Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

August 23, 2002  1152 - 1172                                                              le 23 août 2002

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Seymour Grey

Seymour Grey

v. (29285)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Howard Leibovich

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 6.8.2002

Stanley Witkin, et al.

Sheldon Silver, Q.C.

Goodmans

v. (29290)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

Eric A. Noble

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 7.8.2002

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

Patrick G. Foy, Q.C.

Borden Ladner Gervais

v. (29292)

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

Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C.

Arvay Finlay

FILING DATE 7.8.2002

Réginald Scullion et al.

Ian W.M. Angus

v. (29289)

Attorney General of Québec (Qué.)

Stella Gabbino

A.G. of Quebec

FILING DATE 8.8.2002

Director, Income Maintenance Branch, Ministry of Community and Social Services, et al.

Janet E. Manor

A.G. for Ontario

v. (29294)

Sandra Falkiner, Deborah Sears, Cynthia Johnston-Pepping and Claude Marie Cadieux (Ont.)

Raj Anand

Weirfoulds

FILING DATE 12.8.2002

Anthony Daoulov

Jérôme Choquette

Choquette Beaupré Rhéaume

c. (29295)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)

Manon Ouimet

P.G. du Québec

DATE DE PRODUCTION   13.8.2002

Edwidge Casimir

Brent D. Tyler

v. (29297)

The Attorney General of Quebec, et al (Que.)

Benoit Belleau

Bernard, Roy & Associés

FILING DATE 13.8.2002

Roger Gosselin, et al.

Brent D. Tyler

v. (29298)

The Attorney General of Quebec, et al. (Que.)

Benoit Belleau

Bernard, Roy et Associés

FILING DATE 13.8.2002

Edwidge Casimir, et al.

Brent D. Tyler

v. (29299)

The Attorney General, et al. (Que.)

Benoit Belleau

Bernard, Roy et Associés

FILING DATE 13.8.2002

Jamie Dennis Carpentier

Phillip N. Scarisbrick

v. (29301)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Valerie Hartney

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 14.8.2002

Deloitte & Touche LLP

John Lorn McDougall, Q.C.

Fraser Milner Casgrain

v. (29300)

Ontario Securities Commission (Ont.)

Hugh Corbett

Ontario Securities Commission

FILING DATE 15.8.2002

George Kingfisher, et al.

James A. Griffin, Q.C.

Griffin Toews Maddigan Brabant

v. (29302)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

Mark R. Kindrachuk

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 15.8.2002

AUGUST 19, 2002 / LE 19 AOÛT 2002

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Arbour

Allison Bernard Jr.

v. (29124)

Her Majesty the Queen (N.S.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional law - Native law - Hunting wildlife with the assistance of a light constitutes a violation of s. 68 of the Wildlife Act - Characterization of the aboriginal right - Legislative purpose of s. 68 of the Act - Public Safety - Whether s. 68 of the Act violates the Applicant’s aboriginal rights as protected by s. 35(1)  of the Constitution Act, 1982  - Application of principles of law from R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075 - Whether the lower courts erred in applying the principles of law to the facts of this case - Whether there are issues of public importance raised -  Wildlife Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c-504, s. 68 - Constitution Act, 1982 , s. 35(1) 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:  Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Major et LeBel

J. McK. (young offender)

v. (28947)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non-Charter) - Assault - Bodily harm - School yard scuffle - Defences - Consent - Self-defence - Evidence - School yard scuffle - Two fights between teenaged youths one of which occurred near a school attended by both youths - Conviction for assault quashed on appeal - Conviction for assault causing bodily harm upheld but sentence reduced to conditional discharge - Whether courts failed to properly consider or apply defences of consent and self defence - Whether courts failed to make appropriate inferences from evidence or  made unreasonable inferences.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Richard Armand Adam

v. (28922)

United States of America and the Minister of Justice

(Crim.)(Ont.)(second application)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Extradition - Appeal of committal order and judicial review of Minister’s decision - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by not recognizing that the Minister violated ss. 15 and 40(1) of the Extradition Act by not issuing an authority to proceed within an acceptable time frame - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by not releasing the Applicant due to breaches in both the Extradition Treaty and Act and oppressive conduct and circumstances from both the requesting state and requested state contrary to the Canadian Constitution and democratic society - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by not recognizing that the proposed extradition is illegal as it relies on a spent US indictment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

October 25, 1999

Ontario Court of Justice

(Laforme, J.)

Application for habeas corpus denied            

January 4, 2000

Ontario Court of Justice

(Ewaschuck J.)

Application for habeas corpus denied            

July 5, 2000

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

(Lederman J.)

Order for committal of the Applicant into custody to await surrender for extradition, issued

                                                                CORAM:  Bastarache, Binnie and LeBel JJ. /

Les juges Bastarache, Binnie et LeBel

David J. Grace

c. (28900)

Martineau, Provencher & Associés Ltée, Jacques Martineau,

Jean‐Pierre Provencher et Jaime W. Dunton (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Code civil (Interprétation ) - Droit des compagnies - Recours - Recours pour oppression - Transaction - Une demande de redressement en vertu de l’article 241  de la Loi canadienne sur les sociétés par actions , L.R.C. (1985), c. C-44 , peut-elle être entravée par la conclusion d’une transaction (art. 2631 C.c.Q.) entre les parties?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Francine Lessard

c. (29031)

La Cour du Québec (Division des petites créances) et monsieur le juge Denis Charrette

- et -

La Banque de la Nouvelle-Écosse (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Banques et opérations bancaires - Fermeture de comptes bancaires - Avis par lettre recommandée - Les tribunaux inférieurs ont-ils erré en n’appliquant pas la Loi sur la Société canadienne des postes , L.R. 1985, ch. C-10 , quant à l’envoi d’une lettre recommandée?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

AUGUST 22, 2002 / LE 22 AOÛT 2002

29118                    Allan Harriott ‐ v. ‐ Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C33886, dated February 7, 2002, is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C33886, daté du 7 février 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sentencing - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the sentence imposed by Locke J., as it was higher than the sentence imposed by the first trial judge, Wright J.? - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the sentence imposed by the trial judge, Locke J. was not excessive in light of the sentence imposed upon the two other offenders involved in the crime? - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s sentence appeal? 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29077                    The Attorney General of Canada ‐ v. ‐ Karlheinz Schreiber and The Federal Republic of Germany (Ont.)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C35810, dated December 10, 2001, is dismissed with costs to the respondent Karlheinz Schreiber.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C35810, daté du 10 décembre 2001, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de l’intimé Karlheinz Schreiber.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Civil procedure - Concurrent and related proceedings - Extradition to face criminal charges and civil suit against the Crown - Whether the Court of Appeal applied the “extraordinary and exceptional circumstances” test in a mechanistic way - Whether the “exceptional and extraordinary circumstances” test applied by the courts below is completely inadequate - Whether the Court of Appeal failed to apply the test having regard to the extradition context.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28882                    Guillaume Kibale c. OC Transpo (Ont.)

Coram :                   Les juges L'Heureux‐Dubé, Bastarache et Binnie

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro M‐27407, daté du 10 septembre 2001, est rejetée avec dépens.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number M‐27407, dated September 10, 2001, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Procédure civile - Appel rejeté en raison de délai - Les droits fondamentaux du demandeur protégés par la Constitution ou la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  de la personne ont-ils été violés?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 21 juin 2001

Cour supérieur de justice

(Beaudoin, Maître)

Requête en annulation de l’ordonnance du Registraire rendue le 5 juin 2000 rejetant l’action du demandeur accueillie en partie: l’ordonnance rendue contre Jeremy Ingram annulée

Le 3 octobre 2000

Cour supérieure de justice

(Charbonneau j.)

Appel rejeté

28868                    Richard Guérard c. Hôpital Louis-H. Lafontaine (Qué.)

Coram :                   Les juges L'Heureux‐Dubé, Bastarache et Binnie

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐010966‐018, daté du 10 septembre 2001, est rejetée avec dépens.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐010966‐018, dated September 10, 2001, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Procédure civile - Prescription - Responsabilité médicale - Relation fiduciaire - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré dans son interprétation de l’art. 2201 C.c.B.-C.? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré dans son interprétation de l’art. 523 C.p.c.? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré dans son interprétation de l’art. 519 C.p.c.? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré dans l’application de l’art. 30 des Règles de procédure de la Cour d’appel en matière civile? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en omettant de considérer que la relation médecin-patient en est une de fiduciaire?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29010                    Profac Facilities Management Services Inc. v. FM One Alliance Corporation and Canada Post Corporation - and between - Brookfield Lepage Johnson Controls Facility Management Services v. FM One Alliance Corporation and Canada Post Corporation (FC)

Coram:                    L'Heureux‐Dubé, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Numbers A‐436‐01 and A‐440‐01, dated November 20, 2001, is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale, numéros A‐436‐01 et A‐440‐01, daté du 20 novembre 2001, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Patent unreasonableness - What is the standard of review to be applied to procurement decisions of the Tribunal - Whether there is any confusion in the caselaw - Whether the matter before the Tribunal was outside its area of expertise - Whether the court of appeal applied the incorrect standard of review - Whether the court of appeal erred in disregarding the contractual right of the parties to renew the service agreements - Whether there are issues of public importance raised.

28836                    Robert Lavigne v. Attorney General of Québec (Qué)

Coram:                    L'Heureux‐Dubé, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.

The motion for extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐010505‐014, dated May 14, 2001, is dismissed.

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐010505‐014, daté du 14 mai 2001, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Civil procedure - Language rights at trial - Motion to have opposing counsel plead in English before the Federal Court, Trial Division - Whether the Respondent has the obligation to make representations in court in English, orally and in writing, when so requested by a natural person - Whether a court has an obligation under s.19(1)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  to translate all proceedings into the other official language at the request of a natural person - Whether the Respondent’s refusal to assign counsel to plead in English was ultra vires and unconstitutional - Whether the Respondent is a person with language rights under Quebec law - Whether, when acting pursuant to a power delegated by the federal government, a provincial government must comply with the federal government’s obligations with respect to language rights

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29101                    M.V. c. Diane Gagnon, directrice de la protection de la jeunesse, J.V. et M.R.- et - La Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Qué.)

Coram :                   Les juges L'Heureux‐Dubé, Bastarache et Binnie

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐08‐000138‐000, daté du 7 janvier 2002, est rejetée.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐08‐000138‐000, dated January 7, 2002, is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Législation - Interprétation - Tribunaux - Jugements et ordonnances - Compétence - La Cour d’appel  a-t-elle erré en refusant de reconnaître la compétence de la Cour du Québec de spécifier le type d’hébergement correspondant à l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en refusant de reconnaître que le pouvoir administratif exercé par le Directeur de la protection de la jeunesse dans le cadre de l’art. 62 de la Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse, L.R.Q., ch. P-34.1, constitue de l’ingérence de la part de l’État dans la fonction judiciaire qui impose au juge de la Cour du Québec un rôle unique visant à déterminer l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en omettant de tenir compte des art. 32 et 33 du Code civil du Québec, L.Q. 1991, ch. 64, et de l’art. 3 de la Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse qui garantissent à l’enfant que toute décision doit être prise dans son intérêt et dans le respect de ses droits et ce, en conformité avec les principes de justice fondamentale? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en refusant de reconnaître que la Cour du Québec a le devoir et le pouvoir de contrôler la discrétion exercée par le Directeur de la protection de la jeunesse dans le cadre de l’art. 62 de la Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en ignorant les principes et les règles d’interprétation concernant la portée, l’esprit et l’objet de la Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse et en omettant de tenir compte de la connaissance d’office que le juge siégeant à la Cour du Québec possède du contexte social découlant de l’hébergement des enfants en centre de réadaptation?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

28707                    Livia Tarquini c. Ville de Montréal (Qué.)

Coram :                   Les juges L'Heureux‐Dubé, Bastarache et Binnie

La demande de réexamen de la demande d'autorisation d'appel rejetée le 28 mars 2002, a aujourd'hui été rejetée.

The motion for reconsideration of the application for leave to appeal dismissed on March 28, 2002, was this day dismissed.

12.8.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to file a lengthy factum

Eric Juri Miglin

v. (28670)

Linda Susan Miglin (Ont.)

Requête visant le dépôt d’un long mémoire

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    The motion by the respondent to file a factum of up to 50 pages in length is granted.

14.8.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion for substitutional service

Keng Ting Lam

v. (29236)

Siu Man Chan (Ont.)

Requête en substitution de signification

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

1)             IT IS ORDERED that substitutional service of the respondent’s response to the application for leave to appeal by regular mail, which was sent July 5, 2002, to the applicant, be deemed effective July 10, 2002, five days after the date of mailing;

2)             AND IT IS ORDERED that substitutional service of the notice of motion for substitutional service, by regular mail to the applicant, be deemed to be effective July 17, 2002, five days after the date of mailing;

3)             AND IT IS ORDERED that costs of this motion on a party and party scale be awarded to the respondent.

15.8.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Ed Dick, also known as Edward Dick, also known as Edward : Dick

v. (29128)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to June 10, 2002.

15.8.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

S.A.B.

v. (28862)

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

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    Time extended to August 16, 2002.

15.8.2002

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Further order on motions for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Mental Health Legal Committee

Canadian Civil Liberties Association

African Canadian Legal Clinic

Urban Alliance on Race Relations

Attorney General of Canada

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

The Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted and the Innocence Project of Osgoode Hall Law School

IN/DANS:              The Estate of Manish Odhavji, Deceased, et al.

v. (28425)

Detective Martin Woodhouse, et al. (Ont.)

Autre ordonnance sur des requêtes en autorisation d'intervention

UPON APPLICATION by the Mental Health Legal Committee, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the African Canadian Legal Clinic, the Urban Alliance on Race Relations, the Attorney General of Canada, Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia and The Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted and the Innocence Project of Osgoode Hall Law School for leave to intervene in the above appeal and pursuant to the orders of January 10, 2002, April 24, 2002 and July 9, 2002;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the following interveners are granted permission to present oral argument at the hearing of the appeal not to exceed the time allowed respectively to each of them as follows:

-               Attorney General of Canada                                                              15 minutes

-               Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of B.C.             15 minutes

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the request of each of the following interveners, the Mental Health Legal Committee, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the African Canadian Legal Clinic, the Urban Alliance on Race Relations and the Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted and the Innocence Project of Osgoode Hall Law School to present oral argument is denied.

16.8.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum of the intervener Nishnawbe Aski Nation

K.L.B., et al.

v. (28612)

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

and

E.D.G.

v. (28613)

The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 44 (North Vancouver) (B.C.)

and

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

v. (28616)

M.B. (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire de l’intervenante Nishnawbe Aski Nation

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to September 5, 2002.

6.8.2002

Edward J. Nordquist, et al.

v. (28898)

Patricia Gurniak, Valerie Michelle Ross and Shannon Lee Ross by their Guardian ad Litem, Patricia Gurniak  (B.C.)

15.8.2002

Richard Willis

v. (29304)

Her Majesty the Queen (Man.)

(As of right)

6.8.2002

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Canada

IN/DANS:              Ernest Lionel Joseph Blais

  v. (28645)

Her Majesty the Queen (Man.)

12.8.2002

Edperbrascan Corporation

v.  (29184)

177373 Canada Limited, et al. (Ont.)

(leave)

15.8.2002

Government of the Northwest Territories

v.  (28737)

Public Service Alliance of Canada, et al. (F.C.)

(appeal)

21.8.2002

Bart Horsman

v. (29049)

Her Majesty the Queen (Sask.)

(appeal)

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME

- 2002 -

- 2003 -