Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

December 13, 2002 1807 - 1852                                                        le13 décembre 2002

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

91633 Canada Inc.

Michel Beaudry

Beaudry Dessureault

c. (29492)

Ville de Châteauguay, et autres (Qué.)

Armand Poupart

Poupart & Poupart

DATE DE PRODUCTION 25.11.2002

Denis Lizotte

Louis D. Pasquin

Pasquin & Associés

c. (29493)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)

François Legault

P.G. du Québec

DATE DE PRODUCTION 25.11.2002

Michael Joseph Fitzgerald

Robert D. Holmes

Holmes & King

v. (29491)

Mountain-West Resources Limited (B.C.)

R.J. Randall Hordo

Hordo & Bennett

FILING DATE 27.11.2002

M.F.

Julius H. Grey

Grey Casgrain

v. (29498)

N.M.H.  (Que.)

Suzanne Côté

Stikeman, Elliott

FILING DATE 27.11.2002

Krishaveni Chavali, et al.

Clayton C. Ruby

Rudy & Edwardh

v. (29494)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Philip Downes

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 29.11.2002

Coopérative agricole des animaux vivants de la Montérégie

Robert Jodoin

Jodoin Huppé

c. (29489)

Les Encans de la ferme (1984) Inc., et autre (Qué.)

Normand Gagnon

Langlois, Gagnon, Thérrien et Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION 2.12.2002

Monica Leung

Monica Leung

v. (29487)

Mayor Bill Smith, et al.  (Alta.)

Bill Smith

FILING DATE 3.12.2002

Corporation d’hébergement du Québec

Sylvain Lepage

Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells

c. (29496)

Construction Ondel Inc., et autres (Qué.)

Carl Lavoie

DATE DE PRODUCTION 6.12.2002

The Corporation of the City of Kingston

Guy J. Pratte

Borden Ladner Gervais

v. (29497)

The Ontario Energy Board, et al. (Ont.)

Patrick Moran

Ontario Energy Board

FILING DATE 9.12.2002

Edwin Pearson

Edwin Pearson

v. (29499)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

Jacques Savary

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 28.11.2002

P.A.

François Robillard

Mondor Boucher

c. (29490)

C.G.  (Qué.)

Gérald Stotland

Lavery, de Billy

DATE DE PRODUCTION 25.11.2002

Dr. Guillaume Kibale

Guillaume Kibale

c. (29486)

Sa Majesté la Reine du chef du Canada (C.F.)

Marie Crowley

A.G. of Canada

DATE DE PRODUCTION 3.12.2002

J.H.K.

Brian H. Greenspan

Greenspan Humphrey Lavine

v. (29495)

United States of America, et al.  (Ont.)

Catherine Galligan

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 5.12.2002

DECEMBER 9, 2002 / LE 9 DÉCEMBRE 2002

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Bastarache et Deschamps

Jamie Dennis Carpenter (Crim.) (B.C.)

v. (29301)

Her Majesty the Queen

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  – Criminal law - Criminal Code  of Canada - Narcotics - Narcotic Control Act - Sentencing - Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge gave proper consideration to the Applicant’s aboriginal background, heritage and unique systemic factors, when sentencing the Applicant, as required by s. 718.2 (e) of the Criminal Code  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s. 24(1)  of the Charter  could not be used to give effect to the violations of the Applicant’s ss. 8 and 10 rights upon his arrest to reduce his sentence - Statutory interpretation of R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.) (Qué.)

c. (29256)

Pierre Lefebvre

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Preuve - Confession - Nouvelle preuve -  La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en admettant et utilisant la nouvelle preuve présentée par l’accusé-intimé - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit lorsqu’elle a déclaré inadmissible la déclaration extrajudiciaire de l’accusé parce qu’en ce faisant elle n’a pas appliqué ou ignoré les enseignements de la Cour suprême du Canada, notamment ceux des affaires Hébert, Whittle, Oickle et Stolar - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en utilisant un critère d’appréciation des conséquences pour décider de la question du caractère libre et volontaire de la déclaration.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Judson Dickens

v. (29240)

Attorney General of Alberta (Crim.) (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal - Criminal law - Right to silence - Reasonable doubt - Credibility - Jailhouse informants - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the right to silence under s. 7  of the Charter  does not arise prior to the detention of an individual by the state - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge’s charge to the jury could not mislead or confuse the jury as to the correct tests to be used in assessing credibility and reasonable doubt.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Norman Bert Guimond

v. (29222)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sentencing - Manslaughter - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by not considering, or requiring the learned trial judge to consider, s. 718.2 (e) of the Criminal Code  notwithstanding the imperative nature of that provision - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by ruling that evidence of previous armed robberies (not convictions for same) was admissible as part of the narrative notwithstanding the prejudicial nature of same - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by ruling that the videotape statement of the Applicant was admissible in evidence against him despite the fact it had been secretly taped.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

May 7, 1999

Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba

(Oliphant A.C.J.Q.B.)

Applicant convicted by jury of manslaughter and armed robbery

June 30, 1999

Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba

(Oliphant A.C.J.Q.B.)

Applicant sentenced to life imprisonment for manslaughter and 15 years concurrent for armed robbery

March 25, 2002

Court of Appeal of Manitoba

(Scott C.J.M., Philp and and Monnin JJ.A.)

Appeals against conviction and sentence, dismissed

May 27, 2002

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

June 26, 2002

Supreme Court of Canada

Motion for an extension of time granted

October 4, 2002

Supreme Court of Canada

Motion for an extension of time granted

Sheri Cathleen Lamirande

v. (29205)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sentencing - Manslaughter - Whether the Court of Appeal for Manitoba erred in law by ruling that bad character evidence of gang association by the Applicant in the form of papers seized upon her admission to pre-trial detention was admissible to prove background and context despite the fact that the Applicant’s defence was that she was not present at the crime scene - Whether the Court of Appeal for Manitoba erred in law on an issue of national significance by upholding a life sentence for a youthful female Aboriginal offender on a manslaughter conviction in conflict with other decisions resulting in a disparity of sentencing.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Stanley Witkin

v. (29290)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.A.)

AND BETWEEN:

Paul Nicholl

v.

Her Majesty the Queen

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Procedural Law - Appeal - Standards of Review - Whether Federal Court of Appeal misinterpreted  findings at trial and  improperly imposed onus of proof of error - Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in concluding that findings of fact for purposes of applying the reasonable expectation of profit doctrine were untainted and could be relied upon for purposes of determining whether a partnership existed -  Whether the Federal Court of Appeal applied the appropriate standard of review - Whether Federal Court of Appeal failed to properly apply the principles of partnership law - Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in failing to adequately consider whether carrying on business in common with a view to profit test met - Treatment of  multi-tiered partnerships in Canadian law.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:  Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Major et Arbour

Michael Bogart

v. (29310)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sentence - Whether conditional sentence appropriate - Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in interfering with the trial judge’s decision in that the trial judge had heard many witnesses for the prosecution and defence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Corey Allan Hall

v. (29270)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non-Charter) - Murder - Jury Charge - Causation - Intervening cause - Lawfulness of a conviction for murder where the accused has assaulted the victim and rendered him unconscious but where the victim is breathing after the family decides to withdraw a feeding tube providing the nourishment necessary to sustain life. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Calvin Boyd Colby

v. (29267)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non Charter) - Pre-trial procedure - Informations - Whether counts in Informations charging offences predicated on prior conviction disclose the existence of a prior criminal offence - Whether charge of breach of probation on multi-count Information should be severed from counts alleging offences for which accused’s criminal record is not admissible.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

January 7, 1999

Provincial Court of Saskatchewan

(Ebert J.)

Application to stay charges or quash Information dismissed

October 22, 1999

Provincial Court of Saskatchewan

(Ebert J.)

Convictions for refusing to provide breath sample, breach of probation, and assault.

December 2, 1999

Provincial Court of Saskatchewan

(Ebert J.)

Sentences: Fines; suspended sentence; 15 months probation; driving privileges suspended; prohibited from operating  motor vehicle for 3 months

June 1, 2001

Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan

(Dielschneider J.)

Summary conviction appeal allowed, convictions set aside

April 23, 2002

Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

(Tallis, Vancise and Jackson JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed, convictions restored

June 24, 2002

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

Affordable Cottages Inc.

v. (29192)

772592 Ontario Inc. (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Bills of exchange - Promissory note - Whether the defence of equitable set-off available as between immediate parties to a bill of exchange.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Toronto‑Dominion Bank and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

v. (29235)

Metroland Printing, Publishing and Distribution Ltd. (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Bills of Exchange - Tort - Conversion - Whether the cheques were valid bills of exchange - Whether the “fictitious or non-existing payee” defence in s. 20(5)  of the Bills of Exchange Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. B-4  is available - Whether the cheques, which bore facsimile signatures, did not contain forged or unauthorized signatures of the drawer and were worthless piece of paper in accordance with s. 48(1) of the BEA - Whether the operation of account agreement between CIBC and the respondent provides a complete defence to the claims - Application of the principles in Boma Manufacturing Ltd. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 727 - Whether the court of appeal erred - Whether there are issues of public importance raised.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Honourable Robert H. Nelson, Founder President of Public Defenders for himself

and as representative of all those improperly denied benefits

v. (29424)

Her Majesty the Queen, as represented by the Honourable Martin Cauchon,

Minister of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (F.C.A.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing a motion brought by the Applicant requesting leave to file a claim for $1,500,000,000,000 in punitive damages against Her Majesty the Queen, and various representatives of Her Majesty the Queen.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                  CORAM:  Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ. /

Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et LeBel

Kevin Lyle McElheran

v. (29372)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  (Criminal Law ) - Criminal Law  (Non Charter) -  Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal of Alberta to hear appeal from Provincial Court of Alberta in summary conviction proceedings under Criminal Code 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Réginald Scullion and Frances Callan

v. (29289)

Attorney General of Quebec (Crim.) (Que.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Prerogative writs - Jurisdiction - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Judge hearing the preliminary enquiry against these Applicants committed a jurisdictional error - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to distinguish between an error made within the scope of the Judges’s jurisdiction and a jurisdictional error - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to discern that any error made by the Judge hearing the preliminary hearing  in refusing to commit an accused for trial following the preliminary hearing was an error within the scope of his jurisdiction and was not an error of jurisdiction - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that an error made within the scope of a Judge’s jurisdiction cannot be the basis for the remedy of certiorari.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Phillip Ofume

v. (29273)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal - Criminal Law  (Non Charter) - Motor Vehicles - Procedural Law - Appeals - Time extension - Extension of time to file appeal denied - Driving without a license - Driving without valid licence plates - Extension of time to appeal from summary conviction appeal of convictions under Motor Vehicle Act denied.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Maureen Ofume and Phillip Ofume

v. (29265)

Goranka Vukelich, Sue Wolstenholme, St. Joseph's College of Early

Childhood Education (a body Corporate) and Chris Rafuse (N.S.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Civil - Procedural Law - Civil procedure - Application to extend time to appeal and application to stay motions judge’s order dismissed.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Jean‑Roch Massé

c. (29153)

Le ministre du Revenu national (C.A.F.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit fiscal - Impôt sur le revenu - Source de revenu- Revenu tirée de l’exploitation d’un bien - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en confirmant que le demandeur n’avait pas une expectative raisonnable de tirer un profit de l’exploitation d’un bien?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Edward Lloyd Jones

v. (29194)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.A)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Notice of Objection - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appeal be quashed for reasons given by the Tax Court Judge - Whether the Tax Court erred in refusing to consider the possible application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Bill of Rights in the absence of a valid Notice of Objection although it was alleged the Notice of Objection was timely filed - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal did not properly apply the Bill of Rights due process clause in light of the Charter  transgressions which provided the evidence upon which the Minister’s assessment was based?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

DECEMBER 12, 2002 / LE 12 DÉCEMBRE 2002

28978                    Les Entreprises W.F.H. Ltée v. Attorney General of Quebec (Que.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: McLachlin C.J. and LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‑10‑001846‑003, dated October 24, 2001, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‑10‑001846‑003, daté du 24 octobre 2001, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Freedom of expression - Right to equality - Provincial legislation requiring marked predominance of the French-language on outside signs - Charter of the French Language, R.S.Q., c.C-11, ss. 58 and 205 - Section 1 of the Charter  - Stare decisis - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that it was bound by an obiter dictum of this Court and by stare decisis to conclude that an impugned provision was justifiable under s. 1  of the Charter  ? - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that stare decisis dispensed the Respondent from any burden to justify the infringement of Charter  rights? - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Applicant was required to prove that the circumstances underlying an earlier decision of this Court had changed significantly in order for the government to be required to justify the infringement of a Charter  right? - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that the requirement of the marked predominance of French on outside signs constitutes a prima facie infringement of s.15  of the Charter ?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

October 20, 1999

Court of Quebec (Criminal division)

(Côté J.)

Applicant acquitted of having contravened s. 58 of the Charter of the French Language: ss. 58 and 205 of the Charter of the French Language declared invalid

29198                    Sa Majesté la Reine c. Jacques Fontaine (Qué.) (Criminelle) (Autorisation)

Coram: Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Bastarache et Deschamps

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Québec), numéro 200‑10‑001004‑006, daté du 4 mars 2002, est accordée.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Quebec), Number 200‑10‑001004‑006, dated March 4, 2002, is granted.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Défense - Automatisme pour troubles mentaux - Premier juge refusant de soumettre au jury la défense prévue à l’art. 16  du Code criminel  - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en atténuant la charge de présentation de la défense d’automatisme ?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29234                    Réjean Demers c. Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.) (Criminelle) (Autorisation)

Coram: Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Bastarache et Deschamps

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour supérieure du Québec, numéro 200‑36‑000893‑016, daté du 2 avril 2002, est accordée.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court of Quebec, Number 200‑36‑000893‑016, dated April 2, 2002, is granted.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit criminel - Accusé inapte à subir un procès - Constitutionnalité de l’article 672.54  du Code criminel  en ce qui a trait aux accusés inaptes à subir leurs procès - L’article 672.54  du Code criminel  est-il inconstitutionnel au motif qu’il viole les droits et libertés garantis par les articles 7 et/ou 15(1) de la Charte ? - Le demandeur a-t-il droit à un arrêt des procédures à titre de réparation en vertu du paragraphe 24(1)  de la Charte , en raison d’une atteinte portée à ses droits garantis par les articles 7 et/ou 11b) de la Charte ?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 2 avril 2002

Cour supérieure du Québec

(Grenier, j.c.s.)

Requête du demandeur pour arrêt des procédures et pour déclaration de l’inconstitutionnalité de l’article 672.54 du Code

criminel, rejetée; intimée ordonnée de se conformer à l’article 672.33  du Code criminel 

Le 3 juin 2002

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée

29162                    R.T.A. v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache and Deschamps JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C33913, dated February 12, 2002, is dismissed.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C33913, daté du 12 février 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Section 7 - Criminal law - Evidence - Exception to the hearsay rule - Personal diaries or journals written by Applicant seized pursuant to valid search warrant prior to arrest - Whether admitting the personal journals as part of the Crown’ case-in-chief would violate the right to silence, the principle against self-incrimination, and the right to a fair trial contrary to ss. 7 , 11( c )  and 11 ( d )  of the Charter  - Whether allowing a new trial would be an abuse of process in light of the Crown’s decision not to call evidence following a ruling to exclude the Applicant’s journals.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28824                    Christian Savard c. Banque nationale du Canada (Qué.) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram: Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Bastarache et Deschamps

 La requête en sursis d'exécution et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Québec), numéro 200‑09‑001931‑986, daté du 15 août 2001, sont rejetées avec dépens.

 The application for a stay of execution and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Quebec), Number 200‑09‑001931‑986, dated August 15, 2001, are dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Faillite - Banques et opérations bancaires - Marges de crédit - Portée du paragraphe 65.1(4) (b) de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité  à l’égard d’ouvertures de crédit déjà accordées par un établissement financier - L’article 65.1  de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité  empêche-t-il un établissement financier de retirer le crédit accordé à un client dès qu’il apprend que le client a déposé un avis d’intention de soumettre une proposition concordataire?  Si oui, un client peut-il réclamer des dommages-intérêts de l’établissement financier ayant agit ainsi? - Quel est l’effet juridique du dépôt d’un avis d’intention à l’égard des établissements financiers?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29320                    The Law Society of Upper Canada v. CCH Canadian Limited AND BETWEEN The Law Society of Upper Canada v. Thomson Canada Limited c.o.b. as Carswell Thomson Professional Publishing AND BETWEEN The Law Society of Upper Canada v. Canada Law Book Inc. (FC) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache and Deschamps JJ.

 The application for an extension of time and the applications for leave to appeal and for leave to cross‑appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Numbers A‑806‑99, A‑807‑99 and A‑808‑99, dated May 14, 2002, are granted with costs in the cause.

 La demande de prorogation de délai et les demandes d'autorisation d'appel et d'appel incident de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéros A‑806‑99, A‑807‑99 et A‑808‑99, daté du 14 mai 2002, sont accordées avec dépens à suivre.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes - Interpretation - Property law - Copyright - Applicant’s library service providing limited copies of reported judicial decisions, headnotes, case summaries, consolidated topical indexes and other works published by Respondents - Whether copyright subsists in copied materials and whether there was infringement - Appropriate test of originality to establish copyright - Application of fair dealing exemption - Stand-alone photocopiers - Facsimile transmission - Selling and distributing copies - Library exemptions- Injunctions - Copyright Act , R.S.C. 1985, c.C- 42 .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29185                     Sa Majesté la Reine c. Claude Daoust, Éric Bois (Qué.) (Criminelle) (Autorisation)

Coram: Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Bastarache et Deschamps

 La demande de prorogation de délai et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Québec), numéros 200‑10‑001073‑001 et 200‑10‑001074‑009, daté du 18 mars 2002, sont accordées.

 The application for an extension of time and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Quebec), Numbers 200‑10‑001073‑001 and 200‑10‑001074‑009, dated March 18, 2002, are granted.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Interprétation - Infractions - Éléments de l’infraction - Produits de la criminalité - Recyclage des produits de la criminalité - Article 462.31  du Code criminel  - Intention de convertir un bien - Intention d’agir d’une manière occulte - Est-ce que le fait d’acheter un bien dans l’intention de le convertir en croyant qu’il a été obtenu par la perpétration d’une infraction de criminalité organisée est un comportement prohibé par l’article 462.31  du Code criminel ?  Est-ce que «l’intention de convertir un bien» au sens du paragraphe 462.31(1) exige la preuve d’une intention d’agir d’une manière occulte?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29155                    2747‑7173 Québec Inc., aussi connue sous le nom Climan Transportation Services Reg'd c. Ministre du Revenu national, Richard Lamontagne (CF) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram: Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Bastarache et Deschamps

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‑485‑00, daté du 11 février 2002, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de l'intimé Ministre du Revenu national.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‑485‑00, dated February 11, 2002, is dismissed with costs to the Respondent Minister of National Revenue.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Contrôle judiciaire - Interprétation - Textes réglementaires - Assurance-emploi - Calcul de la rémunération assurable - Allocation pour frais de repas - Est-ce qu’une allocation pour frais de repas payée par un employeur à son employé constitue une rémunération assurable - Règlement sur la rémunération assurable et la perception des cotisations, DORS/97-33

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29262                     Peter Roderick MacLellan v. Malgorzata Marie Kopaniak also known as Marguerite Kopaniak (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache and Deschamps JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C34784, dated April 29, 2002, is dismissed.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C34784, daté du 29 avril 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Family law - Custody - Contempt of court - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, applied to the Applicant’s appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Applicant’s appeal was out of time.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29196                    Domgroup Ltd. v. Crystalline Investments Limited and Burnac Leaseholds Limited (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C36097, dated March 6, 2002, is granted with costs in any event of the cause.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C36097, daté du 6 mars 2002, est accordée avec dépens quelle que soit l'issue de l'appel.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Bankruptcy - Commercial lease - Actions by landlord Respondents claiming arrears of rent and other damages alleged to be owing under two shopping centre leases - Motion for summary judgment by Applicant tenant - Effect of bankruptcy or insolvency of tenant on other parties who owe obligations under the lease - Whether legislative scheme frustrated - Whether actions inconsistent with continued existence of lease will result in surrender of lease - Scope and application of contract principles of privity and repudiation in a situation where lease has been assigned and the assignee becomes insolvent - Interplay between the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act  and commercial leasing principles such as those set out in Highway Properties Ltd. v. Kelly, Douglas & Co. Ltd. and Goldhar v. Universal Sections and Mouldings Ltd. - Whether there are issues of public importance raised - Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, s. 65.2 , as amended to 1994.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28910                    Association des juges administratifs du Tribunal administratif du Québec c. Barreau de Montréal, Procureur général du Québec, Barreau du Québec (Qué.) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram: Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour et LeBel

 Après avoir examiné la demande de réexamen de la demande d'autorisation d'appel visant l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‑09‑009146‑002, daté du 5 septembre 2001, nous sommes tous d'avis de rejeter cette demande avec dépens.  Il convient de signaler que la juge Deschamps n'a pas participé au présent jugement.

 Having reviewed the application for reconsideration of the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‑09‑009146‑002, dated September 5, 2001, we are all of the view that the application should be dismissed with costs.  It should be noted that Justice Deschamps took no part in this judgment.

2.12.2002

Before / Devant:   IACOBUCCI J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Procureur général du Québec

IN/DANS:              In the matter of Earth Future Lottery: Attorney General for the Province of Prince Edward Island, et al.

v. (29213)

Attorney General of Canada, et al. (P.E.I.)

Requête en autorisation d'intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

À LA SUITE DE DEMANDE du Procureur général du Québec visant à obtenir l’autorisation d’intervenir dans l’appel susmentionné;

ET APRÈS AVOIR LU la documentation déposée;

L’ORDONNANCE SUIVANTE EST RENDUE:

La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par le Procureur général du Québec est accueillie; le requérant aura le droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire de 20 pages tout au plus.

La demande visant à présenter une plaidoirie sera examinée après la réception et l’examen de l’argumentation écrite des parties et des intervenants.

L’intervenant n’aura pas le droit de produire d’autres éléments de preuve ni d’ajouter quoi que ce soit au dossier des parties.

Conformément au par. 59(1)(a) des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada, l’intervenant paiera aux appelants et aux intimés tous débours supplémentaires résultant de leur intervention.

UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General of Québec 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 Québec  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 59(1)(a) the intervener shall pay to the appellants and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellants and respondents by the intervention. 

3.12.2002

Before / Devant:   DESCHAMPS J.

Order by the Court

Olympia Interiors Ltd., et al.

v. (29023)

Her Majesty the Queen, et al. (F.C.)

Ordonnance de la Cour

WHEREAS the Registrar has applied for an order under Rule 67 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada;

AND WHEREAS notice under Rule 67 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada has been served on the parties;

AND WHEREAS the applicant has made submissions in response to the notice under Rule 67;

AND HAVING read the notice of the Registrar thereto;

BY VIRTUE of the authority given to the Court pursuant to Rule 67 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the applicant is barred from filing further proceedings in this matter.

3.12.2002

Before / Devant:   DESCHAMPS J.

Order by the Court

Olympia Interiors Ltd., et al.

v. (29024)

Her Majesty the Queen, et al. (F.C.)

Ordonnance de la Cour

WHEREAS the Registrar has applied for an order under Rule 67 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada;

AND WHEREAS notice under Rule 67 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada has been served on the parties;

AND WHEREAS the applicant has made submissions in response to the notice under Rule 67;

AND HAVING read the notice of the Registrar thereto;

BY VIRTUE of the authority given to the Court pursuant to Rule 67 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the applicant is barred from filing further proceedings in this matter.

4.12.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Miscellaneous motion

R.B.

c. (29468)

L.D. (Qué.)

Autre requête

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    La requête pour obtenir une ordonnance afin d’accepter dans sa forme actuelle la demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

4.12.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the applicant's reply

Daniel Roy

c. (29358)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la réplique du demandeur

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Délai prorogé au 18 novembre 2002.

4.12.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Miscellaneous motion

Ernest Lionel Joseph Blais

v. (28645)

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

Autre requête

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    The motion for an order allowing the respondent to file 12 copies of the record is granted.

4.12.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondent's response to the applicant’s application to adduce new evidence

The Minister of Justice for Canada

v. (29398)

Rodolfo Pacificador (Crim.)(Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la réponse de l'intimé à la demande du requérant visant à produire de nouveaux éléments de preuve

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to December 16, 2002.

4.12.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Léo-Réné Maranda

c. (28964)

Caporal Normand Leblanc, ès qualités de dénonciateur (Crim.) (Qué.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Délai prorogé au 10 janvier 2003.

9.12.2002

Before / Devant:   DESCHAMPS J.

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the application for leave to December 31, 2002

Dale Collis

v. (29305)

Saskatchewan Government Insurance (Sask.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la demande d'autorisation jusqu’au 31 décembre 2002

DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS / REJÉTÉE SANS DÉPENS

10.12.2002

Before / Devant:   THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Motion to expedite the hearing of the appeal

Attorney General of Canada

v. (29207)

Joseph Patrick Authorson, deceased, by his Litigation Administrator, Peter Mountney and by his Litigation Guardian, Lenore Majoros (Ont.)

Requête pour accélerer l'audition de l'appel

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by counsel on behalf of the respondent for an order expediting the hearing of this appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1.         this appeal be expedited so that it can be heard during the first two weeks of the Spring 2003 session;

2.         the appellant’s record, factum and book of authorities shall be served and filed no later than January 31, 2003;

3.         the respondent’s record, factum and book of authorities shall be served and filed no later than 4 weeks after the service of the appellant’s factum;

4.         motions for leave to intervene shall be served and filed no later than 2 weeks after the service of the appellant’s factum and any interveners’ factums shall be served and filed no later than 3 weeks after the service of the respondent’s factum.

6.12.2002

ScotiaMcLeod, now Scotia Capital Inc.

v. (28871)

The Bank of Nova Scotia, et al. (Que.)

10.12.2002

Sa Majesté la Reine

c. (29201)

Étienne Bédard (Qué.)

2.12.2002

BY/PAR:

Attorney General of Ontario

IN/DANS:              Canadian Cable Television Association

  v. (28826)

Barrie Public Utilities, et al.  (F.C.)

5-6.12.2002

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia

v. (28616)

M.B. (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

John J. L. Hunter, Q.C., Thomas H. MacLachlan, Q.C. and Karen Horsman for the appellant / respondent on cross-appeal.

Gail M. Dickson, Q.C.. Karen E. Jamieson and Cristen L. Gleeson for the respondent / appellant on cross-appeal.

Christopher E. Hinkson and Guy P. Brown for the intervener Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Tort law - Fiduciary duty - Negligence - Whether the Crown is vicariously liable for the misconduct by foster parents who are not employees of the Government - Vicarious liability - Non-delegable duty - Whether the statutory duties of the Superintendent under the Protection of Children Act, RSBC 1960, c. 303, be characterized as non-delegable - Whether the imposition of strict liability can be justified on the basis of the

Nature de la cause:

Droit de la responsabilité civile délictuelle - Obligation de fiduciaire - Négligence - La Couronne est‑elle responsable de l’inconduite de parents d’accueil qui ne sont pas des employés du gouvernement? - Responsabilité du fait d’autrui - Obligation intransmissible - Les obligations qu’impose la Protection of Children Act, R.S.B.C. 1960, ch. 303, au directeur général peuvent‑elles être qualifiées

Superintendent’s role as legal guardian of children in care - Deductibility of social assistance benefits received by tort victim - Interest - Calculation of interest on damages for past loss of earning capacity.

d’obligations intransmissibles? - L’imposition d’une responsabilité stricte peut‑elle être justifiée en raison du rôle du directeur général en tant que tuteur légal d’enfants pris en charge? - Déductibilité des prestations d’aide sociale reçues par la victime du délit - Intérêts - Calcul des intérêts sur les dommages relatifs à la perte passée de capacité de gagner un revenu.

5-6.12.2002

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

K.L.B. et al.

v. (28612)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Gail M. Dickson, Q.C., Megan R. Ellis, Karen E. Jamieson and Cristen L. Gleeson for the appellants.

Douglas Eastwood, John J. L. Hunter, Q.C. and Kim Knapp for the respondent.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Tort law - Negligence - Breach of fiduciary duty - Vicarious liability - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Respondent did not breach its fiduciary duty to the Appellants -  Limitations - Discoverability - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Appellants’ claims were time-barred, pursuant to the provisions of the Limitation Act, R.S.B.C., 1996, c. 266 - Damages - What are the appropriate criteria for assessing damages for child abuse committed in a guardianship context?

Nature de la cause:

Responsabilité civile délictuelle - Négligence - Manquement à une obligation fiduciaire - Responsabilité du fait d’autrui - La Cour d’appel a‑t-elle commis une erreur en statuant que l’intimée n’avait pas manqué à son obligation fiduciaire envers les appelants? - Prescription - Possibilité de découvrir la preuve ‑ La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en statuant que les actions des appelants étaient prescrites en vertu des dispositions de la Limitation Act, R.S.B.C., 1996, ch. 266? - Dommages‑intérêts ‑ Quels sont les critères applicables pour fixer le montant des dommages-intérêts dans le cas d’abus sexuels contre des enfants commis dans un contexte de tutelle?

5-6.12.2002

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

E.D.G. 

v. (28613)

The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 44 (North Vancouver) et al. (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Megan R. Ellis and Shannon Aldinger for the appellant / respondent on cross-appeal.

Ravi Hira, Q.C. and Harmon C. Hayden for the respondent / appellant on cross-appeal.

David Sgayias, Q.C. and Kay Young for the intervener Attorney General of Canada.

David Paterson and Diane Soroka for the interveners Patrick Dennis Stewart et al.

Susan M. Vella and Elizabeth K. P. Grace for the intervener The Nishnawbe Aski Nation.

Gail M. Dickson, Q.C., Megan R. Ellis, Karen E. Jamieson and Cristen L. Gleeson for the appellants.

Douglas Eastwood, John J. L. Hunter, Q.C. and Kim Knapp for the respondent.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Tort law - Fiduciary duty - Vicarious liability - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Respondent School Board did not breach its fiduciary duty to the Appellant - Non-delegable duty - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Respondent School Board did not breach its non-delegable duty to the Appellant - Whether the trial judge erred in failing to properly apportion damages between the Defendant, Hammer and the subsequent sexual offenders.

Nature de la cause:

Responsabilité civile délictuelle - Obligation fiduciaire - Responsabilité du fait d’autrui - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en affirmant que le conseil scolaire intimé n’avait pas manqué à son obligation fiduciaire envers l’appelante? - Obligation intransmissible - La Cour d’appel à la majorité a-t-elle commis une erreur en statuant que le conseil scolaire intimé n’avait pas contrevenu à son obligation intransmissible envers l’appelante? - Le juge du procès a‑t-il commis une erreur en omettant de répartir comme il se doit les dommages‑intérêts entre le défendeur, Hammer et les délinquants sexuels subséquents?

9.12.2002

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

Ruth A. Laseur

v. (28370)

Workers' Compensation Board of Nova Scotia et al. (N.S.) (Civil) (By Leave)

 - and -

Donald Martin

v. (28372)

Workers' Compensation Board of Nova Scotia et al. (N.S.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Kenneth H. LeBlanc, Anne S. Clark, Anne Derrick and Patricia J. Wilson for the appellants.

Brian A. Crane, Q.C., David P. S. Farrar and Janet Curry for the respondent Workers' Compensation Board of Nova Scotia.

Catherine J. Lunn for the respondent Attorney General of Nova Scotia.

John P. Merrick, Q.C. and Louanne Labelle for the intervener Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal.

Ena Chadha and William Holder for the intervener Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups.

Steven Barrett and Ethan Poskanzer for the intervener Canadian Labour Congress.

Robert Earl Charney for the intervener Attorney General for Ontario.

Kathryn L. Kickbush for the intervener Attorney General of British Columbia.

Written submissions only by Curtis Craig for the intervener Workers Compensation Board of Alberta.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Administrative Tribunals - Authority to apply the Charter  - Equality Rights - Workers’ Compensation - Whether the Worker’s Compensation Appeals Tribunal of Nova Scotia has the authority to refuse on Charter  grounds to apply benefits provisions of its enabling statute - Whether the chronic pain provisions of the Worker’s Compensation Act, S.N.S. 1994-95, c.10, and the Functional Restoration (Multi-Faceted Pain Services) Program Regulations, N.S. Reg.57/96 infringe the equality rights guaranteed under section 15(1)  of the Charter  - If they do, whether such infringement can be justified pursuant to s. 1  of the Charter .

Nature de la cause:

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Tribunaux administratifs - Pouvoir d’appliquer la Charte  - Droits à l’égalité - Accidents du travail - Le Tribunal d’appel des accidents du travail de la Nouvelle-Écosse a-t-il le pouvoir de refuser, pour des motifs fondés sur la Charte , d’appliquer les dispositions de sa loi habilitante relatives aux prestations? - Les dispositions relatives aux douleurs chroniques qui figurent dans la Worker’s Compensation Act, S.N.S. 1994-95, ch. 10, et dans le Functional Restoration (Multi-Faceted Pain Services) Program Regulations, Règlement 57/96 de la N.-É., empiètent-elles sur les droits à l’égalité garantis par le paragraphe 15(1)  de la Charte ? - Dans l’affirmative, cet empiétement peut-il être validé par l’article premier de la Charte ?

10.12.2002

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

The Corporation of the City of Ottawa

v. (28469)

Ken Goudie, et al. (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Eugene Meehan, Q.C. and Stuart Huxley for the appellant.

Emilio S. Binavince and Helen Lanctôt for the respondents.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Labour law - Labour relations - Collective agreement -  Should unionized employees be able to circumvent a binding arbitration clause in a collective agreement by alleging  pre-employment contract that puts them in the courts - Whether municipal restructuring and amalgamation effects on employees can be arbitrated or litigated - When should courts of appeal interfere with findings of fact by the judge at first instance?

Nature de la cause:

Droit du travail - Relations de travail - Convention collective - Des employés syndiqués devraient-ils pouvoir contourner une clause d’arbitrage obligatoire figurant dans une convention collective en alléguant un contrat de pré-emploi qui les fait relever des tribunaux? - Les effets de la restructuration et de la fusion des municipalités sur les employés peuvent-ils faire l’objet d’un arbitrage ou d’un litige? - Quand les cours d’appel devraient-elles intervenir dans les conclusions de fait des juges de première instance?

10.12.2002

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

The Crown in Right of Alberta et al.

v. (28834)

Audrey Allen et al. (Alta.) (Civil) (By Leave)

David Ross and Hugh J. D. MacPhail, Q.C. for the appellants.

G. Brent Gawne for the respondents.

ALLOWED, REASONS TO FOLLOW / ACCUEILLI, MOTIFS À SUIVRE

Nature of the case:

Procedural law - Labour law - Courts - Jurisdiction - What is the appropriate test for striking out a claim under Rule 129 of the Alberta Rules of Court - Collective Agreement and subsequent Letter of Intent - Letter of Intent by union and employer settling dispute - Letter of Intent providing that parties “address” differences and providing that it is not part of collective agreement - Whether  settlement of a grievance claim generates a right to sue - Whether Letter of Intent providing for settlement mechanism.

Nature de la cause:

Droit procédural - Droit du travail - Tribunaux - Compétence - Quel est le critère approprié pour obtenir, suivant l’art. 129 des Alberta Rules of Court, la radiation d’une demande? - Convention collective et lettre d’intention subséquente - Lettre d’intention signée par le syndicat et l’employeur afin de prévoir le règlement des différends  - Lettre d’intention spécifiant qu’elle ne fait pas partie de la convention collective et prévoyant que les différends seraient  « traités » par les parties - Le règlement d’un grief génère-t-il un droit d’action? ‑ La lettre d’intention prévoit‑elle une méthode de règlement?

11.12.2002

CORAM:               Iacobucci, Major, Binnie, Arbour and Deschamps JJ.

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (29001)

Alexander Wayne Harvey (Ont.) (Criminal) (As of Right)

Christopher Webb for the appellant.

John Norris for the respondent.

DISMISSED / REJETÉ

The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Numbers C33286 and C33296, dated December 3, 2001 was heard this day and the following judgment was rendered:

Iacobucci J. (orally):

Mr. Norris, it will not be necessary to hear from you.  The Court is ready to pronounce judgment.

L’appel interjeté contre l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéros C33286 et C33296, en date du 3 décembre 2001, a été entendu aujourd’hui et le jugement suivant a été rendu:

Le juge Iacobucci (oralement) :

[Traduction] Il ne sera pas nécessaire de vous entendre M^e Norris.  La Cour est prête à rendre jugement.

This is an appeal as of right.  We are all of the view that, for substantially the reasons of Doherty J.A. in the Ontario Court of Appeal, the trial judge did not err in finding the similar fact evidence inadmissible.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Le présent appel est interjeté de plein droit.  Essentiellement pour les mêmes raisons que le juge Doherty de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, nous sommes tous d’avis que le juge du procès n’a commis aucune erreur en déclarant irrecevable la preuve de faits similaires.  L’appel est donc rejeté.

Nature of the case:

Criminal law - Evidence - Admissibility of similar fact evidence - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in endorsing a stricter test for admissibility for similar fact evidence than that set out in R. v. Arp - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in considering the nature of the offence charged in assessing the potential prejudicial effect of the proposed similar fact evidence - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in not concluding that the nature of the proposed similar fact evidence mandated its reception.

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel - Preuve - Admissibilité de la preuve de faits similaires - La majorité de la Cour d’appel a‑t‑elle commis une erreur en adoptant un critère d’admissibilité de la preuve de faits similaires plus exigeant que celui établi dans l’arrêt R. c. Arp? - La majorité de la Cour d’appel  a‑t‑elle commis une erreur en tenant compte de la nature de l’infraction reprochée dans l’évaluation de l’effet préjudiciable possible de la preuve de faits similaires proposée? - La majorité de la cour d’appel a‑t‑elle commis une erreur en ne concluant pas que la nature de la preuve de faits similaires proposée exigeait son admission en preuve?

12.12.2002

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

v. (28745)

Unifund Assurance Company of Canada (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Avon Mersey, Alan L. W. D’Silva, Michael Sobkin and Sophie Vlahakis for the appellant.

Leah Price and Gerald George for the respondent.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Commercial law - Insurance - Conflict of laws - Whether the Ontario regulatory scheme applies to out-of-province insurers in respect of an out-of-province accident -- Whether an arbitrator appointed under that scheme therefore has jurisdiction to proceed - Whether Ontario is forum non conveniens - Whether the Ontario legislative scheme ousts the inherent jurisdiction of the provincial superior courts to grant a stay of arbitration proceedings - Whether section 275 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, as amended, is constitutionally inapplicable to the Appellant because its application in the circumstances of this case would not accord with territorial limits on provincial jurisdiction.

Nature de la cause:

Droit commercial - Assurance - Conflit de lois - Le système de réglementation ontarien s’applique‑t‑il aux assureurs de l’extérieur de l’Ontario à l’égard d’un accident survenu hors de la province? -- Un arbitre désigné en vertu de ce système de réglementation a‑t‑il par conséquent compétence? -- L’Ontario est‑elle un forum non conveniens? - Le système législatif ontarien prive‑t‑il les cours supérieures provinciales de leur compétence inhérente d’accorder un sursis à une instance en arbitrage - L’art. 275 de la Loi sur les assurances, L.R.O. 1990, ch. I.8, et modifications, est‑il constitutionnellement inapplicable à l’appelante étant donné que son application dans les circonstances ne

correspondrait pas avec les limites territoriales de compétence provinciale?

12.12.2002

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

Eric Squires

v. (29060)

Her Majesty the Queen (Nfld.) (Criminal) (As of Right / By Leave)

Derek Hogan for the appellant.

Kathleen Healey for the respondent.

ALLOWED / ACCUEILLI

The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador, Number 98/70, dated January 24, 2002, was heard this day and the following judgment was rendered:

Iacobucci J. (orally):

Mr. Hogan, it will not be necessary to hear from you as the Court is ready to pronounce judgment.

This is an appeal as of right.  The major issue on appeal is the adequacy of the trial judge’s charge to the jury on reasonable doubt.  On this issue, we agree, substantially for the reasons of O’Neill J.A., dissenting in the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal, that the trial judge, who had the benefit of the Court’s reasons in R. v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320, erred in his charge to the jury.  We agree with O’Neill J.A. that the charge, when read as a whole, gives rise to a reasonable likelihood that the jury misapprehended the correct standard of proof.

Since the matter is going back for a  new trial, it is not necessary to deal with R. v. W. (D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 747 and post offence conduct issues. Accordingly, we would allow the appeal, set aside  the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and order a new trial.

L’appel interjeté contre l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de Terre‑Neuve-et-Labrador, numéro 98/70, en date du 24 janvier 2002, a été entendu aujourd’hui et le jugement suivant a été rendu:

Le juge Iacobucci (oralement) :

[Traduction] Il ne sera pas nécessaire de vous entendre M^e Hogan.  La Cour est prête à rendre jugement.

Le présent appel est interjeté de plein droit.  La principale question en litige est celle du caractère adéquat de l’exposé sur le doute raisonnable que le juge du procès a fait au jury.  À ce propos, nous convenons, essentiellement pour les mêmes raisons que le juge O’Neil, dissident en Cour d’appel de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador, que le juge du procès, qui disposait des motifs de notre Cour dans l’affaire R. c. Lifchus, [1997] 3 R.C.S. 320, a commis une erreur dans son exposé au jury.  Nous souscrivons à l’opinion du juge O’Neil selon laquelle, considéré dans son ensemble, l’exposé donne lieu à une probabilité raisonnable que le jury ait mal compris la norme de preuve applicable.

Étant donné que l’affaire fera l’objet d’un nouveau procès, il n’est pas nécessaire d’examiner l’arrêt R. c. W. (D.), [1991] 1 R.C.S. 747, et les questions de comportement postérieur à l’infraction. En conséquence, nous sommes d’avis d’accueillir l’appel, d’annuler l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel et d’ordonner un nouveau procès.

Nature of the case:

Criminal law - First degree murder - Charge to the jury - Post-offence conduct - Whether  the Court of Appeal erred in ruling that no instruction was necessary to the effect that the Appellant’s post-offence conduct was equally attributable to the offences of first degree and second degree murder - Whether the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury with respect to the definition and explanation of “presumption of innocence” and “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” and, as well, with respect to the instructions to the jury as to the credibility of the evidence of the Appellant.

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel - Meurtre au premier degré - Exposé au jury - Comportement postérieur à l’infraction - La Cour d’appel a‑t‑elle commis une erreur en décidant qu’il n’était pas nécessaire de préciser dans l’exposé au jury que le comportement de l’appelant après l’infraction était autant attribuable à une infraction de meurtre au premier degré qu’à une infraction de meurtre au deuxième degré? - Le juge du procès a‑t‑il commis une erreur dans son exposé au jury relativement à la définition et à l’explication de la « présomption d’innocence » et de la « preuve hors de tout doute raisonnable »; et a‑t‑il commis une erreur dans son exposé au jury relativement à la crédibilité du témoignage de l’appelant?

13.12.2002

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

David Malmo‑Levine

v. (28026)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Criminal) (As of Right / By Leave)

David Malmo‑Levine appearing in person.

S. David Frankel Q. C., Kevin Wilson and W. Paul Riley for the respondent.

Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C. and Matthew Pollard for the intervener British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

Andrew K. Lokan and Andrew Lewis for the intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Milan Rupic for the intervener Attorney General for Ontario.

ADJOURNED TO THE SPRING SESSION / AJOURNÉ À LA SESSION DU PRINTEMPS

Nature of the case:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Section 7 - Narcotic Control Act, s. 4 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in characterizing the harms that may come with cannabis use as inherent, instead of a product of mis-cultivation, mis-distribution and mis-use - Did the Court of Appeal fail to address the issue of whether the harm principle applies to growers and dealers of cannabis who arguably play an essential role in cannabis harm reduction? - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not considering the principle of equality found in s. 15

Nature de la cause:

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Article 7 - Loi sur les stupéfiants, art. 4 - La Cour d’appel a‑t‑elle commis une erreur en qualifiant d’inhérents à la substance les préjudices pouvant résulter de la consommation du cannabis, au lieu de les considérer comme étant la conséquence d’une mauvaise culture, d’une mauvaise distribution et d’un mauvais usage? - La Cour d’appel a‑t‑elle omis de se pencher sur la question de savoir si le principe du préjudice s’applique aux producteurs et aux distributeurs de cannabis qui, peut‑on

of the Charter  as it applies to “substance orientation” and in not applying equality to every producer and distributor of stimulants and relaxants, whether bean, grape, herb or otherwise.

soutenir, jouent un rôle essentiel dans la réduction des préjudices associés au cannabis? - La Cour d’appel a‑t‑elle commis une erreur en ne considérant pas que le principe de l’égalité contenu à l’art. 15  de la Charte  s’applique à « l’orientation sous l’angle de la substance concernée » et en n’appliquant pas le principe de l’égalité à tous les producteurs et distributeurs de stimulants et de relaxants, que ces produits soient extraits de grains, de raisins, de plantes ou autres?

13.12.2002

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

Victor Eugene Caine

v. (28148)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

John W. Conroy, Q.C. for the appellant.

S. David Frankel Q. C., Kevin Wilson and W. Paul Riley for the respondent.

Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C. and Matthew Pollard for the intervener British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

Andrew K. Lokan and Andrew Lewis for the intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Milan Rupic for the intervener Attorney General for Ontario.

ADJOURNED TO THE SPRING SESSION / AJOURNÉ À LA SESSION DU PRINTEMPS

Nature of the case:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Section 7 - Narcotic Control Act, s. 3(1) - Whether prohibiting possession of Cannabis (marihuana) for personal use under s. 3(1) of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N‑1, by reason of the inclusion of this substance in s. 3 of the Schedule to the Act (now s. 1, Schedule II, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , S.C. 1996, c. 19 ), infringes s. 7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - If the answer is in the affirmative, is the infringement justified under s. 1  of the Charter ? - Whether the prohibition on the possession of Cannabis (marihuana) for personal use under s. 3(1) of the Narcotic Control Act, by reason of the inclusion of this substance in s. 3 of the Schedule to the Act (now s. 1, Schedule II, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , S.C. 1996, c. 19 ), is within the legislative competence of the Parliament of Canada as being a law enacted for the

Nature de la cause:

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Article 7 - Loi sur les stupéfiants, par. 3(1) - Est-ce que l’interdiction d’avoir en sa possession du Cannabis (marihuana) aux fins de consommation personnelle -- interdiction prévue au par. 3(1) de la Loi sur les stupéfiants, L.R.C. 1985, ch. N‑1, du fait de la mention de cette substance à l’art. 3 de l’annexe de cette loi (maintenant l’art. 1 de l’annexe II de la Loi réglementant certaines drogues et autres substances , L.C. 1996, ch. 19 ) --, porte atteinte à l’art. 7  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ? - Si la réponse est affirmative, l’atteinte est-elle justifiée au regard de l’article premier de la Charte ? - Est-ce que l’interdiction d’avoir du Cannabis (marihuana) aux fins de consommation personnelle -- interdiction prévue au par. 3(1) de la Loi sur les stupéfiants, du fait de la mention de cette substance à l’art. 3 de l’annexe de cette loi (maintenant l’art. 1 de l’annexe II de la Loi

peace, order and good government of Canada pursuant to s. 91  of the Constitution Act, 1867 ; as being enacted pursuant to the criminal law power in s. 91(27) thereof; or otherwise.

réglementant certaines drogues et autres substances –, relève de la compétence législative du Parlement du Canada en tant que règle de droit édictée soit en vertu de l’art. 91  de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867  pour assurer la paix, l’ordre et le bon gouvernement du Canada, soit en vertu du pouvoir de légiférer sur le droit criminel prévu au par. 91(27)  de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 , soit en vertu d’un autre pouvoir?

13.12.2002

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

Christopher James Clay

v. (28189)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave) (Motion To Adduce New Evidence)

Alan Young and Paul Burstein for the appellant.

S. David Frankel Q. C., Kevin Wilson and W. Paul Riley for the respondent.