Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

February 23, 2001  322 - 356                                                              le 23 février 2001

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Ruth A. Laseur

Anne S. Clark

Workers’ Advisers Program

v. (28370)

Workers’ Compensation Board of Nova Scotia, et al (N.S.)

David P.S. Farrar

Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales

FILING DATE 5.1.2001

Donald Martin

Anne S. Clark

Workers’ Advisers Program

v. (28372)

Workers’ Compensation Board of Nova Scotia, et al. (N.S.)

David P.S. Farrar

Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales

FILING DATE 5.1.2001

Abdul Momen Shahnawaz

P. Andras Schreck

Pinkofsky Lockyer

v. (28265)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Bev Wilton

A. G. of Ontario

FILING DATE 8.1.2001

Ioan Melinte

Ioan Melinte

v. (28371)

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

Leena Jaakkimainen

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 26.1.2001

FEBRUARY 19, 2001 / LE 19 FÉVRIER 2001

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Bastarache

Gerald Michael Vaughan

v. (27887)

Her Majesty the Queen

and the

Administrator of the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre

AND BETWEEN

Gerald Michael Vaughan

v.

Her Majesty the Queen

and the

Administrator of the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre

AND BETWEEN

Gerald Michael Vaughan

v.

Her Majesty the Queen

and the

Administrator of the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre

AND BETWEEN

Gerald Michael Vaughan

v.

Ontario Review Board (Crim.)(Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Procedural law - Mental disorder - Whether the court of appeal erred in holding that there was no merit to the procedural issues raised by the Applicant - Whether the court of appeal erred in dismissing the appeal without determining the issues raised in the Applicant’s factum - Whether the court of appeal demonstrated bias toward the Applicant - Whether the Applicant had the right to waive his hearing under the mental disorder provisions of the Criminal Code 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

May 15, 1997

Ontario Review Board

Order that the Applicant’s detention continue

May 5, 1998

Ontario Review Board

Order that the Applicant’s detention continue

May 5, 1999

Ontario Review Board

Order that the Applicant’s detention continue

October 26, 1999

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Doherty, Rosenberg and Feldman JJ.A.)

Applicant’s appeals from the May 15, 1997,  May 5, 1998 and May 5, 1999 review board orders dismissed

March 22, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

Notice of Application for leave to appeal filed

Sullvie Poole

v. (28285)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal - Criminal Law - Detention - Sentencing - Dangerous offender provisions - Indeterminate imprisonment - Whether trial judge erred in sentencing applicant to indeterminate imprisonment under dangerous offender provisions - Whether finding of sentencing judge that applicant is a dangerous offender involves an error of law, fact, or mixed law and fact - Whether  sentencing judge placed too much emphasis or complete reliance upon past behaviour and criminal record and ignored current circumstances or fettered his discretion by accepting conclusions of a report and evidence without assessing the merits of the conclusions - Whether trial judge misinterpreted dangerous offender provisions - Standard required by a proper interpretation of s. 753(1) for not declaring an offender to be a dangerous offender - Whether assessment provisions set out in s. 752.1(1)  of the Criminal Code  consistent with Charter  - Whether assessment provisions compel applicant to provide evidence against himself, to provide information in circumstances that amount to unreasonable search and seizure, are unconstitutionally vague or infringe ss. 7 , 8  or 11  of the Charter  - Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 752 , 753  and 759 .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Greyhound Canada Transportation Corp.

v. (28097)

Mariusz Brzozowski, Kazimierz Kowaslki and The Workers Compensation Board (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Workers’ compensation - Whether the injuries suffered by the Respondents arose out of, and in the course of, their employment - Did the Court of Appeal of British Columbia err in holding that it could not review the reasoning of a Workers’ Compensation Board’s decision - Is the appellate decision inconsistent with Kovach v. Workers’ Compensation Board, [2000] 1 SCR 55.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Metro‐Can Construction Ltd.

v. (28133)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment -  Income tax - Partnerships - Debtor’s gain on settlement of debts - Income Tax Act  providing that amount of forgiven debt must be applied against taxpayer's non‐capital losses, farm losses, net capital losses and restricted farm losses, in that order - Whether amount of debt forgiveness to be applied at partnership level or at partner level - Income Tax Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp .), s. 80(1).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company

v. (28134)

Ginger M. Berg, a minor, by her Litigation Guardian, Eleanor S. Berg (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Civil procedure - Courts - Jurisdiction - Pre-trial procedure - Appropriate forum - Minnesota resident bringing action against Minnesota insurer in Ontario claiming entitlement to statutory accident benefits - Motions judge staying action but Court of Appeal reversing decision - Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that Ontario was appropriate forum - Whether Court of Appeal failed to apply proper test for determining appropriate forum as outlined in Amchem Products Inc. v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 897 - Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that motions judge should have considered wording and effect of Power of Attorney and Undertaking signed by Minnesota insurer when determining whether Ontario was proper forum.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Arbour et LeBel

Francis Rioux

c. (28167)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Législation - Interprétation - Preuve - Garde ou contrôle d’un véhicule - Présomption - La cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en statuant que la garde ou le contrôle a été prouvé par la simple existence d’une possibilité future de conduite, compte tenu que le demandeur a renversé la présomption prévue à l’article 258(1) a) du Code criminel  et qu’il a pris les moyens pour éviter de mettre son véhicule en marche en prenant soin

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 7 mai 1998

Cour du Québec

(Bilodeau j.c.q.)

Déclaration de culpabilité: garde ou le contrôle d’un véhicule à moteur alors que  capacité de conduire du Demandeur était affaiblie par l’alcool contrairement aux articles 253  a) et 255(1)  du Code criminel 

Hughes Communications Inc.

v. (28070)

Spar Aerospace Limited

AND BETWEEN:

Westinghouse Electric Corporation

v.

Spar Aerospace Limited

AND BETWEEN:

Motient Corporation

v.

Spar Aerospace Limited

AND BETWEEN:

Satellite Transmissions Systems Inc.

v.

Spar Aerospace Limited (Que.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

International law - Conflict of laws - Articles 3135 and 3148 of the Civil Code of Québec - Jurisdiction of Quebec courts - Forum non conveniens - Whether the Quebec courts have jurisdiction over the action instituted by the Respondent against the Applicants - Whether loss of reputation constitutes an “injurious act” under art. 3148 C.C.Q. - Whether an injurious act occurred in Quebec - Whether the Respondent suffered damage in Quebec - Whether there is a real and substantial connection between the subject matter of the Respondent’s action and Quebec - Whether jurisdiction should be declined on the basis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Stanley Dwyer

v. (28159)

Cavalluzzo, Hayes, Shilton, McIntyre & Cornish and James K. A. Hayes (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Barristers and solicitors - Duty of fair representation - Applicant bringing action against law firm and lawyer claiming that they breached their duty to act competently and skilfully in representing him in a grievance arbitration - Motions judge concluding that court had no jurisdiction to entertain claim - Whether Court of Appeal erred in affirming decision - Whether unfair representation provision in Canada Labour Code  operates so as to deprive court of jurisdiction to consider claim - Canada Labour Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, s. 37 .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Syndicat national des employés municipaux de Pointe‐Claire

c. (27987)

Marc Boisvert, en sa qualité d'arbitre de griefs

- et -

Ville de Pointe-Claire (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail – Congédiement – Employé congédié pour cause de maladie – Le congédiement est-il une pratique discriminatoire au sens de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., c. C-22, art. 10, 16 et 20? – La Cour supérieure et la Cour d’appel ont-elles erré quant à l’intensité des obligations d’accommodement d’un employeur en matière de handicap? – La Cour supérieure et la Cour d’appel ont-elle erré quant à l’existence d’accommodements contractuels non respectés par l’employeur, la Ville de Pointe-Claire?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Franco Cigana

c. (28016)

Régent Millette, Mireille Saulnier et Éric Saulnier Millette (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure civile  -  Droit commercial  -  Cautionnement  -   L’ordonnance de cautionnement fixée à 25 000 $ par le juge Robert est-elle justifiée?  -  Le juge Fish était-il fondé en droit en rejetant la requête du demandeur pour obtenir un sursis d’exécution alors que la demande d’autorisation d’appel contre l’ordonnance du juge Robert était pendante devant la Cour suprême du Canada, et en rejetant par le fait même l’appel du demandeur en raison du défaut d’avoir fourni le cautionnement exigé ?  -  Article 497 du Code de procédure civile du Québec

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 20 mai 1998

Cour supérieure du Québec

(Bélanger j.c.s.)

Requêtes des intimés accueillie; demandeur condamné à payer 979 937,29$ plus intérêts aux intimés pour l’ensemble des seize réclamations (dossiers A à P)

Le 16 septembre 1998

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Mailhot j.c.a.)                     

Requête de l’intimé (R. Millette) pour cautionnement accueillie en partie; demandeur condamné à verser cautionnement de 7 000$ (dossiers A, F, G, J, K, L, M, N)

Le 16 septembre 1998

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Mailhot j.c.a.)                                                     

Requête de l’intimé (R. Millette) pour cautionnement accueillie en partie; 2682-2678 Québec Inc. condamnée à verser cautionnement de 10 000$ (dossiers B et E)

Le 15 décembre 1998

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Brossard, Chamberland et Forget jj.c.a.)

Requête de l’intimé (R. Millette) en rejet de l’appel du demandeur rejetée

Le 20 juin 2000

Cour d'appel du Québec

(Michel j.c.a.)

Requête de l’intimé pour cautionnement accueillie; demandeur condamné à verser cautionnement de 25 000 $ (dossiers O et P)

Le 2 août 2000

Cour d'appel du Québec

(Fish j.c.a.)

Requête du demandeur en reprise d’instance en cautionnement (Millette) rejetée (dossier D)

Le 2 août 2000

Cour d'appel du Québec

(Fish j.c.a.)

Appel et sursis du demandeur (Cigana) rejetés avec dépens (dossiers O et P)

Le 18 juillet octobre 2000

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

(première demande, relative au jugement du 20 juin 2000, dossiers O et P)

Le 2 octobre 2000

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée (deuxième demande, relative au jugement du 2 août 2000 - dossiers O et P)

Anraj Fish Products Industries Ltd. and Bengal Seafoods Inc.

v. (28125)

Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. Ltd. (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

International law - Conflicts of law - Choice of jurisdiction - Forum selection clause in bill of lading - Commercial law - Contracts - Maritime contract - Consideration of the factors set out in The Eleftheria [1969] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 237 case - Appellate review - Standard of review - The interpretation of jurisdiction clauses in bills of lading - What is the appropriate standard of second-level appellate review.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

November 1, 1999

Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division

(Lafrenière, Prothonotary)                 

Action stayed pending litigation of this matter in Seoul Civil District Court with fixed costs

CORAM:   Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Major et Binnie

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (28245)

Catherine Huff (Crim.)(Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law - Driving over 80 - Evidence to the contrary - Compellability of statement - Statement given to police while detained and before afforded right to counsel - Whether roadside statements of an accused as to alcohol consumption can be considered by a trial judge in relation to a defence of evidence to the contrary - Whether decision is in conflict with R. v. Smug, [1998] O.J. No. 4357 (QL)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Larry Drury and William Hazard

v. (28306)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Right to counsel - Appointment of state-funded counsel - Whether the motions judge erred in not ordering the Crown to pay for counsel to represent the Applicants at trial - Trial procedure - Voir dire - Whether the trial judge erred in reading in evidence adduced on the voir dire

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Joseph Shaun Finnessey

v. (28251)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sentencing appeal - Sentence varied by court of appeal - Appellate review of sentencing - Whether the court of appeal erred in substituting their view of an appropriate sentence for that of the trial judge in the absence of an error in principle or an unfit sentence - Whether the court of appeal erred in fettering a trial judge’s discretion on sentence by requiring a penitentiary sentence for convictions for criminal harassment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Rolston Ricardo Moffatt

v. (27895)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Civil - Sections 7  and 15  of the Charter - Immigration law - Deportation - Danger to the public determination by the Minister - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the motion to adduce fresh evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the constitutional question challenging the constitutionality of subsection 70(5) of the Immigration Act pursuant to s. 15  of the Charter - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in dismissing the appeal, and in ordering the Applicant to pay costs.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Douglas Sloan

v. (28150)

The York Region District School Board, Gary Michael, personally and as vice‐principal of the York Region District School Board, Michael Magarrey, personally and as a principal of the York Region District School Board, Helen Fox, personally and as principal of the York Region District School Board and Unknown others, personally and as agents or officers of the York Region District School Board (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Actions - Torts - Libel and slander - Did lower courts err in disposition of case.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Henry McAlister Lang

v. (28142)

Yolanda Naccarato (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Costs - Appeal - Assessment order reducing lawyer’s bill of costs to client - Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to reverse the order

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

June 25, 1998

Ontario Court (General Division)

Lane, A.O.

Assessment report requiring Applicant to return the sum of $12,582.68 to the Respondent client

December 9, 1998

Superior Court of Justice

(Noble J.)

Motion to adduce further evidence and motion opposing confirmation of report of Assessment Officer dismissed with costs

March 28, 2000

Divisional Court, Superior Court of Justice

(O'Driscoll, Millette and Marshman JJ.)

Appeal dismissed with costs

June 28, 2000

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(McMurtry C.J.O., Morden and Rosenberg JJ.A.)

Applicant’s motion for leave to appeal dismissed  with costs

September 25, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

FEBRUARY 22, 2001 / LE 22 FÉVRIER 2001

28056                    GLEN EKMAN ‐ v. ‐ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (B.C.) (Criminal)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  -  Criminal law - Right to counsel - Evidence - Admissibility - Accused’s advised by counsel to make no comment in his absence - Police officer informing accused that counsel have no right to be present during police interview - Interrogation conducted notwithstanding accused’s stating that he wanted counsel to be present - Accused making inculpatory statement during interrogation - Whether Applicant’s s. 7  and s. 10 (b) Charter rights infringed.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28080                    RESMAN HOLDINGS LTD. (THE SUCCESSOR AMALGAMATED CORPORATION TO AIRTEX INDUSTRIES LTD.), DEX RESOURCES LTD. AND RESMAN HOLDINGS LTD. (THE SUCCESSOR AMALGAMATED CORPORATION TO RESMAN OIL & GAS LTD.) ‐ v. ‐ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (FC) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Statutes - Interpretation - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to apply the appropriate principles of statutory interpretation in interpreting this incentive tax legislation - Where there are two or more meanings possible should a court adopt the plain ordinary dictionary meaning or a more technical meaning - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the principle of pari materia in construing the statutory provisions - Whether this Court should clarify the scope of the presumption against interference with pending litigation and provide guidance concerning the interpretation of retroactive amendments to incentive tax legislation.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27961                    THE GAZETTE, UNE DIVISION DE SOUTHAM INC. ‐ c. ‐ CONSEIL DU RÉFÉRENDUM, L'HONORABLE LOUIS‐CHARLES FOURNIER, J.C.Q., L'HONORABLE RÉMI BOUCHARD, J.C.Q., L'HONORABLE PAUL MAILLOUX, J.C.Q. ET PIERRE‐F. CÔTÉ, C.R.  (Qué.) (Civile)

CORAM:               Les juges L'Heureux‐Dubé, Arbour et LeBel.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de l’intimé Pierre-F. Côté, c.r.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent Pierre-F. Côté, Q.C.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif  -  Contrôle judiciaire  - Législation  - Textes réglementaires  -  Interprétation des articles 488 et 570 de la Version spéciale de la Loi électorale pour la tenue d’un référendum  -  Quelles sont les limites au droit du public à l’information relative à une démarche référendaire ?  - Est-ce qu’un bulletin de vote est un «document» au sens de la Version spéciale ?  -  L’article 570 de la Version spéciale interdit-il tout accès du public aux bulletins de vote dépouillés après un référendum ?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

26384                    DAVID JONATHAN WILD ‐ v. ‐ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (B.C.) (Criminal)

CORAM:               L'Heureux‐Dubé, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Murder - Criminal insanity - Jury charge - New psychiatric evidence - Whether new evidence  ought to be admitted for consideration on this application for leave to appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the evidence of the Crown’s expert witness did not go beyond what is permitted when he commented on the believability of the Applicant’s evidence that he had ingested Ms. Jacobsen’s sleeping pills - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to recognize that the trial judge’s comment with respect to the Applicant’s evidence was so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial judge’s charge was not deficient despite the fact that it defines reasonable doubt as “a doubt based on gaps or loopholes in the evidence” and as a doubt “you could be capable of explaining to other members of the jury.”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27827                    VADIM GINDIS ‐ v. ‐ RITCHIE SCOTT BRISBOURNE (B.C.) (Civil)

CORAM:               L'Heureux‐Dubé, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Insurance - Settlements - Unconscionable transactions - Victim of motor vehicle accident settles claim with tortfeaser’s insurer - Whether settlement agreement unconscionable - Analysis to be applied in determination unconscionability - Whether law is in a state of confusion regarding how to determine unconscionability generally or in regard to releases of insurance and tort claims - Whether alternative approaches to determine unconscionability are applied inconsistently between provinces - Whether Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the trial judge’s decision - Whether Court of Appeal substituted conclusions of fact - Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that the issue of deducting Canadian Pension Plan benefits from an award for lost earnings was moot.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28059                    APOTEX INC. ‐ v. ‐ ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, THE MINISTER OF HEALTH, MERCK & CO. INC. AND MERCK FROSST CANADA INC. (FC) (Civil)

CORAM:               L'Heureux‐Dubé, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

The ancillary motion and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs to the respondents the Attorney General of Canada, the Minister of Health, Merck & Co. Inc. and Merck Frosst Canada Inc.

La requête accessoire et la demande d’autorisation d’appel sont rejetées avec dépens en faveur des intimés le Procureur général du Canada, le Ministre de la Santé, Merck & Co. Inc. et Merck Frosst Canada Inc.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property Law - Food and drugs - Patents - Statutes -  Interpretation - Challenge to regulations - Legitimate expectations - Whether  regulations are invalid as being ultra vires the authority conferred upon the Governor in Council - Whether an express limitation in a statute can be effectively overridden when the “purpose” of the statute as a whole is perceived to justify a “broad” interpretation - Whether the doctrine of legitimate expectations can be applied to delegated legislative exercises - Patent Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4 ., s. 55.2 - Patent Act Amendment Act, 1992, S.C. 1993, c. 2 - Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27910                    JACQUES CHAOULLI ‐ c. ‐ MINISTRE DE LA SANTÉ ET DES SERVICES SOCIAUX ET PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL DU QUÉBEC (Qué.) (Civile)

CORAM:               Les juges L'Heureux‐Dubé, Arbour et LeBel.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit administratif - Droit des professions - Requête en mandamus -  Le droit d’un médecin omnipraticien, légalement autorisé à exercer la médecine, à faire un examen de radiologie diagnostique spécifique à l’exercice de sa profession - Si, selon les circonstances, en n’exerçant pas son pouvoir réglementaire, un gouvernement peut être coupable de violation de l’article 7  de la  Charte canadienne des droits et libertés , notamment au regard de la condamnation au civil d’un médecin pour ne pas avoir fait, dans une situation donnée, une chose que le Ministre lui interdit officiellement de faire, et que ce dernier tolère pourtant qu’il fasse - La question de savoir si en l’espèce, le pourvoir réglementaire est lié ou discrétionnaire - Advenant que le pouvoir soit discrétionnaire, la question de savoir si dans le cadre d’un mandamus, le fardeau de la preuve de la mauvaise foi est renversé sur le dos de l’intimé, et la question de savoir si un ensemble de faits avérés et de faits présumés peuvent amener une Cour a conclure à la mauvaise foi.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

28252                    JACQUES CHAOULLI ‐ c. ‐ RÉGIE DE L'ASSURANCE‐MALADIE DU QUÉBEC (Qué.) (Civile)

CORAM:               Les juges L'Heureux‐Dubé, Arbour et LeBel.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Exception déclinatoire - La Cour supérieure a-t-elle commis une erreur manifeste, grave et déterminante au point d’infirmer le jugement de première instance, en ce que le juge de première instance a accueilli l’exception déclinatoire, alors qu’en vertu des articles 33 et 846, 1er alinéa, 4ème et 2ème alinéas, le demandeur réunissait les conditions requises par la loi afin pour sa requête en évocation fut entendue au fond -  La Cour d’appel, en rejetant la permission d’appeler, a-t-elle exercé sa discrétion d’une manière manifestement déraisonnable.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

28253                    JACQUES CHAOULLI ‐ c. ‐ PROCUREURE GÉNÉRALE DU QUÉBEC  (Qué.) (Civile)

CORAM:               Les juges L'Heureux‐Dubé, Arbour et LeBel.

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Requête pour présenter une nouvelle preuve - Critères - Est-ce que la Cour d’appel a erré en ce que le dossier tel que présenté devant elle, précisait le contenu du document présenté à titre de preuve nouvelle?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

28113                    ONTARIO TEACHERS' FEDERATION ("OTF"), PHYLLIS BENEDICT, NEIL SIMPSON AND MARET SADEM‐THOMPSON ON THEIR OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE ELEMENTARY TEACHERS' FEDERATION OF ONTARIO, ELEMENTARY TEACHERS' FEDERATION OF ONTARIO ("ETFO"), KENNETH SHEPPARD, ROBERT WHETTER AND LLOYD HAINES ON THEIR OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION; ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION ("OSSTF"), LINDA FROST ON HER OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION; ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION ("OECTA"), ROBERT BERUBÉ ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL MEMBERS OF L'ASSOCIATION DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS FRANCO‐ONTARIENS AND L'ASSOCIATION DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS FRANCO‐ONTARIENS ("AEFO") ‐ v. ‐ ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO (Ont.) (Civil)

CORAM:               L'Heureux‐Dubé, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Civil - Freedom of expression - Freedom of association - Labour law - Labour Relations - Unions - Collective bargaining - Sections 2 (b) and (d) of the Charter - Amendments to Bill 160 dealing with principals and vice-principals objected to by the Applicants - Whether the purpose or effect of Bill 160 constitutes a penalty or reprisal for engaging in constitutionally protected activity - Whether a protest in opposition to Bill 160 in the form of a withdrawal of services by working people is entitled to the same protection under s. 2 (b) of the Charter as other forms of expressive activity - Whether Bill 160 violates s. 2 (b) or (d) of the Charter.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27208                    CAMCO INC. AND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ‐ v. ‐ WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION AND INGLIS LIMITED (FC) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.

The motion for rehearing is dismissed with costs.

La demande de nouvelle audition est rejetée avec dépens.

27209                    MAYTAG CORPORATION, MAYTAG LIMITED AND MAYTAG QUEBEC INC. ‐ v. ‐ WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION AND INGLIS LIMITED (FC) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.

The motion for rehearing is dismissed with costs.

La demande de nouvelle audition est rejetée avec dépens.

9.2.2001

Before / Devant:  THE REGISTRAR

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

Dwayne W. Hynes

v. (27443)

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

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 February 8, 2001.

12.2.2001

Before / Devant:  THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the response of the respondent Donald R. Saggers

City of Calgary and Calgary Civic Employees Benefit Society, et al.

v. (28266)

Donald R. Saggers, et al. (Alta.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la réponse de l'intimé Donald R. Saggers

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to February 9, 2001.

12.2.2001

Before / Devant:  THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondent's response

Chee K. Ling

v. (28315)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la réponse de l'intimée

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to February 7, 2001.

12.2.2001

Before / Devant:  THE REGISTRAR

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

Gerald Augustine Regan

v. (27541)

Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(N.S.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les mémoire, dossier et recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’intimée

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to January 31, 2001.

12.2.2001

Before / Devant:  THE REGISTRAR

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

Terrence Blake Scott

v. (27781)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les mémoire et recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’appelant

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time to serve and file the appellant’s factum extended to January 17, 2001, nunc pro tunc.

Time to serve and file the appellant’s book of authorities extended to February 6, 2001, nunc pro tunc.

13.2.2001

Before / Devant:  MAJOR J.

Further order on motion for leave to intervene

Tom Dunmore, et al.

v. (27216)

Attorney General for the Province of Ontario, et al. (Ont.)

Autre ordonnance sur une requête en autorisation d'intervention

UPON APPLICATION by the Canadian Labour Congress and the Labour Issues Coordinating Committee for leave to intervene in the above appeal and pursuant to the orders of July 21, 2000 and November 7, 2000 thereon;

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the intervener Canadian Labour Congress is granted permission to present oral argument not to exceed 15 minutes and the intervener Labour Issues Coordinating Committee’s request to present oral argument is dismissed.

13.2.2001

Before /Devant:  L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ J.

Motion for extension of time and leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Metro Toronto Chinese & Southeast Asian Legal Clinic

IN/DANS:              A.L.R.

v. (27659)

Her Majesty the Queen

(Crim.)(Man.)

Requête en prorogation de délai et en autorisation d'intervenir

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the Metro Toronto Chinese & Southeast Asian Legal Clinic 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 Metro Toronto Chinese & Southeast Asian Legal Clinic 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 interveners shall pay to the appellant and respondent any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondent by the intervention.

15.2.2001

Before / Devant:  THE REGISTRAR

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

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 en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les mémoire et recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’appelante

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to December 15, 2000.

15.2.2001

Before / Devant:  IACOBUCCI J.

Motion to permit filing of an appellant reply factum

The General Manager, Liquor Control and Licensing Branch

v. (27371)

Ocean Port Hotel Limited (B.C.)

Requête en autorisation de dépôt par l'appelante d'un mémoire en réplique

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

15.2.2001

Before / Devant:  THE REGISTRAR

Miscellaneous motion

Ivon Shearing

v. (27782)

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

Autre requête

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Motion by the appellant for an order sealing Volume 14 of the appellant’s record is granted.

16.2.2001

Before / Devant:  ARBOUR J.

Further order on motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Procureur général de l’Ontario

IN/DANS:              Sa Majesté la Reine

c. (27652)

Réjean Parent (Crim.)(Qué.)

Autre ordonnance sur une requête en autorisation d'intervention

À LA SUITE D’UNE DEMANDE du Procureur général de l’Ontario visant à obtenir l’autorisation d’intervenir dans l’appel susmentionné et suite à l’ordonnance du 30 octobre 2000;

IL EST EN OUTRE ORDONNÉ que la plaidoirie de l’intervenant soit ainsi limité à quinze (15) minutes.

19.2.2001

Before / Devant:  THE REGISTRAR

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

Donald Russell

v. (27732)

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 February 8, 2001.

BY/PAR:                Attorney General for Alberta

IN/DANS:              Richard Sauvé, et al.

  v. (27677)

Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, et al. (F.C.)

15.2.2001

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

Ian Vincent Golden

v. (27547)

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

David M. Tanovich for the appellant.

Donald McLeod and Julian K. Roy for the intervener African Canadian Legal Clinic.

Kent Roach and Kimberly Murray for the intervener Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto.

Frank Addario and Jonathan Dawe for the intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

J.W. Leising and Morris Pistyner for the respondent.

Michael Bernstein for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario.

David Migicovsky and Lynda Bordeleau for the intervener Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the strip search of the Appellant did not violate section 8  of the Charter - If the strip search of the Appellant violated section 8  of the Charter, would the admission of the evidence bring the administration of justice into disrepute under section 24(2)  of the Charter?

Nature de la cause:

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit criminel - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que la fouille à nu de l’appelant ne portait pas atteinte à l’article 8  de la Charte? - Si la fouille à nu de l’appelant porte effectivement atteinte à l’article 8  de la Charte, l’admission de la preuve déconsidérerait-elle l’administration de la justice aux termes du paragraphe 24(2)  de la Charte?

19.2.2001

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

Tom Dunmore, et al

v. (27216)

Attorney General for the Province of Ontario, et al. (Ont.)(Civil)(By Leave)

Chris G. Paliare and Martin J. Doane for the appellants.

Steven Barrett for the intervener Canadian Labour Congress.

Richard J.K. Stewart for the respondent Attorney General for the Province of Ontario.

Alan L. W. D’Silva, Darrell L. Kloeze and Vincent C. Kazmierski for the respondent Fleming Chicks.

Aucune comparution pour l’intervenante Procureure générale du Québec (soumission par Renée Madore et Monique Rousseau).

Rod Wiltshire for the intervener Attorney General for Alberta.

No one appeared for the intervener Labour Issues Coordinating Committee (written submission by John C. Murray and Jonathan L. Dye).

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  ‐ Civil - Freedom of Association - Equality rights - Labour law - Labour relations - Unions - Collective bargaining - Sections 2( d )  and 15(1)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Whether the exclusion of agricultural workers from Ontario’s statutory labour relations system violates their freedom of association under s. 2 (d) of the Charter - Whether the enactment of legislation which directly or indirectly results in the limitation of a fundamental freedom, through the intermediary, of private power constitutes government action subject to review under the Charter - Whether the exclusion of agricultural workers from Ontario’s statutory labour relations system violates their rights to equal protection and benefit of the law under s. 15(1)  of the Charter - Whether discrimination on the basis of membership in a group defined by occupational status, in circumstances where that status is associated with disadvantage and powerlessness in society, may constitute discrimination on a ground analogous to the enumerated grounds in s. 15(1)  of the Charter?

Nature de la cause:

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  ‐ Droit civil - Liberté d’association - Droit à l’égalité - Droit du travail - Relations de travail - Syndicats - Négociations collectives - Al. 2 d )  et  par.15(1)  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - L’exclusion des travailleurs agricoles du régime législatif de relations de travail de l’Ontario viole-t-elle leur liberté d’association prévue à l’al. 2 d )  de la Charte? L’édiction d’une loi qui porte directement ou indirectement atteinte à une liberté fondamentale par l’intermédiaire d’un pouvoir privé constitue-t-elle une action gouvernementale susceptible de révision en vertu de la Charte? - L’exclusion des travailleurs agricoles du régime législatif de relations de travail de l’Ontario viole-t-elle leur droit à la même protection et au même bénéfice de la loi prévu au par.15(1)  de la Charte? - Une discrimination du fait de l’appartenance à un groupe défini par le statut professionnel, lorsque ce statut est synonyme de désavantage et de  privation de pouvoir dans la société, peut-elle constituer une discrimination fondée sur un motif analogue à ceux énumérés au par. 15(1)  de la Charte?

20.2.2001

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

Mattel Canada Inc.

v. (27174)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)(Civil)(By Leave)

Darrel H. Pearson, Richard S. Gottlieb and Jeffery D. Jenkins for the appellant (respondent on cross-appeal).

Richard W. Pound, Q.C. and Glenn A. Cranker for the intervener Reebok Canada Inc.

Edward R. Sojonky, Q.C. and Frederick B. Woyiwada for the respondent (appellant on cross-appeal).

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Taxation - Customs and excise - Royalties - What is the standard of review required in this review of the Customs Act “sale for export” and “subsequent proceeds” issues - Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the transaction value of the goods must be adjusted upward pursuant to the s. 48(5)(a)(v) “subsequent proceeds” provision because the royalty payments accrued to the vendor - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the payment of royalties by the Appellant to Licensor X was not made as “condition of sale”.

Nature de la cause:

Droit fiscal - Douanes et accise - Redevances - Quelle est la norme de contrôle applicable à l’examen des questions relatives à la « vente pour exportation » et au « produit subséquent » de la Loi sur les douanes? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que la valeur transactionnelle des marchandises devait être ajustée à la hausse aux termes de la disposition relative au « produit subséquent » du sous-al. 48(5)a)(v) parce que les redevances doivent revenir au vendeur? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que les redevances versées par l’appelante au concédant de licence X n’ont pas été faites à titre de « condition de la vente »?

21.2.2001

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Major, Bastarache, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

Werner Patek, et al.

c. (27817)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)(De plein droit)

Christian Desrosiers pour les appelants.

Claude Chartrand et Henri-Pierre Labrie pour l’intimée.

LE JUGE ARBOUR: (oralement)

Nous sommes d’avis que le juge de première instance n’a commis aucune erreur de droit donnant  ouverture à un appel de la Couronne en vertu de l’al. 676(1) a) du Code criminel , L.R.C. 1985, ch. C-46 , et que la majorité de la Cour d’appel a erré en substituant son appréciation des faits à celle du juge du procès.

Le juge du procès s’est bien dirigé en droit et a procédé à un examen détaillé de la preuve.  Ses motifs étoffés démontrent qu’il s’est penché sur l’ensemble de la preuve, a apprécié la crédibilité des témoins qui ont comparu devant lui pour tirer des conclusions de fait qui n’étaient pas déraisonnables.  Son analyse ne révèle aucune erreur au sens des arrêts R. c. B. (G.), [1990] 2 R.C.S. 57, et R. c. Morin, [1992] 3 R.C.S. 286.

En conséquence l’appel est accueilli, le jugement de la Cour d’appel est cassé et l’acquittement des appelants est rétabli.  Madame le juge L’Heureux-Dubé, dissidente, aurait rejeté l’appel pour les motifs du juge Chamberland de la Cour d’appel.

[Translation]

We are of the view that the trial judge did not commit any error of law that would give rise to a Crown appeal under s. 676(1) (a) of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 , and that the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in substituting its own assessment of the facts for that of the trial judge.

The trial judge correctly directed himself in law and conducted a detailed examination of the evidence.  His extensive reasons show that he considered the evidence in its totality, assessed the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before him in order to arrive at findings of fact that were not unreasonable.  His analysis does not reveal any error within the meaning of R. v. B. (G.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 57, and R. v. Morin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 286.

Accordingly the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the acquittal of the appellants is restored.  Madame Justice L’Heureux-Dubé, dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal for the reasons given by Chamberland J.A. in the Court of Appeal.

The Court will not be sitting during the weeks of February 26 and March 5, 2001.

La Cour ne siègera pas les semaines du 26 février et 5 mars 2001.

___________________

NOTE: 

This agenda is subject to change.  Hearing dates should be confirmed with Registry staff at (613) 996-8666.

Cet ordre du jour est sujet à modification.  Les dates d'audience devraient être confirmées auprès du personnel du greffe au (613) 996-8666.

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME

2000