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. |
679 - 681
682 - 692
-
-
-
-
693 - 700
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
701
702
703 |
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 |
3088-7459 Québec Inc., et al.
José James O’Reilly
c. (28451)
Antonio Pereira (Qué.)
Martine Riendeau
Stein & Stein
DATE DE PRODUCTION 9.3.2001
Gordon Wayne Paris
David E. Harris
v. (28455)
Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
Michal Fairburn
A.G. for Ontario
FILING DATE 13.3.2001
Jeanette Dechant
Jeanette Dechant
v. (28292)
Zahra Coulter, et al. (Alta.)
Pat Peacock
Peacock, Linder & Halt
FILING DATE 15.3.2001
Provigo Distribution Inc., et al.
Louise Boutin
Pâquet, Galardo & Nantais
c. (28460)
Ville de St-Léonard, et al. (Qué.)
Steve Cadrin
Bouchart-d’Orval Cadrin
DATE DE PRODUCTION 16.3.2001
Abdur Rashid Khan
Peter Leask, Q.C.
Leask Bahen
v. (28466)
Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)
John Gordon
A.G. of British Columbia
FILING DATE 16.3.2001
Joseph Alan Sidorov
Douglas D. Merchant
Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
v. (28461)
Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)
Eric Tolppanen
A.G. of Alberta
FILING DATE 16.3.2001
The Corporation of the City of Ottawa
Jerald Bellomo
The Corporation of the City of Ottawa
v. (28469)
Ken Goudie, et al. (Ont.)
Emilio S. Binavince
Binavince Smith
FILING DATE 19.3.2001
Patricia B. MacCulloch
Patricia B. MacCulloch
v. (28463)
Stewart McInnes & McInnes Cooper & Robertson a registered partnership (N.S.)
John Merrick, Q.C.
Merrick Holm
FILING DATE 19.3.2001
Gilles Boies
Martin Tremblay
c. (28468)
Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)
Céline Cyr
Procureur général du Québec
DATE DE PRODUCTION 19.3.2001
John Guy Bradford
Marie Henein
Greenspan, Henein and White
v. (28474)
Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
Laura Hodgson
A.G. of Ontario
FILING DATE 20.3.2001
Ecu-Line N.V.
H. Peter Swanson
Campney & Murphy
v. (28472)
Z.I. Pompey Industrie, et al. (F.C.)
George Pollack
Sproule, Pollack
FILING DATE 23.3.2001
Fernand Ethier
Fernand Ethier
c. (28473)
Marie Duchesne Tremblay (Qué.)
Sylvie Breton
Pelletier, Breton
DATE DE PRODUCTION 26.3.2001
Gilberte Dupuis
Élaine Bissonnette, c.r.
c. (28471)
Jean Themens (Qué.)
Josée Dussault
DATE DE PRODUCTION 29.3.2001
Syndicat des chauffeurs de la Société de transport de la Ville de Laval (CSN)
Mario Évangéliste
Sauvé et Roy
c. (28475)
Gilles Ferland, en sa qualité d’arbitre de griefs (Qué.)
Gilles Ferland
DATE DE PRODUCTION 30.3.2001
Alberta & N.W.T. (District of MacKenzie) Building and Construction Trades Council on behalf of its affiliated local unions
Robert R. Blakely
Blakely & Dushenski
v. (28476)
Ledcor Industries Ltd., et al. (Alta.)
David J. Ross, Q.C.
McLennan Ross
FILING DATE 30.3.2001
The Chippewas of Sarnia Band
Earl A. Cherniak, Q.C.
Lerner & Associates
v. (28365)
Attorney General of Canada, et al. (Ont.)
Charlotte Bell, Q.C.
A.G. of Canada
FILING DATE 30.3.2001
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE
|
|
DEMANDES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
APRIL 9, 2001 / LE 9 AVRIL 2001
CORAM: Chief Justice McLachlin and Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ. /
Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Bastarache
Richard Freeman
v. (28373)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law (Non Charter) - Sexual assault - Evidence - Credibility - Whether trial judge misapprehended material parts of the evidence which went to her assessment of the credibility of the complainant and the accused - Whether Court of Appeal’s failure to order a new trial in conflict with jurisprudence.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 24, 1997 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Dillon J.) |
|
Applicant convicted of three counts of sexual assault contrary to s. 246.1 of the Criminal Code |
|
|
|
March 19, 1999 British Columbia Court of Appeal (McEachern C.J.B.C., Lambert and Esson JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal against conviction on Count 2 dismissed; appeal against conviction on Counts 3 and 4 allowed and acquittal entered |
|
|
|
February 16, 2000 British Columbia Court of Appeal (McEachern C.J.B.C., Lambert and Esson JJ.A.) |
|
Applicant’s application for an order setting aside the March 19, 1999 decision on Count 2, dismissed |
|
|
|
January 24, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Kyle Brendon Stroshein
v. (28392)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Sask.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Sentencing - Custodial and conditional sentences - Armed robbery involving small amount of cash - Applicant, notwithstanding a previous conviction, given conditional sentence involving monitored house arrest, curfew and community service - Co-accused in separate proceedings given custodial sentence - Whether court of Appeal should have replaced conditional sentence with custodial sentence without considering all the provisions articulated in s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code - Whether conditional sentence demonstrably unfit when it was equivalent to the term of incarceration substituted.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 15, 2000 Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Kolenick J.) |
|
Applicant sentenced to a 18-month conditional sentence with 6 months of electronic monitoring |
|
|
|
February 9, 2001 Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (Tallis, Vancise [dissenting] and Jackson JJ.A.) |
|
Respondent’s appeal against sentence allowed; sentence set aside; imposition of a 10-month sentence |
|
|
|
February 28, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
The Commissioner of Patents
v. (28155)
The President and Fellows of Harvard College (F.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Property Law - Patentability of complex life forms - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that claims 1 to 12 in the patent application at issue amount to a “composition of matter” within the meaning of the term “invention” as defined in section 2 of the Patent Act - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that claims 1 to 12 amount to an “invention” under s. 2 of the Patent Act - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the Respondent is entitled to a patent for the entire “non-human mammal” described in claims 1 to 12, even though the presence of an oncogene is the only aspect of the animal for which the Respondent is responsible - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the applicable standard of review was not satisfied in this case.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 21, 1998 Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (Nadon J.) |
|
Appeal dismissed from a decision rendered by the Commissioner of Patents refusing to grant a patent |
|
|
|
August 3, 2000 Federal Court of Appeal (Linden, Isaac [dissenting] and Rothstein JJ.A.) |
|
Decisions of the trial judge and the Commissioner of Patents quashed; matter remitted to the Commission with the direction to grant a patent covering claims 1 to 12 of the patent application |
|
|
|
October 2, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Her Majesty the Queen
v. (28273)
Thomas Allen and Edward Milewski (F.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Taxation - Assessment - Statutes - Interpretation - Whether the test of “reasonable expectation of profit” as it applies in the context of partnership is to be applied at the partner level or the partnership level - Whether financing charges incurred by a partner are to be considered in determining whether that individual partner has a source of income - Section 20(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5th Supp.) c. 1.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 12, 1999 Tax Court of Canada (Bowman J.T.C.C.) |
|
Appeals allowed; Assessments referred back to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment |
|
|
|
September 26, 2000 Federal Court of Appeal (Létourneau, Rothstein, and McDonald JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
November 24, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Diane Boucher
v. (28278)
Gaston Doiron, Roger Doiron (N.B.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Civil Procedure - Procedural Law - Evidence - Whether findings at trial were based upon credibility - Whether interjections of trial judge caused unfairness.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 18, 1999 Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick (Creaghan, J.) |
|
Damages of $298,906 awarded to applicant for personal injuries in motor vehicle accident |
|
|
|
October 5, 2000 Court of Appeal of New Brunswick (Ryan, Turnbull and Drapeau, JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed in part, damages for past loss of housekeeping increased; Cross-appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
November 30, 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
Michel Blondin
c. (28366)
Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit criminel - Preuve - Possession de pornographie infantile - Immoralité sexuelle là où demeure un enfant - Agression sexuelle - Infractions commises par un médecin dans le cadre d’une relation médecin-patient - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en refusant de remettre l’audition de la cause et de considérer la question de la constitutionnalité de l’article 163.1(4)a) du Code criminel nonobstant une demande à cet effet - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en refusant de conclure que le témoignage d’un expert était nécessaire pour démontrer qu’un préjudice avait été subi par un enfant de 30 mois concernant l’article 172(1) du Code - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en refusant de suivre les principes établis dans l’arrêt R. c. W.(D.) déclarant que ceux-ci n’étaient pas sacro-saints.
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 16 février 1998 Cour du Québec (Doyon j.c.q.) |
|
Déclaration de culpabilité: agression sexuelle contrairement à l’al. 271(1)a) du Code criminel; immoralité sexuelle là où demeure un enfant contrairement au par.172(1); et possession de pornographie juvénile contrairement à l’al. 163.1(4)a) |
|
|
|
Le 8 novembre 2000 Cour d'appel du Québec (Rothman, Chamberland et Forget jj.c.a.) |
|
Appel du verdict et des peines rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 8 janvier 2001 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée
|
|
|
|
Claude Maheu
c. (28283)
Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit criminel - Procédure pénale - Amendement de l’acte d’accusation - Preuve pénale - Déclarations antérieures incompatibles - Admissibilité - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en accueillant seulement en partie l’appel du demandeur?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 15 octobre 1996 Cour du Québec (De Pokomandy j.c.q.) |
|
Appelant trouvé coupable de cinq chefs d’accusation en vertu de l’article 212(4) du Code criminel et d’un chef d’accusation en vertu de l’article 153(1)b) du Code criminel |
|
|
|
Le 29 septembre 2000 Cour d'appel du Québec (Brossard, Nuss et Pidgeon jj.c.a.) |
|
Appel accueilli en partie; déclarations de culpabilité cassées relativement aux premier et deuxième chefs d’accusation |
|
|
|
Le 21 décembre 2000 Cour suprême du Canada (Bastarache j.) |
|
Requête en prorogation du délai pour signifier et déposer une demande d’autorisation d’appel accueillie |
|
|
|
Le 18 janvier 2001 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée
|
|
|
|
Aimé Vachon
c. (28098)
Commission des lésions professionnelles et Denys Beaulieu (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit du travail – Accident de travail – Base de calcul de l’indemnité de remplacement du revenu – Le travailleur étant un Indien inscrit, doit-on exclure l’impôt fédéral et provincial de la base de calcul? – Révision judiciaire d’une décision de la Commission d’appel en matière de lésions professionnelles – Disposition privative – Loi sur les accidents de travail et les maladies professionnelles, L.R.Q., c. A-3.001, art. 45, 62, 63, 67, 144 et 429.59 – Impôt sur le revenu – Exemption fiscale pour les Indiens inscrits vivant et travaillant sur le territoire d’une réserve – Loi sur les Indiens, L.R.C., c. I-5, art. 87 et 88 – Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, art. 15 – Égalité devant la loi – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en rejetant l’appel du demandeur?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 21 décembre 1995 Cour supérieure (Blondin, j.c.s.) |
|
Requête en révision judiciaire à l’encontre d’une décision de la Commission d’appel en matière de lésions professionnelles rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 5 juin 2000 Cour d’appel (Brossard, Delisle [dissident] et Robert, jj.c.a.) |
|
Appel rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 30 août 2000 Cour suprême du Canada
|
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
Raymond Piché
c. (28107)
Sa Majesté la Reine telle que représentée par le Conseil du Trésor
ET ENTRE :
Joanne Granger
c.
Sa Majesté la Reine telle que représentée par le Conseil du Trésor
ET ENTRE :
Geneviève Cousineau
c.
Sa Majesté la Reine telle que représentée par le Conseil du Trésor
ET ENTRE :
Sylvie Boileau Di Palma
c.
Sa Majesté la Reine telle que représentée par le Conseil du Trésor
ET ENTRE :
Max Weder
c.
Sa Majesté la Reine telle que représentée par le Conseil du Trésor (C.F.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit du travail - Arbitrage - Contrôle judiciaire - Législation - Interprétation - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle erré en concluant que le régime des avocats non syndiqués de la fonction publique fédérale était d’application essentiellement discrétionnaire tant de la part du Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor que des administrateurs généraux des ministères et autres organismes de la fonction publique fédérale où ces derniers travaillent? - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle erré en concluant que la suspension de ce régime de rémunération ne constituait pas une modification de ce régime et partant, n’était pas interdite par la Loi sur les restrictions salariales dans le secteur public? - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle erré en interprétant ce régime de rémunération de façon restrictive sans tenir compte de son objectif et de son économie et du fait que les requérants ont reçu de leur employeur des cotes de rendement qui auraient dû leur donner droit à des augmentations au mérite ou à des primes de rendement? - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle erré en interprétant ce régime de rémunération sans tenir compte adéquatement du contexte des mots qui le composent et de l’intention du Conseil du Trésor qui l’a édicté pour le bénéfice de ses employés? - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle erré en interprétant ce régime de rémunération sans tenir compte des principes que cette Cour a édictés dans l’arrêt Wells c. Terre-Neuve, [1999] 3 R.C.S. 1999, dans l’arrêt Wallace c. United Grain Growers Ltd. (Public Press), [1997] 3 R.C.S. 701, et dans l’arrêt Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 R.C.S. 27?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 19 mars 1998 Cour fédérale du Canada, Section de première instance (Lutfy j.c.f.) |
|
Demandes de contrôle judiciaire rejetées |
|
|
|
Le 2 juin 2000 Cour d'appel fédérale (Richard, Desjardins et Décary jj.c.a.) |
|
Appels rejetés |
|
|
|
Le 1er septembre 2000 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
Howard LeLacheur
v. (28181)
Flora Burt, Shelly Dawn Seward (N.S.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural Law - Limitation Period - Whether the discoverability rule applies to the one-year limitation period under the Nova Scotia Fatal Injuries Act and its companion statues across Canada - Fatal Injuries Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 163
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 2, 1999 Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Trial Division (Wright J.) |
|
Application for order to disallow the limitation defence dismissed; Respondents’ action dismissed |
|
|
|
July 28, 2000 Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (Glube C.J.N.S., Chipman and Cromwell JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed in part; order dismissing Respondents’ action set aside |
|
|
|
October 2, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
December 5, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada (LeBel J.) |
|
Motion to extend time granted |
|
|
|
CORAM: Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ. /
Les juges Gonthier, Major et Binnie
James Thomas Eakin
v. (28288)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - Right to counsel - Whether the Applicant was provided with his right to counsel of choice - Whether the Applicant was adequately informed of the offence - Search and seizure - Whether the Applicant provided an adequate waiver of his right when police requested a blood sample - Evidence - Identification evidence - Whether the identification evidence was reliable - DNA evidence - Whether the DNA evidence was of sufficient probative value to be relied upon by the trial judge - Sentencing - Dangerous offender - Whether the dangerous offender designation is to be applied only to habitual criminals - Whether the Applicant’s failure to accept responsibility should have been considered as a factor in declaring the Applicant a dangerous offender
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 30, 1993 Ontario Court (General Division) (Hamilton J.) |
|
Conviction: sexual assault and robbery; Sentence: Applicant declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of incarceration |
|
|
|
May 16, 2000 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Charron, Moldaver, and MacPherson JJ.A.) |
|
Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed |
|
|
|
December 18, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal and motion for the extension of time filed |
|
|
|
Bombardier Inc. and Bombardier Services Group
v. (28414)
Public Service Alliance of Canada and Frontec Corporation (F.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative Law - Judicial review - Labour Law - Collective Agreement and Successor Rights provisions within the Canada Labour Code upon privatization - The Canada Industrial Relations Board’s decision confirmed PSAC as the successor bargaining agent for the employees performing work for the Applicant but issued certification orders containing a terminal date The Federal Court of Appeal concluded that the Board’s decision was made without jurisdiction as its certification orders should not have contained express expiry dates and was otherwise patently unreasonable - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in its determination of the collective bargaining obligations, pursuant to section 47 and 47.1 of the Canada Labour Code, inherited by an employer who takes over work formerly performed by the Government of Canada - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in characterizing the Board’s decision as being outside its jurisdiction - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal applied the required standard of review.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 20, 2000 Federal Court of Appeal (Linden, McDonald and Malone JJ.A.) |
|
Respondent’s (PSAC) application for judicial review of the January 14, 2000 Canada Industrial Relations Board decision, allowed; matter remanded to CIRB for redetermination |
|
|
|
February 19, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
February 19, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for Stay of proceeding filed |
|
|
|
Attorney General of Canada
v. (28304)
Paul Juliar, Karen Juliar and Juliar Holdings Ltd. (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Contracts - Rectification - Taxation - Income tax - Trial judge permitting rectification of corporate transaction so as to avoid liability for immediate payment of income tax - Court of Appeal affirming decision - Whether Court of Appeal erred in extending principles of rectification by permitting agreement to be rewritten not because agreement incorrectly set down terms of contract, but because consequences of arrangement were undesirable.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
September 23, 1999 Superior Court of Justice (Cameron J.) |
|
Rectification of corporate transaction permitted so as to avoid liability for immediate payment of income tax |
|
|
|
October 6, 2000 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Austin, Goudge and MacPherson JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
December 6, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
February 6, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada (Bastarache J.) |
|
Motion to extend time granted |
|
|
|
Greenforco Holding Corporation
v. (28297)
Yonge‐Merton Developments Limited (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Property law - Real Estate - Agreements of purchase and sale - Approval periods - Agreement of purchase and sale grants purchaser a thirty day approval period - Vendor alleges oral agreement amended written terms of agreement after execution - Vendor refuses to close according to written terms and purchaser refuses to close according to alleged amendment - What legal results should occur from actions of a purchaser during an approval period - Whether a purchaser should be fixed with knowledge of matters that come to the purchaser’s attention during approval period.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 25, 1999 Superior Court of Justice (Ferrier J.) |
|
Application to rectify agreement and to declare agreement null and void dismissed |
|
|
|
October 6, 2000 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Carthy, Goudge and Simmons JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
December 1, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Fellowes, McNeil
v. (28199)
Kansa General International Insurance Company Ltd. and Kansa Canadian Management
Services Inc. (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Insurance - Solicitor’s negligence - Defence counsel’s failure to alert insurer of possible coverage issue - Whether defence counsel retained by insurer is obliged to advise insurer of potential coverage issue where counsel has a contractual duty to defend but is not yet on the record for the insured - - Partnership - Contracts - Whether failure by lawyer signing application for insurance to disclose potential claim for professional liability extinguishes coverage for all partners and exposes them to personal liability - Procedural law - Evidence - Whether legal experts can give opinion evidence on duty owed by lawyer to client and whether insurer is obliged to defend and indemnify insured
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
October 14, 1999 Superior Court of Justice (MacDonald J.) |
|
Applicant ordered to pay the Respondent the sum of $6,064,838.00, pre-judgment interest plus costs for two phases of the counterclaim |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 11, 2000 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Weiler, Rosenberg, Goudge JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed in the Little mini‐trial; appeal allowed in the Uniroyal mini‐trial; Respondent awarded two‐thirds of its costs. |
|
|
|
November 9, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Axa Boreal Assurances
v. (28238)
The Co‐Operators Insurance Company (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Insurance - Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Named insured - Interpretation to be given ss. 268(5) and (5.2) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8 - Interpretation and application to be given s. 91(4) of Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule for Accidents after December 31, 1993 and before November 1, 1996, O. Reg. 776/93.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 5, 1999 Superior Court of Justice (Glass J.) |
|
Appeal against Arbitrator’s decision awarding statutory accident benefits in favour of Mr Hounsell, dismissed |
|
|
|
September 25, 2000 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Carthy, Laskin and Goudge JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
November 15, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
MOTIONS |
|
REQUÊTES
|
28.3.2001
Before / Devant: THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Motion to state a constitutional question
Ralph Dick, et al.
v. (27641)
Her Majesty the Queen, et al. (F.C.)
Requête pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Notices of intervention are to be filed on or before May 4, 2001.
1. Can the British Columbia Statute of Limitations, R.S.B.C. 1936, and subsequent enactments and amendments and the British Columbia Limitation Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, together with the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, particularly s. 39, constitutionally apply to extinguish any right and title of an Indian Band to the Campbell River and Quinsam Indian Reserves in British Columbia, or any right to compensation in lieu of such right or title?
2. Can British Columbia Order in Council No. 1036, dated July 28, 1938, constitutionally apply to alter any pre-existing Band entitlement to the Campbell River and Quinsam Indian Reserves in British Columbia?
1. La Statute of Limitations de la Colombie-Britannique, R.S.B.C. 1936, et ses versions et modifications subséquentes et la Limitation Act de la Colombie-Britannique, R.S.B.C. 1979, interprétées conjointement avec la Loi sur la Cour fédérale, L.R.C. 1985, ch. F-7, en particulier l’art. 39, peuvent-elles, selon la Constitution, s’appliquer de façon à éteindre des droits et titres que détient une bande indienne sur les réserves indiennes de Campbell River et de Quinsam en Colombie-Britannique ou le droit à une indemnisation à la place de ces droits ou titres?
2. Le décret 1036 du 28 juillet 1938 de la Colombie-Britannique peut-il, selon la Constitution, s’appliquer de façon à modifier tout droit préexistant d’une bande sur les réserves indiennes de Campbell River et de Quinsam en Colombie-Britannique?
2.4.2001
Before / Devant: ARBOUR J.
Motion for leave to intervene
BY/PAR: Attorney General of Ontario
IN/DANS: The Vancouver Sun
v. (28190)
Her Majesty the Queen, et al. (Crim.)(B.C.)
Requête en autorisation d'intervention
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General of Ontario for leave to intervene in the above appeal;
AND HAVING READ the material filed ;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Attorney General of Ontario is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.
The request to present oral argument is deferred to a date following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the interveners.
The intervener shall not be entitled to 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 respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondents by the intervention.
3.4.2001
Before / Devant: BINNIE J.
Miscellaneous motion
La Procureure générale du Québec
c. (28417)
Laurent Laroche, et al. (Qué.)
Autre requête
DISMISSED / REJETÉE
La requête en annulation du sursis accordé par M. le juge Deblois, le 6 mars 2001, est rejetée.
Compte tenu de la nature interlocutoire des présentes procédures, il est toutefois ordonné que, dès que la demande d’autorisation aura été déposée le 9 avril 2001 ou avant cette date, et que toute réponse ou réplique des parties aura été déposée dans le délai habituel prescrit par les règles, l’examen de la demande d’autorisation par notre Cour soit fait rapidement.
The application to set aside the stay granted by Mr. Justice Deblois on March 6, 2001, is dismissed.
In light of the interlocutory nature of these proceedings, however it is ordered that once the leave application is filed on or before April 9, 2001, and any response or reply by the parties filed as required within the usual times permitted under the rules, consideration of the leave application by the Court be and the same is hereby expedited.
3.4.2001
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the response of the respondent Canadian Airlines Corporation
Resurgence Asset Management LLC
v. (28388)
Canadian Airlines Corporation, et al (Alta.)
Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la réponse de l'intimée Canadian Airlines Corporation
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to March 23, 2001.
3.4.2001
Before / Devant: ARBOUR J.
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file an application for leave
René Pearson
c. (28427)
Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)
Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt d’une demande d'autorisation
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Délai prorogé au 15 février 2001.
3.4.2001
Before / Devant: IACOBUCCI J.
Motion for extension of time and leave to intervene
BY/PAR: Canadian Association of Provincial Judges
IN/DANS: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of New Brunswick as represented by The Minister of Finance, et al.
v. (27722)
Ian P. Mackin, et al. (N.B.)
Requête visant à obtenir une prorogation de délai et l’autorisation d'intervenir
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
UPON APPLICATION by the Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges 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 Canadian Association of Provincial Judges is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length to be served and filed on or before April 27, 2001.
The request to present oral argument is deferred to a date following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the interveners.
The intervener shall not be entitled to 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 respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondents by the intervention.
4.4.2001
Before / Devant: BINNIE J.
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file an application for leave
Nick Bozza, et al.
v. (28364)
Quik-Commissions Inc. (Ont.)
Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt d’une demande d'autorisation
DISMISSED / REJETÉE
This is an application for an extension of time within which to file an application for leave to appeal. On May 3rd, 2000 summary judgment was granted in this matter in favour of the Respondent Quik-Commissions Inc. by judgment in which the motions' judge stated:
“The behaviour of the defendant [i.e. the present applicant] throughout this litigation has been to delay, to avoid, to obfuscate... I consider it to be an affront to the administration of Justice if this matter was allowed to proceed beyond this point.”
An appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on November 28, 2000. We are now approaching the 1st anniversary of the Trial Judgment.
The applicants have not filed any material that would suggest that there is any merit in the proposed leave application. There is nothing before me, therefore, that would justify prolonging this action. The application for an extension of time is therefore dismissed.
4.4.2001
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the book of authorities of the intervener Canadian Council of Churches
Manickavasagam Suresh
v. (27790)
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, et al. (F.C.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’intimé Conseil canadien des églises
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to March 22, 2001.
4.4.2001
Before / Devant: ARBOUR J.
Motions for leave to intervene
BY/PAR: Attorney General of Canada
Attorney General of Ontario
IN/DANS: The Honourable Ralph Klein, et al.
v. (27980)
Barbara Decock, Tara Leigh Decock, an infant by her Next Friend, Barbara Decock, and Lindsey Allison Decock, et al. (Alta.)
Requêtes en autorisation d'intervention
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of Ontario for leave to intervene in the above appeal;
AND HAVING READ the material filed ;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Attorney General of Canada is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.
2. The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Attorney General of Ontario is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.
The request to present oral argument is deferred to a date following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the interveners.
The interveners shall not be entitled to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties.
Pursuant to Rule 18(6) the interveners shall pay to the appellants and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellants and respondents by the interventions.
5.4.2001
Before / Devant: GONTHIER J.
Further order on motion for leave to intervene
BY/PAR: Federation of Associations of Canadian Tamils
Canadian Council of Churches
Canadian Arab Federation
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Amnesty International (Canadian Section)
Canadian Council for Refugees
Centre for Constitutional Rights
Canadian Bar Association
IN/DANS: Manickavasagam Suresh
v. (27790)
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, et al. (F.C.)
Autre ordonnance sur une requête en autorisation d'intervention
UPON APPLICATION by the Federation of Associations of Canadian Tamils, the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Arab Federation, the United Nations High Commissioner, the Amnesty International (Canadian Section), the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Centre for Constitutional Rights and the Canadian Bar Association for leave to intervene in the above appeal and pursuant to the orders of December 18, 2000 and January 23, 2001 thereon;
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said interveners are granted permission to present oral argument at the hearing of the appeal not to exceed the time allowed respectively to each of them as follows:
- Canadian Arab Federation 10 minutes
- United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 10 minutes
- Canadian Council for Refugees 10 minutes
- Canadian Bar Association 10 minutes
9.4.2001
Before / Devant: THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Motion by the respondent to state a constitutional question
Sa Majesté la Reine du chef de la Province du Nouveau-Brunswick représenté par le Bureau du Conseil exécutif, et al.
c. (28206)
Le juge Jocelyne Moreau-Bérubé (N.-B.)
Requête de la part de l’intimée pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Notices of intervention are to be filed on or before May 15, 2001.
L’article 6.11(8) de la Loi sur la Cour provinciale, L.R.N.-B. 1973, ch. P-21, est-il invalide ou inopérant dans la mesure où la destitution d’un juge de la Cour provinciale sans adresse législative enfreint les principes fondamentaux de l’indépendance judiciaire garantis par le Préambule de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867?
Is s. 6.11(8) of the Provincial Court Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. P-21, invalid or of no force or effect insofar as the removal of a judge of the Provincial Court without a legislative address infringes the fundamental principles of judicial independence guaranteed by the Preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867?
30.3.2001
Before / Devant: BINNIE J.
Motion for directions
2001 SCC 22
Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority Inc.
v. (28406)
National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW - Canada), et al. (Sask.)
Demande pour obtenir des directives
2001 CSC 22
The Attorney General of Saskatchewan seeks an order directing the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority to serve the Attorney General of Saskatchewan with the application for leave to appeal in this matter. Rule 23(10) provides that
an applicant shall serve the application for leave on the parties in the courts below and shall file the application for leave with the Registrar within the time set out in para. 58 (1) (a) sub.-sec.58 (2) of the Act or as extended pursuant to sub-section 59 (1) of the Act. [emphasis added]
Rule 1 defines a party to include “an intervener unless the text provides otherwise or unless the context does not so permit”. Section 8 of the Constitutional Questions Act R.S.S. 1978 c. - 29 provides in sub-s. 9 that where the Attorney General for Saskatchewan appears in a proceeding before a court in Saskatchewan in respect to a Constitutional Question “he is a party for the purposes of appeal from an adjudication therein respecting the validity or applicability of a law or respecting entitlement to a remedy”.
There is no doubt that the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority Inc. was required to serve the Attorney General of Saskatchewan with the leave application to this court. Accordingly an order will go directing the applicant Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority Inc. to serve the Attorney General for Saskatchewan with the application for leave to appeal and any other materials that the applicant may subsequently file in this matter, and permitting the Attorney General for Saskatchewan to file his response within thirty days from the date of such service.
The Attorney General of Saskatchewan is entitled to his costs of this motion in any event of the cause.
[Traduction]
Le procureur général de la Saskatchewan sollicite une ordonnance intimant à la Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority Inc. de lui signifier la demande d’autorisation d’appel dans le présent dossier. La règle 23(10) précise que
[l]a demande d’autorisation doit être signifiée aux parties au litige devant le tribunal de juridiction inférieure et déposée auprès du registraire dans le délai prévu à l’alinéa 58(1)a) et au paragraphe 58(2) de la Loi ou prorogé conformément au paragraphe 59(1) de la Loi. [Je souligne.]
Aux termes de la règle 1, «sauf indication contraire du contexte, les [. . .] intervenants» sont compris parmi les parties. Le paragraphe 8(9) de la Constitutional Questions Act, R.S.S. 1978, ch. C-29, dispose que, lorsque le procureur général de la Saskatchewan comparaît relativement à une question constitutionnelle dans une instance devant un tribunal de la Saskatchewan, [TRADUCTION] «il est partie à l’appel de la décision rendue dans cette instance relativement soit à la validité ou à l’applicabilité d’une loi, soit au droit à une réparation».
Il ne fait aucun doute que la Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority Inc. était tenue de signifier au procureur général de la Saskatchewan la demande d’autorisation d’appel à notre Cour. Par conséquent, il sera rendu une ordonnance intimant à la Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority Inc. demanderesse de signifier au procureur général de la Saskatchewan la demande d’autorisation d’appel ainsi que tout autre document qu’elle déposera par la suite dans le cadre du présent dossier, et autorisant le procureur général de la Saskatchewan à produire sa réponse dans un délai de trente jours de la date de la signification.
Le procureur général de la Saskatchewan a droit aux dépens afférents à la présente requête, quelle que soit l’issue de l’affaire.
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 : April 17, 2001
Service : March 27, 2001 Filing : March 30, 2001 Respondent : April 9, 2001 |
|
Audience du : 17 avril 2001
Signification : 27 mars 2001 Dépôt : 30 mars 2001 Intimé : 9 avril 2001 |
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 Spring Session of the Supreme Court of Canada will commence April 17, 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 du printemps de la Cour suprême du Canada commencera le 17 avril 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 REPORTS |
|
RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS DE LA COUR SUPRÊME
|
THE STYLES OF CAUSE IN THE PRESENT TABLE ARE THE STANDARDIZED STYLES OF CAUSE (AS EXPRESSED UNDER THE "INDEXED AS" ENTRY IN EACH CASE).
|
|
LES INTITULÉS UTILISÉS DANS CETTE TABLE SONT LES INTITULÉS NORMALISÉS DE LA RUBRIQUE "RÉPERTORIÉ" DANS CHAQUE ARRÊT. |
Judgments reported in [2000] 2 S.C.R. Part 6
Whirlpool Corp. v. Camco Inc. [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1067, 2000 SCC 67
Whirlpool Corp. v. Maytag Corp. [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1116, 2000 SCC 68
Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120, 2000 SCC 69
|
|
Jugements publiés dans [2000] 2 R.C.S. Partie 6
Whirlpool Corp. c. Camco Inc., [2000] 2 R.C.S. 1067, 2000 CSC 67
Whirlpool Corp. c. Maytag Corp., [2000] 2 R.C.S. 1116, 2000 CSC 68
Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium c. Canada (Ministre de la Justice) [2000] 2 R.C.S. 1120, 2000 CSC 69
|
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 |
|
|
|
24 |
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 |