Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

June 28, 2002 985 - 1007                                                                      le 28 juin 2002

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Nader Ghermezian, Raphael Ghermezian, Bahman Ghermezian, Eskander Ghermezian, 273905 Alberta Ltd., 218703 Alberta Ltd. 579511 Alberta Ltd., 298936 Alberta Ltd., West Edmonton Mall Property Inc., WEM Holdings Inc., WEM Management Inc., et al.

Clifford D. O’Brien, Q.C.

Bennett Jones

v. (29238)

Alberta Treasury Branches, et al. (Alta.)

David D. Tavender, Q.C.

Fraser Milner Casgrain

- and between-

Elmer Leahy

John A. Weir, Q.C.

Weir Bowen

v. (29238)

Alberta Treasury Branches, et al. (Alta.)

David D. Tavender, Q.C.

Fraser Milner Casgrain

FILING DATE 21.5.2002

The Toronto-Dominion Bank and The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

William J. Burden

Cassels Brock & Blackwell

v. (29235)

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

Reid Lester

Poss & Halfnight

FILING DATE 3.6.2002

Donovan Elliot Gates

Christopher W. Brennan

v. (29191)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

William F. Ehrcke, Q.C.

A.G. of British Columbia

FILING DATE 10.6.2002

M.L.H.

Susan D.Baragar

Jones & Associates

v. (29229)

Winnipeg Child and Family Services (Man.)

Dean R. Kropp

Scurfield Tapper Cuddy

FILING DATE 31.5.2002

Jean-Guy Bourgoin, et autres

Louis Belleau

Filteau, Belleau, Normandeau

c. (29232)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)

Madeleine Giauque

P.G. du Québec

DATE DE PRODUCTION 7.6.2002

Ville de Laval

André Bourgeois

Deveau, Lavoie & Associés

c. (29239)

Développement Drummond Inc., et autres (Qué.)

Jacques Hurlet

Bélanger Sauvé

DATE DE PRODUCTION 7.6.2002

Jacques Laurendeau

Jacques Laurendeau

c. (29241)

Université Laval (Qué.)

Reynald Poulin

Beauvais Truchon & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION 29.4.2002

- et entre-

Jacques Laurendeau

Jacques Laurendeau

c. (29241)

Université Laval (Qué.)

Reynald Poulin

Beauvais Truchon & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION 10.6.2002

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse en faveur de Jean-Marc Larocque

Pierre-Yves Bourdeau

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse

c. (29231)

Communauté urbaine de Montréal (Qué.)

Pierre-Yves Boisvert

Leduc, Bélanger, Boisvert, Laurendeau, Rivard

DATE DE PRODUCTION 31.5.2002

Judson Dickens

Laura K. Stevens

Anderson, Dawson, Knisely, Steven &           Shaigec

v. (29240)

Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

Richard F. Taylor, Q.C.

A.G. of Alberta

FILING DATE 10.6.2002

Réjean Demers

Suzanne Gagné

Guy Bertrand & Associés

c. (29234)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)

Nadine Dubois

P.G. du Québec

DATE DE PRODUCTION 3.6.2002

JUNE 24, 2002 / LE 24 JUIN 2002

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Arbour

Daniel Armaly

v. (29130)

Parole Service and Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board (Crim.) (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian  Charter  - Criminal - Criminal law - Prerogative Writs - Habeas corpus - Whether the Applicant was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus with certiorari in aid under the circumstances of this case.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

ScotiaMcLeod, now Scotia Capital Inc.

v. ( 28871)

The Bank of Nova Scotia, Guy Thibault, Regroupement des assureurs de personnes à

Charte  du Québec (R.A.C.Q.), La Caisse Centrale Desjardins du Québec

and La Caisse Populaire Desjardins de Terrebonne (Que.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Civil Code - Annuities - Trusts - Exemption from seizure - Registered retirement savings plan - Whether the Court of Appeal of Quebec erred in its interpretation and application of s. 178 of the Trust Companies and Savings Companies Act, R.S.Q. ch. S-29.01 - Whether the right to make withdrawals from a registered retirement savings plan and the right to give instructions as to the investment of the capital prevented the formation of a valid contract of annuity under articles 2367 and following of the Civil Code of Québec - Whether the right to make withdrawals from a registered retirement savings plan and the right to give instructions as to the investment of the capital prevented the formation of a valid private trust under articles 1260 and following of the Civil Code of Québec?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:  L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache and Binnie JJ. /

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache et Binnie

Robert Lavigne

v. (28836)

Attorney General of Québec (Que.)

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

M.V.

c. (29101)

Diane Gagnon, directrice de la protection de la jeunesse,

J.V. et M.R. (Qué.)

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

CORAM:  Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Major et LeBel

Gordon Garland

v. (29052)

The Consumers’ Gas Company Limited (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Unjust enrichment - Criminal rate of interest charged by Respondent to Applicant and the class of plaintiffs he proposes to represent - Whether the amounts charged constituted unjust enrichment for the Respondent - Whether the Respondent benefited from the amounts charged - Whether the Respondent had a juristic reason for making the charges - Whether restitution was appropriate in the circumstances - Whether a preservation order was appropriate in the circumstances.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Myer Herzig and David Martin

v. (29088)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by Treasury Board (F.C.A)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Prerogative writs - Mandamus - Certiorari - Whether the Court of Appeal has set the standard for finding that there is an apprehension of bias at an unattainable level in respect of the Nominee’s conduct in the Classification Grievance Procedure? - Whether the Court of Appeal failed to apply the basic tenets of an adjudicator being functus as enunciated in Chandler v. Alberta  Association of Architects [1989] 2 S.C.R. 848, in respect of the Nominee’s approval of the Committee report on August 24, 1999 and the Nominee’s decision of January 11, 2000?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

February 7, 2001

Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division

(McKeown J.)

Application for writ of certiorari and writ of mandamus ordering the Respondent to reclassify applicants’ positions from PM-06 to LA-02 dismissed

January 28, 2002

Federal Court of Appeal

(Stone, Evans and Malone JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

February 15, 2002

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

Her Majesty the Queen, Province of Saskatchewan as represented by the Minister of Finance

v. (29036)

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Sask.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment -  Provincial Minister of Finance making estimate of tax payable by CBC under The Education and Health Tax Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. E-3, on telecommunication services acquired from Telesat - Board of Revenue Commissioners and Queen’s Bench affirming taxes - Court of Appeal allowing appeal in part - Whether Court of Appeal’s decision interprets power of tax administrators to estimate a taxpayer’s tax liability in a manner inconsistent with decisions of other courts.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

May 6, 1997

Board of Revenue Commissioners

(McNamee, Chairman)

Respondent’s appeal dismissed

                                                                CORAM:  Bastarache, Arbour and LeBel JJ. /

Les juges Bastarache, Arbour et LeBel

David Simpson

v. (29081)

Consumers' Association of Canada, Canadian Consumer Inc., Marilyn Lister,

Rosalie Daly Todd and Tony Dearness (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Master and servant - Wrongful dismissal - Sexual harassment - Commercial law - Contracts - Induced breach of contract - Damages - Appellate court standard of review - Whether sexual harassment can be found objectively in the absence of a subjective element - Whether social activities among colleagues without nexus to the workplace are part of the workplace.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

JUNE 25, 2002 / LE 20 JUIN 2002

29012                    Richard Carter, David Simmons, Howard Simmons, Judy Hynes, Brian Wellon, Patricia Wellon ‐ v. ‐ The Town Council of the Town of Pasadena and The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs (Nfld.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ.

The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the Respondent, Town Council of the Town of Pasadena.

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de l’intimé, le Conseil municipal de la ville de Pasadena.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Municipal law - Expropriation - Equity - Laches - Whether the defence of laches was properly allowed when no evidence was presented to ground the defence - Whether it is necessary to respect individual property rights in a “perimeter expropriation” - Whether the Court of Appeal’s decision is in conflict with Costello v. Calgary [1983] 1 S.C.R. 14.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28913                    Allen Mryglod and Sylvia Mryglod ‐ v. ‐ Nestor Mryglod, Freshair Enterprise Ltd, Classic Super Seamless Exteriors (1988) Ltd. and  Freshair Buildings Systems, Marilyn Kotrla (Sask.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the Respondent, Marilyn Kotrla.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de l’intimée, Marilyn Kotrla.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Civil procedure - Abuse of process - Siblings brought a motion to amend their pleadings in an action against brother and his companies to add brother’s wife and allegations relating to debts by the companies which had been rejected in a matrimonial action between the husband and wife - Wife brought motion to strike herself as defendant in siblings’action and strike allegations against her - Whether Court of Appeal erred in overturning motions judge’s order allowing amendments and dismissing motion to strike - Whether Court of Appeal erred in application of doctrine of abuse of process.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28914                    Nestor Laverne Mryglod ‐ v. ‐ Marilyn Kotrla (Sask.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family law - Division of property - Valuation of assets - Alleged interests of siblings in companies operated by husband - Siblings not allowed to be added as parties to the Matrimonial Property Act action - Whether Court erred in failing to direct a new trial in order to have the extent of siblings’ interest in certain assets owned by the Applicant determined before valuing the extent of the Applicant’s property subject to division.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29020                    Chateau Lafleur Development Corporation and Can‐Euro Investments Limited ‐ v. ‐ Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company Limited and Maritime Tel & Tel Limited (N.S.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Real property - Easements - Express grant of easement - Equitable easements - Remedies - Entitlement to damages - Respondents seeking declaration of easement and damages for wrongful interference with contractual relations - Declaration of an equitable easement in the Respondents’ favour which the Applicants must maintain granted - Claim for damages arising from the lost sale of land dismissed - What is the legal definition of notice - What is the purchaser’s duty of inquiry - Constructive notice of facts which were not disclosed - Whether there are issues of public importance raised.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28986                    Constantine Bassis ‐ v. ‐ Century 21 Parkland Ltd. (Ont.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Contracts - Property law - Real property - Respondent claiming six percent commission on sale of commercial property by Applicant - Trial judge finding that Respondent introduced purchaser to property within meaning of listing agreement and granting claim for payment - Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding decision.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

May 2, 2000

Superior Court of Justice

(Wright J.)

Respondent’s claim for payment of commission  granted

October 29, 2001

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Catzman, Abella and Moldaver JJ.A.)

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed

December 28, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

29002                    Noël Ayangma ‐ v. ‐ Government of Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Civil rights - Equality - Discrimination - Employment - Whether the Applicant’s s. 15 rights were infringed by the manner in which the Respondent’s position of Race Relations Consultant was filled - Whether the appellate court erred in its application of the law when it allowed the Respondent’s cross-appeal - Whether the trial judged erred in the remedy granted.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

November 19, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

28426                    Noël Ayangma ‐ v. ‐ NAV Canada, Mr. John S. Navaux, Manager ACC Operations (NAV Canada) (P.E.I.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ.

The motion for reconsideration is dismissed with costs.

La demande de réexamen est rejetée avec dépens.

17.6.2002

Before / Devant:   BASTARACHE J.

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the application for leave

Margaret Moar, et al.

v. (28925)

Les oblats de Marie Immaculée du Manitoba and Oblate Sisters de Saint Boniface, et al. (Man.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la demande d'autorisation

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to June 5, 2002.

19.6.2002

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum and book of authorities of the intervener the Attorney General of Alberta

David Albert Siemens, et al.

v. (28416)

The Attorney General of Manitoba, et al. (Man.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les mémoire et recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’intervenant le procureur général de l’Alberta

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to May 31, 2002, nunc pro tunc.

19.6.2002

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum of the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario

Donald Martin

v. (28372)

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

and

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire de l’intervenant le procureur général de l’Ontario

Ruth A. Laseur

v. (28370)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to June 3, 2002.

19.6.2002

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file a response to the application for leave

Syndicat des travailleurs et travailleuses des postes, et al.

c. (29158)

Société canadienne des postes (Qué.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer une réponse à la demande d’autorisation

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Délai prorogé au 30 mai 2002.

19.6.2002

Before / Devant:   BINNIE J.

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the application for leave

Gregory Venn

v. (29233)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la demande d'autorisation

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to August 30, 2002.

19.6.2002

Before / Devant:   BINNIE J.

Miscellaneous motion

The Honourable Robert H. Nelson, Founder President of Public Defenders for himself and as representative of all those also improperly denied benefits

v. (29195)

Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Honourable Martin Cauchon, Minister of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (F.C.)

Autre requête

DISMISSED WITH COSTS / REJETÉE AVEC DÉPENS   

The motion by the applicant for an order for $50,000.00 punitive damages to be paid forthwith by the respondent is dismissed with costs.

19.6.2002

Before / Devant:   BINNIE J.

Miscellaneous motion

The Honourable Robert H. Nelson, Founder President of Public Defenders for himself and as representative of all those also improperly denied benefits

v. (29193)

Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Honourable Martin Cauchon, Minister of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (F.C.)

Autre requête

DISMISSED WITH COSTS / REJETÉE AVEC DÉPENS

The motion by the applicant for an order for $50,000.00 punitive damages to be paid forthwith by the respondent is dismissed with costs.

19.6.2002

Before / Devant:   BINNIE J.

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the application for leave

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 demande d'autorisation

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to March 27, 2002.

20.6.2002

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the appellant’s response to the motion to intervene by the Métis Chief Roy E.J. DeLaRonde

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (28533)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai pour signifier et déposer la réponse de l’appelante à la requête en intervention du Chef Métis Roy E.J. DeLaRonde

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to June 7, 2002.

21.6.2002

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

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

The Honourable Robert H. Nelson, Founder President of Public Defenders for himself and as representative of all those also improperly denied benefits

v. (29195)

Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Honourable Martin Cauchon, Minister of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (F.C.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to June 21, 2002.

21.6.2002

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

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

The Honourable Robert H. Nelson, Founder President of Public Defenders for himself and as representative of all those also improperly denied benefits

v. (29193)

Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Honourable Martin Cauchon, Minister of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (F.C.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to June 21, 2002.

21.6.2002

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Métis Chief Roy E.J. DeLaRonde, on behalf of the Red Sky Métis Independent Nation

IN/DANS:              Her Majesty the Queen

v. (28533)

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

Requête en autorisation d'intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the Métis Chief Roy E.J. DeLaRonde, on behalf of the Red Sky Métis Independent Nation for an extension of time and for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion for an extension of time and for leave to intervene of the applicant Métis Chief Roy E.J. DeLaRonde, on behalf of the Red Sky Métis Independent Nation is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

The request to present oral argument is deferred to a date following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the interveners.

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

Pursuant to Rule 18(6) the intervener shall pay to the appellant and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondents by the intervention. 

21.6.2002

Before / Devant:   LEBEL J.

Motions for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Alberta

Attorney General of British Columbia

Attorney General of New Brunswick  Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador

Attorney General of Ontario

IN/DANS:              Glenda Doucet-Boudreau, et al.

v. (28807)

Attorney General of Nova Scotia (N.S.)

Requêtes en autorisation d'intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉES

UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General of Alberta, the Attorney General of British Columbia, the Attorney General of New Brunswick, the Attorney General of Newfoundland, and the Attorney General of Ontario for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1.             The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Attorney General of Alberta is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

2.             The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Attorney General of British Columbia is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

3.             The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Attorney General of New Brunswick is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

4.             The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

5.             The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Attorney General of Ontario is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

The request to present oral argument is deferred to a date following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the interveners.

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

Pursuant to Rule 18(6) the interveners shall pay to the appellants and respondent any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellants and respondent by the interventions.

10.6.2002

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Saskatchewan

IN/DANS:              Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta

  v. (28261)

Devon Gary Ell, et al. (Alta.)

11.6.2002

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Ontario

IN/DANS:              Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta

  v. (28261)

Devon Gary Ell, et al. (Alta.)

Motion day     :         September 30, 2002

Service            :         September 9, 2002

Filing              :         September 13, 2002

Respondent     :         September 20, 2002

Audience du  :         30 septembre 2002

Signification     :         9 septembre 2002

Dépôt              :         13 septembre 2002

Intimé              :         20 septembre 2002

Motion day     :         November 4, 2002

Service            :         October 11, 2002

Filing              :         October 18, 2002

Respondent     :         October 25, 2002

Audience du  :         4 novembre 2002

Signification     :         11 octobre 2002

Dépôt              :         18 octobre 2002

Intimé              :         25 octobre 2002

Motion day     :         December 2, 2002

Service            :         November 8, 2002

Filing              :         November 15, 2002

Respondent     :         November 22, 2002

Audience du       :            2 décembre 2002

Signification       :            8 novembre 2002

Dépôt                  :            15 novembre 2002

Intimé                  :            22 novembre 2002

Note: These motion dates apply only where the notice of appeal will be filed before June 28, 2002

Note: Ces dates de requête s’appliquent seulement où l’avis d’appel sera déposé avant le 28 juin 2002.

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME

- 2002 -

- 2003 -