avocats du mois d’octobre 1997 pour plus de renseignements.
Le registraire inscrit l'appel pour audition après le dépôt du mémoire de l'intimé ou à l'expiration du délai pour le dépôt du mémoire de l'intimé. |
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE
CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME
2000
OCTOBER - OCTOBRE |
|
NOVEMBER - NOVEMBRE |
|
DECEMBER - DECEMBRE |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
1 |
M 2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
8 |
H 9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
|
5 |
M 6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
|
3 |
M 4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
|
12 |
H 13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
|
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
|
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
|
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
26 |
27
|
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
2424 |
H 25 |
H 26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
- 2001 -
JANUARY - JANVIER |
|
FEBRUARY - FÉVRIER |
|
MARCH - MARS |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
H 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
|
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
14 |
M 15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
|
11 |
M 12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
|
11 |
M 12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
|
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
|
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
|
|
|
|
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
APRIL - AVRIL |
|
MAY - MAI |
|
JUNE - JUIN |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
R 4 |
R 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
H 13 |
14 |
|
R 6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
|
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
15 |
H 16 |
M 17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
|
13 |
M 14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
|
10 |
M 11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
|
20 |
H 21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
|
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sittings of the court: Séances de la cour: |
|
18 sitting weeks / semaines séances de la cour 78 sitting days / journées séances de la cour 9 motion and conference days / journées requêtes, conférences 3 holidays during sitting days / jours fériés durant les sessions
|
Motions: Requêtes: |
M |
|
Holidays: Jours fériés: |
H |