Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

November 29, 2002 1710 - 1738                                                         le 29 novembre 2002

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Edwin Pearson

Edwin Pearson

v. (29463)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

Jacques Savary

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 7.11.2002

Barbara Parravano, et al.

Martin Teplitsky, Q.C.

Teplitsky, Colson

v. (29464)

KPMG Incorporated, et al. (Ont.)

Benjamin Zarnett

Goodmans

FILING DATE 14.11.2002

J.L. Marc Boivin

J.L. Marc Boivin

c. (29461)

Ville de Montréal (Qué.)

Louis Bouchart d’Orval

Brunet, Lamarre

DATE DE PRODUCTION 15.11.2002

David Clouthier, et al.

David Harris

v. (29465)

Zesta Engineering Ltd., et al.  (Ont.)

Timothy Pinos

Cassels, Brock & Blackwell

FILING DATE 15.11.2002

Richard Raîche

Richard Raîche

c. (29467)

Georges Hudak, et autres (Qué.)

Jean-François S. Hébert

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin

DATE DE PRODUCTION 15.11.2002

Douglas Kay Campbell

Captain Douglas Kay Campbell

v. (29462)

Metro Toronto Condominium Corporation #694 (Ont.)

Patricia M. Conway

Miller Thomson

FILING DATE 6.11.2002

Kim Nathan Louie, et al.

Kim Nathan Louie

v. (29458)

Melvin Douglas Lastman (Ont.)

Sheila R. Block

Torys

FILING DATE 14.11.2002

Maurice Jean Sala

Richard W. Schwartz

Tapper Cuddy

v. (29457)

The Government of Manitoba (Man.)

W. Glenn McFetridge

A.G. of Manitoba

FILING DATE 15.11.2002

R.B.

Ronald Bélec

Bélec & Associés

c. (29468)

L.D. (Qué.)

Jacqueline Chagnon

Aide juridique Québec

DATE DE PRODUCTION 15.11.2002

Deloitte & Touche Inc. (formerly Arthur Andersen Inc.)

Frank R. Dearlove

Bennett Jones

v. (29459)

Artisan Corporation (Sask.)

Paul J. Harasen

Kanuka Thuringer

FILING DATE 18.11.2002

Steve Brian Ewanchuk

Peter J. Royal, Q.C.

Royal, McCrum, Duckett & Glancy

v. (29460)

Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

James A. Bowron

A.G. of Alberta

FILING DATE 18.11.2002

New York Life Insurance Company, et al.

Robert E. Charbonneau

Borden Ladner Gervais

v. (29469)

Charles Kaye Vaughan (Que.)

Yves Lauzon

Lauzon Bélanger

FILING DATE 18.11.2002

Bruce Brett

Gary A. Richard

Burchell MacDougall

v. (29466)

Superior Propane Inc., a body corporate under the laws of Nova Scotia (N.S.)

Michael S. Ryan, Q.C.

Cox Hanson O’Reilly Matheson

FILING DATE 19.11.2002

Vasundara Raghavan, et al.

Vasundara Raghavan

v. (29470)

Attorney General of Canada (F.C.)

Lesley King

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 20.11.2002

NOVEMBER 18, 2002 / LE 18 NOVEMBRE 2002

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Bastarache et Deschamps

Michael Roger Pinet

v. (29254)

The Administrator of St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital,

and the Attorney General for Ontario (Crim.) (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law - Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Detention - Detention in psychiatric facility - Accused found not guilty by reason of insanity - Requirement for least onerous and least restrictive disposition - Conditions of detention - Least restrictive environment -Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the requirement in section 672.54  of the Criminal Code  that the Review Board apply the least onerous and restrictive disposition does not apply to the conditions of the accused’s detention - Whether the issue of the least restrictive environment for detention is to be determined on basis of expert medical evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision to transfer the Applicant to a maximum secure facility in the alleged absence of evidence that the protection of the public required such a transfer - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in refusing to admit as fresh evidence the Applicant’s affidavit  regarding the conditions of his confinement following his transfer -  Criminal Code, R.C.S. 1985, c.C-46

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Scott Byron Morrison

v. (29212)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non-Charter) - Defence - Jury Charge - Correctness of  jury charge on defence of not criminally responsible - Whether charge to the jury eliminated consideration of possibilities in an assessment of whether the standard of proof  for the defence was met - Whether curative proviso should have been applied on appeal to remedy entry of bad character evidence that went to a major issue in the case where the trial judge did not give limiting jury instructions.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Syndicat des travailleuses et travailleurs de Alfred Dallaire (CSN)

c. (29149)

Alfred Dallaire Inc. et Gestion Hélène Maurice Inc. (Qué.)

- et -

Monsieur le juge Claude Saint-Arnaud, Tribunal du travail et

Me Andrée St-Georges es qualité de commissaire du travail

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Norme de contrôle judiciaire - Erreur manifestement déraisonnable - Droit du travail - Accréditation - Cession partielle d’entreprise -  Est-il déraisonnable pour le Tribunal du travail d’appliquer la même interprétation de l’article 45 du Code du travail en matière de concession partielle d’entreprise que cette concession survienne en cours de procédure d’accréditation ou une fois l’accréditation décernée  - Code du travail du Québec, L.R.Q., c.C-27

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

146207 Canada Inc.

v. (29047)

Placements Rebery Limitée, Gilles Turcotte and Pierre‐Yves Racicot (Que.)

-and-

La Caisse Populaire de Boucherville

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law -Appeal - Judgments and orders - Did the appellate court judge fulfill his duties and obligations in failing to arrive at a decision on the matter before him - Can a litigant expect decisions from the number of judges before whom his case was pleaded.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Wind Power Inc. and Dove Industries Inc.

v. (29280)

Saskatchewan Power Corporation (Sask.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Contracts - Breach of contract - Implied terms - Saskatchewan Power Corporation requesting proposals for wind power demonstration project and later cancelling project - Whether “privilege clauses” in tender documents allowed Corporation to reject all proposals in circumstances of case - Whether term can be implied in contract A that Corporation would enter into contract B if an acceptable bid were presented to it - Whether Corporation breached its duty of fairness - Guidelines for “unforeseen circumstances” in tender situation - Whether tender-calling authorities possess an absolute and unfettered discretion to reject all compliant proposals.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:  Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Major et Arbour

Seymour Grey

v. (29285)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal - Criminal law - Whether s. 264 of the Criminal Code  violates ss. 1 , 2 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 15 , 26 , 27 , 28 , or 31  of the Charter .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Wendi Washburn Arnold

v. (29080)

Robert Peter Washburn (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family law - Child Support - Child Support Guidelines - Annual Income -  Income from exercise and sale of stock options -  Special or extraordinary expenses - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to consider the stated objectives of the Guidelines - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to consider the definition of “annual income” in the context of the stated objectives of the Guidelines  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by finding that the trial judge had properly characterized the stock option income as a “non-recurring” amount under s. 17 of the Guidelines - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to consider that the stock options are part of the respondent’s annual remuneration and not a “non-recurring” amount - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by finding that the decision of the trial judge to exclude the income from the sale of shares from the respondent’s “annual income” was an exercise of discretion that reveals no error in principle -Whether the Court of Appeal erred by finding that the trial judge, instead of awarding vacation expenses under s. 7 of the Guidelines, should have found that the amount of child support was inappropriately low and exercised his discretion under section 3(2)(b) by awarding an increased amount of child support - Whether the Court of Appeal failed to impute the respondent’s exercised stock options from 1999 to his annual income for child support in the three proceeding years.   

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Robert John Fenn

v. (29400)

The Registrar of Motor Vehicles and the Licence Appeal Tribunal (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial Review - Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal was acting in the exercise of its original (not appeal) jurisdiction when it dismissed the Applicant’s motion for leave to appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by using its leave to appeal requirement - Whether the Applicant’s rights were unduly restricted by the leave to appeal requirement.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

October 5, 2001

Licence Appeal Tribunal

(Aouad and Wallace, Members)                                            

Suspension of Applicant’s driver licence confirmed

February 18, 2002

Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court)

(Dunnet, Esptein and Crane JJ.)

Applicant’s application for judicial review, dismissed

July 8, 2002

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Labrosse, Simmons and Armstrong JJ.A.)

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed

September 30, 2002

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

James Donald Townsend

v. (29269)

Sault Ste. Marie Police Service, Bradley Clarida, Martin Rowe,

Jeffery Broadbent and Tracy‐Lynn Broadbent (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Whether the lower courts erred in granting summary judgment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Air Canada

v. (29202)

The Commissioner of Competition and I.M.P. Group Ltd. (CanJet Airlines) (F.C.A.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative Law - Jurisdiction - Judicial Review - Competition Tribunal - Residual discretion of a judicial member of the Competition Tribunal in review of an ex parte administrative order to refuse to confirm order if not validly issued - Discretion to review statutory basis for  issuance of order - Right to timely and meaningful review of administrative injunction - Whether subject of an ex parte order must commence two separate proceedings to challenge order - Whether Commissioner met statutory precondition for the issuance of temporary order - Standard of review applicable to review of the issuance of a temporary order by the Commissioner of Competition - Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in law by refusing to address issue on the basis that it was a factual question and moot -  Whether threshold for harm of a significant loss of revenue must be greater than the natural result of legal competition.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                  CORAM:  Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ. /

Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et LeBel

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (29082)

B.(E.) (Crim.) (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Whether Court of Appeal erred by defining the concept of relevance for the purpose of determining the scope of cross-examination of a complainant at a preliminary inquiry in a manner that permits an accused person to circumvent the protections established by s. 278.4(2)  of the Criminal Code  of Canada - Whether a preliminary inquiry justice has jurisdiction to permit the defence to inquire into areas that implicate the constitutional rights of complainants but do not relate to discovery of the Crown’s case - Whether Court of Appeal erred in the manner it delineated the scope of cross-examination at a preliminary inquiry, when it balanced the constitutional rights of the complainant and the accused, by permitting questions in cross-examination of a complainant at a preliminary inquiry which intrude into the contents of confidential records.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ranjan Coomaraswamy and Anusha Ranjan and Ahalya Ranjan

and Uthayakumari Ranjan

v. (29274)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Civil - Immigration law - Convention refugee determination - Misrepresentations by Applicants - New evidence tendered - Respondent’s application to have the Applicants’ positive Convention refugee determinations vacated granted - Whether Applicant minors denied opportunity to present new evidence at their vacation hearing - Whether the court erred in failing to allow new evidence to be introduced - Whether the court erred in finding that a designated representative did not have to be appointed at the vacation hearing or removed for the Applicant minors  - Whether the court erred in failing to find a breach under s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Whether the court erred in finding that the new evidence introduced at the vacation hearing had not been relied on in the panel’s assessment under section 69.3(5) of the Act - Whether the court erred in failing to find that the Board’s determination that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the Applicants’ refugee claim was made in a perverse and capricious manner and without regard for the material before the Board - Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, s. 69.2(2), 69.3(5) - Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Caisse Desjardins de Maizerets

c. (29382)

Richard Allan, Denis Arsenault, Marcel Auger, Guy Bélanger, Benoît Carrier, Liette H.

Choquette, Michel Demers, Marcel Denis, Daniel Adam, Jean‐Pierre Desgagnés, Yvan Dion,

Gaétan Fortin, Christian Gagnon, André Giasson, Serge Giroux, Gervais Guillot, Claude Henry,

Annette Jacques, Armande Labrecque, Bruno Labrecque, Michel Labrie, Marielle Landry,

Vital Landry, Ginette Larouche, Gaston Lelièvre, Gérard Canac‐Marquis, Denis Martin,

Laurent Martin, Gilles Ménard, Marcel Munroe, Renald C. Naud, Simon L. Ouellet, Yves

Patenaude, Jean Claude Pépin, Lise Picard, Jean‐Luc Rousseau, Denis Picard, KPMG,

Pierrette Savard, 2423‐4007 Québec Inc. et Suzanne Potvin (Qué.)

ET ENTRE :

Caisse Desjardins de Maizerets

c.

Denis Aubin, Jean‐Paul Beaubien, Pierre Beaulieu, Marcel Bernard, Jean‐Yves Bertrand,

Nöel Bilodeau, Yves Brault, Benoît Clouet, Yves Clouet, Emmanuel Côté, Marcel Denis,

Sylvain Denis, Reno Deschênes, Clermont Fortin, Bruno Labrecque, Jean‐Marc Lachance,

Charles H. Leclerc, Léonce Lepage, Hélène Létourneau, Daniel Maheu, Simone L. Ouellet,

Ghislain Pépin, Robert Pichette, Margueritte Plante, Philippe Poirier, Gérald Poulin,

Ghislain Poulin, Lucette Poulin, Marcel Pouliot, Yvon Rancourt, Fabien Roy, Rénald Roy,

Serge Ruest,  Yvon Tanguay, Daniel Trempe, Marie Valée, 2542‐4318 Québec Inc.,

Daniel Adam  et Associés, Jean‐Luc Rivard et Trust Royal

ET ENTRE :

Caisse Desjardins de Maizerets

c.

Jean‐Paul Beaubien, Germain Bédard, Gaétan Bernard, Francois Boudreau, Rolande Caron,

Benoit Carrier, Nelson Demers, Yvan Dion, Pierre Dumas, Michel Gamache, Denis Godbout,

Christine Jacques, Denise Labbé, Jean‐Marie Lebrasseur, Delorès Lévesque, André Marcoux,

Gilles Ménard, Camil Miller, Michel Morin, Guildo Nadeau, Léopold Ouellet, Louis Parent,

Gérald Poulin, Ghislain Poulin, Marcel Pouliot, René Rheault, Claire Robert, Raymond

St‐Pierre, Etienne Tétreault et Suzelle Lachance

ET ENTRE :

Caisse Desjardins de Maizerets

c.

Michel Labrie, Germain Bédard, Guy Bélanger, Henriette Bouchard, Pierre Bouchaurd,

Julien Dit Jules Bourgeois, Gérard Canac-Marquis Gérard Châtigny, Benoît Clouet,

Daniel Côté, Paul Doyon, Pierre Dubé, Robert Dubreuil, Jacques Dubuc, Ghislain Fortin,

André Giasson, Denise Gobeil, Guy Grenier, Louise‐Andrée Hardy, Marcel Harrisson,

Rosaire Lacroix, Josée Laflamme, Vital Landry, Pierre Lavertue, Estelle Léveillée, Yvon

Martel, Richard Martineau, Suzanne Miller, Yvan Michaud, Michel Morrisset, Nelson

Morrisset, William Moss, Marcel Munroe, Murielle Nadeau, Marie Nolet, Richard Paradis,

Adrien Pichette, Gilles Pichette, Robert Raymond, Michel Sanfaçon, Gérard Sauvageau,

André Tanguay, Lucie Turcotte, Monique Turcotte, 2850‐0148 Québec Inc. et

Peat Marwick Thorne Inc., Serge Morency et associés inc. et 2958-2434 Québec inc.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Responsabilité civile - Procédure - Contrats - Recours - Prescription - Responsabilité du fait d’autrui - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en révisant les conclusions et les inférences de faits du juge de première instance et en déclarant que les recours des intimés contre la demanderesse n’étaient pas prescrits? -  La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en affirmant que Boutin était dans l’exécution de ses fonctions lors de la commission des fraudes? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en déclarant la demanderesse conjointement et solidairement responsable des dommages subis par les intimés?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Jacques Laurendeau

c. (29241)

Université Laval (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Procédure civile - Requête en rétractation de jugement - Y a-t-il, en l’espèce, partialité des juges impliqués?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Angelo Corrieri

c. (28989)

Les Investissements Cigmont Inc. (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droits des biens - Recours - Dommages - Action en dommages-intérêts - Le jugement de la Cour d’appel est-il erroné quant à l’appréciation par la Cour de la preuve au dossier relativement au quantum des dommages-intérêts? - La Cour d’appel aurait-elle dû évaluer la preuve administrée devant le tribunal de première instance plutôt que de décider arbitrairement d’un montant de dommages-intérêts?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION / DEMANDE DE RÉEXAMEN

CORAM:  Bastarache, Binnie and LeBel JJ. /

Les juges Bastarache, Binnie et LeBel

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

NOVEMBER 28, 2002 / LE 28 NOVEMBRE 2002

28948               Kingsada Luangrath - v. - Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Crim.)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The motion to amend grounds for leave to appeal is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C33970, dated July 13, 2001, is dismissed.

La requête en modification des motifs d’appel  est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C33970, daté du 13 juillet 2001, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sentence - Did the Court of Appeal for Ontario err in law in upholding the decision of the trial justice to find the Accused a dangerous offender and not a long term offender? - Whether Court of Appeal erred in deciding that despite the weakness in witness’s recall and admitted memory problems, and other differences between her evidence and that of other witnesses, similar fact evidence was capable of corroborating her evidence - Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to appreciate that the evidence of one witness which caused the trial judge to have a doubt about her recall concerning frequency, was not “somewhat overstated”, but was grossly overstated - Whether Court of Appeal erred in accepting the trial judge’s inference.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29190               Delrina Corporation carrying on business as Carolian Systems - v. - Triolet Systems Inc. and Brian Duncombe (Ont.) (Civil)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C30375, dated March 1, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C30375, daté du 1 mars 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Copyright - Whether the Court of Appeal failed to correctly enunciate and apply the principles governing the subsistence of copyright in a work or the infringement of copyright in a work - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in concluding that the Applicant’s copyright in its computer program was not infringed by the Respondents’ program.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28984               Sadok Sagman, Carmina Araujo, Doron Sagman et Uri Sagman - v. - Société en commandite gaz métropolitain (Qué.)

Coram:                    Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐011321‐015, dated November 26, 2001, is dismissed with costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐011321‐015, daté du 26 novembre 2001, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedure - Prescription - Evidence - Procedure - Burden of proof - Did the Court of Appeal err at law in extending the application of s.2904 of the Civil Code of Québec to contractual obligations?  - Did the Court of Appeal err at law in displacing the burden of proof upon the Applicants’ shoulders? - Did the Court of Appeal err at law in maintaining an objection precluding the Applicant Sadok Sagman from testifying on the matter of energy sources and their consumption since he is not an engineer in thermodynamics nor a heating expert? 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29306               Curtis Wade De Fehr - v. - Moira Ann De Fehr (B.C.)

Coram:                    Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA028740, dated June 17, 2002, is dismissed without costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA028740, daté du 17 juin 2002, est rejetée sans frais.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family law - Custody - Respondent granted sole custody of children of the marriage with access to the Applicant - Procedural law - Appeal - Order dismissing appeal for failure to file factum - Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing appeal for procedural irregularities - Whether Applicant’s constitutional rights violated

PROCEDURAL HISTORY (Partial)

29275               Les Contenants Industriels Ltée - c. - La Commission des lésions professionnelles, Me Michel Denis et Me Lucie Landriault - et - Hansel Biggart et La Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (Qué.)

Coram :                   Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et LeBel

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐012105‐029, daté du 8 mai 2002, est rejetée sans frais.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐012105‐029, dated May 8, 2002, is dismissed without costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Témoins - Renonciation à un droit linguistique - Est-ce que la renonciation à un droit linguistique par un témoin doit être claire et expresse? - Est-ce qu’un procureur peut renoncer aux droits linguistiques des témoins? - Est-ce qu’un tribunal administratif a une obligation d’assurer le respect des droits linguistiques des témoins et des parties en leur fournissant un interprète? - Est-ce que les principes de R. c. Beaulac, [1999] 1 R.C.S. 768 sont applicables en droit administratif au Québec ? - Article 23 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., c.C-12 - Est-ce que le droit à «l’égalité de traitement» des justiciables par un tribunal administratif comprend le droit à une répartition équitable des effectifs lors de la composition du banc de ce tribunal? - Est-ce qu’un décideur peut s’immiscer dans l’exercice du pouvoir discrétionnaire quant à la composition du banc une fois que ce pouvoir a été exercé?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 17 mai 2001

Commission des lésions professionnelles

(Landriault, commissaire)

Requête en révision judiciaire des décisions de la Commission des lésions professionnelles en date du 24 juillet 2000, rejetée

19.11.2002

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Miscellaneous motion

Simeon Hogan, et al.

v. (29133)

Her Majesty the Queen, et al. (Crim.)(N.B.)

Autre requête

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    The motion on behalf of the applicant Nathan Gionet for an order adjourning the oral hearing ordered of the applications for leave to appeal from December 2, 2002 to January 13, 2003 is granted.

19.11.2002

Before / Devant:   IACOBUCCI J.

Motion for a stay of execution

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (29376)

Kenneth Roy Hurrell (Crim.)(Ont.)

Requête en vue de surseoir à l'exécution

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that that part of the formal order of the Court of Appeal for Ontario dated July 19, 2002, which declared section 117.04(1)  of the Criminal Code  to be of no force or effect, is stayed pending the determination of the application for leave to appeal filed by the applicant on September 26, 2002 and, if leave to appeal is granted, is further stayed until the final termination of proceedings in this Court.

19.11.2002

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

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

Michael Pelletier

v. (29062)

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

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 November 15, 2002.

20.11.2002

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

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

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (29376)

Kenneth Roy Hurrell (Crim.)(Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la réponse de l'intimé

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to November 15, 2002.

20.11.2002

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the response of the respondent the Attorney General of Canada

Canadian Pacific Limited, et al.

v. (29427)

Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, et al. (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la réponse de l'intimé le procureur général du Canada

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to a date 60 days after the British Columbia Court of Appeal rules on the Attorney General of Canada’s application for additional reasons for judgment and for a determination of the form of judgment that is sought to be appealed therein.

20.11.2002

Before / Devant:   DESCHAMPS J.

Motion for extension of time and leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Mental Health Legal Committee and the Mental Health Legal Advocacy Coalition

IN/DANS:              Dr. Russel Fleming

v. (28799)

Scott Starson a.k.a. Scott Jeffery Schutzman (Ont.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the Mental Health Legal Committee and the Mental Health Legal Advocacy Coalition 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 applicants Mental Health Legal Committee and the Mental Health Legal Advocacy Coalition is granted and the applicants shall be entitled to serve and file a joint 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 appellant, the amicus curiae and the interveners.

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

The intervener shall pay to the appellant, respondent and the amicus curiae any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant, respondent and the amicus curiae by the intervention. 

21.11.2002

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the record, factum and book of authorities of the respondents Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario et al.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union

v. (28849)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, et al. (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les dossier, mémoire et recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine des intimés Sa Majesté la Reine du chef de la province de l’Ontario et al.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to December 11, 2002.

21.11.2002

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

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

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (28946)

Daniel George Edgar (Crim.)(B.C.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to October 7, 2002.

21.11.2002

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

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

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (28945)

Jerimiah Josia Johnson (Crim.)(B.C.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to October 7, 2002.

22.11.2002

Before / Devant:   IACOBUCCI J.

Motion to strike out

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (28533)

Steve Powley, et al. (Crim.)(Ont.)

Requête en radiation

REFERRED / RÉFÉRÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the respondents for an order striking out the appellant’s appendices and portions of the appellant’s factum;

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1.             The motion by the respondents for an order striking out the appellant’s appendices and portions of the appellant’s factum is to be referred to the panel of the Court hearing the appeal and may be argued at the commencement of the hearing;

2.             If so argued, the time required for the argument of this motion will be deducted from the time allotted to the appellant and respondents for the presentation of their submissions on the appeal.

22.11.2002

Before / Devant:   THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Miscellaneous motion

Global BC (also known as BCTV News) a division of Global Communications Limited, et al.

v. (28823)

Her Majesty the Queen, et al. (Crim.)(B.C.)

Autre requête

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the appellants for an order adjourning the hearing of the motion to quash from December 2, 2002 to January 13, 2003;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The application of the appellants for an order adjourning the hearing of the motion to quash from December 2, 2002 to January 13, 2003 is dismissed.

26.11.2002

Société de la Place des Arts de Montréal

c. (28952)

Alliance internationale des employés de scène, de théâtre, du cinéma, des métiers connexes et des artistes des États-Unis et du Canada, Local de scène 56 (Qué.)

26.11.2002

The Regional Manager of the Cariboo Forest Region, et al.

v. (29292)

Roger William, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Xeni Gwet’in First Nations Government and on behalf of all other members of the Tsilhqot’in Nation, et al. (B.C.)

27.11.2002

Attorney General of Canada

v. (29292)

Roger William, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Xeni Gwet’in First Nations Government and on behalf of all other members of the Tsilhqot’in Nation, et al. (B.C.)

15.11.2002

BY/PAR:                Attorney General for New Brunswick

IN/DANS:              Canadian Cable Television Association

  v. (28826)

Barrie Public Utilities, et al.

AGENDA — Motion of December 2, 2002.

CALENDRIER — Requête du 2 décembre 2002.

Date of Hearing/                     Case Number and Name/

Date d'audition                        Numéro et nom de la cause

2002/12/02                                Motions / Requêtes

Global B.C. et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen et al. (B.C.) (28823)

(Quash / Annulation) (Video-conference / vidéoconférence - Vancouver) (2:00 p.m. / 14h00)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Freedom of expression - Freedom of the press - Whether the common law prohibits television and radio access to courtroom proceedings - Whether  a prohibition (or a prohibition but for the consent of all parties) of television or radio access to court proceedings is an infringement of s. 2 (b) of the Charter - If so, is the infringement a demonstrably justifiable limitation within s. 1  of the Charter? - What legal and constitutional principles must a judge follow when considering applications for television or radio access to court proceedings? - Whether the trial judge fettered her inherent jurisdiction by embracing the Policy on Television in the Courtroom adopted by the Supreme Court of British Columbia on May 9, 2001, effectively giving each party a veto power over radio and television access - Whether this appeal should be quashed for mootness - In the alternative, should the Appellants indemnify the Respondent Pilarinos’ costs for this appeal?

NATURE OF THE CASE

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Liberté d’expression - Liberté de la presse - La common law interdit-elle l’accès de la télévision et de la radio à une procédure se déroulant dans une salle d’audience - L’interdiction d’accès (ou l’interdiction d’accès sans le consentement de toutes les parties) de la télévision et de la radio à une procédure judiciaire porte-elle atteinte aux droits garantis par l’al. 2 b )  de la Charte? - Dans l’affirmative, cette atteinte constitue-t-elle, suivant l’article premier de la Charte, une limite raisonnable dont la justification peut se démontrer? - Quels principes légaux et constitutionnels un juge doit-il appliquer pour trancher une demande d’accès de la télévision ou de la radio à une procédure judiciaire? - Le juge de première instance a-t-il entravé l’exercice de sa compétence inhérente en suivant la politique sur l’accès de la télévision à la salle d’audience adoptée par la Cour suprême de la Colombie-Britannique le 9 mai 2001, qui reconnaît un droit de veto à chaque partie relativement à l’accès de la télévision et de la radio - L’appel doit-il être annulé en raison de son caractère théorique? - Subsidiairement, les appelants devraient-ils indemniser l’intimé Pilarinos de ses dépens relatifs au pourvoi?

NOTE

This agenda is subject to change.  Hearings normally commence at 9:45 a.m. each day.  Where there are two cases scheduled on a given day, the second case may be heard immediately after the first case, or at 2:00 p.m.  Hearing dates and times should be confirmed with Registry staff at (613) 996-8666.

Ce calendrier est sujet à modification.  Les audiences débutent normalement à 9h45 chaque jour.  Lorsque deux affaires doivent être entendues le même jour, l’audition de la deuxième affaire peut avoir lieu immédiatement après celle de la première ou encore à 14h.  La date et l’heure d’une audience doivent être confirmées auprès du personnel du greffe au (613) 996-8666.

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME

- 2002 -

- 2003 -