Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

June 14, 2002  902 - 937                                                                      le 14 juin 2002

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Edmonton Journal Group Inc.

Frederick S. Kozak

Reynolds, Mirth, Richards & Farmer

v. (29214)

Her Majesty the Queen, et al. (Alta.)

Susan Hughson

A.G. of Alberta

FILING DATE 9.5.2002

John Patrick MacAdam

John Patrick MacAdam

v. (29046)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Lillianne Cameron

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 14.5.2002

Jane Hamilton

Susan J. Heakes

Heenan Blaikie

v. (29225)

Open Window Bakery Limited, et al. (Ont.)

Paul Gemmink

Gemmink & Associate

FILING DATE 27.5.2002

Magdy Rashwan

Magdy Rashwan

v. (29215)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Susan G. Ficek

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 29.5.2002

Le procureur général du Québec

Louis Coulombe

P.G. du Québec

c. (29185)

Claude Daoust, et autre (Qué.)

Jean Asselin

Labrecque, Robitaille & Ass.

DATE DE PRODUCTION 30.5.2002

Frank Lambert, et autre

Claudine Barabé

Ouellet, Nadon et associés

c. (29227)

Le Procureur général du Québec (Qué.)

André Fauteux

Bernard Roy et associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION 30.5.2002

JUNE 10, 2002 / LE 10 JUIN 2002

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Arbour

Granada Investments Limited, Joseph Shaw and Barbara Allan Shaw

v. (28966)

Manufacturers Life Insurance Company and KPMG Inc. (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Real property - Mortgage - Action on a mortgage - Duties of mortgagee - Whether the mortgagee is under a duty to mitigate - Whether the duty to mitigate applies to an action on a fixed debt - Whether the court of appeal erred by substituting its findings of fact - When did the mortgagee assume control of the property - Whether the court of appeal erred by excluding a reference in the amendments substituted in the trial judgment - Whether there are issues of public importance raised.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

February 6, 2002

Supreme Court of Canada

(Major J.)

Motion for a stay of execution dismissed with costs

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

v. (28616)

M. B. (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Tort law - Fiduciary duty - Negligence - What is the proper test for determining whether the Crown is liable on a no-fault basis for misconduct by foster parents who are not employees of the Government - Vicarious liability - Non-delegable duty - What is the relationship between the principles of no fault liability under a non-delegable duty of care and vicarious liability - Damages - double recovery - Deductibility of social assistance benefits received by tort victim - Interest - Calculation of interest on damages for past loss of earning capacity

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

May 3, 2000

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Levine J.)

Respondent’s action for damages granted; Applicant ordered to pay damages totalling $172,726.04 ($10,000 for past lost earning capacity) plus pre-judgment interest on the damages for past lost earning capacity in the amount of 18,551.25

Brian S. Heron

v. (28808)

Charles A. Smith (N.S.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Actions - Appeal - Judgments and Orders - Whether the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia and the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal erred in their decision granting summary judgment to the respondent in respect of two orders for costs made by courts in California against the applicant?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache et Binnie

Robert Leblanc

c. (29013)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.) (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Preuve - Directives au jury - Communication de la preuve - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en omettant de tenir compte que le juge, dans ses directives au jury, a indiqué que s’il concluait que l’accusé était probablement coupable, il devait, en sus, entretenir un doute raisonnable pour l’acquitter? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en confirmant qu’un juge du procès peut refuser d’ordonner au Ministère public de communiquer à la défense des éléments de preuve en se fondant uniquement sur une déclaration du Ministère public, sans examiner les éléments en question, quant à l’absence de pertinence des éléments de preuve alors que cet aspect était évidemment le litige? La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en appliquant l’article 686(1)(b)(iii) du C.cr .?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 15 février 1996

Cour supérieure du Québec

(Zerbisias j.c.s.)

Demandeur déclaré coupable par jury de meurtre au premier degré contrairement à l’article 231 du Code criminel, L.R.C. ch. C-46.

D.C.

c. (29116)

T.D. (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit de la famille - Garde - Accès - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré dans son appréciation de la preuve - Le juge de première instance a-t-elle démontré un manque d’impartialité ou d’éthique - Le juge de première instance a-t-elle erré en droit, en fait ou dans son appréciation de la preuve - Le juge de première instance a-t-elle erré en refusant de faire entendre la mineure malgré la demande explicite du demandeur?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Michael Mohl

v. (29086)

The Senate Committee on Appeals on Academic Standing (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Universities – University Committee upholding faculty decision to give student failing grade – Whether appropriate standard of review correctness or patent unreasonableness – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding rules of  procedural fairness and natural justice not breached and appropriate standard of review met.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:  Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Major et LeBel

Levesque Beaubien Geoffrion Inc.

v. (28990)

Allan Thomas Barakett (N.S.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Master and servant - Wrongful dismissal - Respondent’s action against Applicant for wrongful dismissal allowed - Court of Appeal upholding decision - Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that manner of dismissal is simply another factor to be considered in determining period of reasonable notice - Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to assess impact of manner of dismissal and extent of Respondent’s injuries in order to determine appropriate level of compensation - Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that Applicant breached its obligation of good faith and fair dealing in manner of dismissal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

707739 Alberta Ltd. and Azmin Habib

v. (29063)

Tim Phillips (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law – Appeal – Civil procedure – Appeal struck from General Appeal List for failure to appear pursuant to Alberta Rules of Court – Court of Appeal finding no reasonable excuse for delay and interests of justice not warranting restoration of appeal –  Whether Court of Appeal erred in refusing to restore appeal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:  Bastarache, Arbour and LeBel JJ. /

Les juges Bastarache, Arbour et LeBel

Pearl Winnifred Bell, and Robert William Bell, on their own behalf and on behalf of Karen Lisa Sangster, Allan Wayne Bell, William L. Bell and Donald Robert Bell; Kelly‐Ann Benoit on her own behalf; Lisa Marie Benoit‐Murrin on her own behalf;, Shirley Ann Benoit on her own behalf and on behalf of Nadine Cheryl Benoit; Darlene Pamela Dollimont on her own behalf and on behalf of Cheree Alyi Teresa Dollimont; Marie Anita Doyle and A. Marshall Doyle on their own behalf and on the behalf of, R. Allan Doyle, James A. Doyle and Donald P. Doyle; G. Isabel Gillis  on her own behalf and on behalf of Christopher Gillis, Ashley Anne Gillis and Daniel A. Gillis; Eileen Gillis and Joe Gillis on their own behalf;, Genesta Agatha Halloran on her own behalf and on behalf of Trevor Lawrence Halloran and Nicole Margaret Halloran; Bonnie Atkings on her own behalf and on behalf of Jessie David Atkings and Kristy Erin Jahn;, Reta Jahn on her own behalf and on behalf of Larry Jahn, Faye Gibos, Marvin Jahn, Norma Bare, Cheryle Trotter, Dana Chodyka, Beverly Toppin and Tracey Jahn; Eleanor C. Lilley on her own behalf and on the behalf of Simon P. Lilley;, Darren C. Lilley on his own behalf and Stephen P. Lilley on his own behalf; Christopher Cory McIsaac and James Eric McIsaac by their Guardian ad Litem Cheryl Leblanc;, Beverly MacKay on her own behalf and on behalf of Sara MacKay and Janelle MacKay;, Randy Robert Poplar and Nancy Lee McKeigan; Sheila Mae Dykstra on her own behalf and on behalf of Lori Shalene Dykstra; Shelle Alanna McCallum on her own behalf and on the behalf of Anthony Darren McCallum and Kimberly Leslie MacCallum;, Marguerite MacNeil on her own behalf and on the behalf of Christopher Lee MacDonald, Lisa Marie MacNeil and Shawn Angus MacNeil; Lisa Poplar on her own behalf; Veronica Poplar on her own behalf; Eva Poplar on her own behalf and on behalf of, Shirley Anne Conway on her own behalf and on the behalf of Tammy Conway, Shari Conway, and Scott Conway; Carolyne Ann Dewan on her own behalf and on the behalf of Jennifer Amanda Dewan and TrevorJames Dewan

v. (29094)

Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Nova Scotia (N.S.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour Law - Workers’ Compensation - Whether Workers’ Compensation Board admitted the Province of Nova Scotia as an employer within the scope of Workers’ Compensation Act - Whether the benefit of the statutory bar against civil suits applies only to law suits against the Province as employer or immunizes Province from suits against it in its role as regulator - Workers' Compensation Act 1989, R.S.N.S. c. 508.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

JUNE 13, 2002 / LE 13 JUIN 2002

28883                    The Information Commissioner of Canada ‐ v. ‐ The Minister of Industry Canada and Patrick McIntyre (FC) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent, the Minister of Industry Canada.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de l’intimé, Ministre de l’industrie du Canada.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Public right to access to information - Ministerial decision to claim exemption from disclosure of information related to the application process for telecommunications licences - Whether Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the discretionary exemption in s. 21(1) (a) of the Access to Information Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28884                    The Information Commissioner of Canada ‐ v. ‐ The Minister of Industry Canada (FC) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Arbour 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

Administrative law - Judicial review - - Public right to access to information - Ministerial decision to refuse to disclose  information related to the application process for telecommunications licences - Whether Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the discretionary exemption in s. 21(1) (a) of the Access to Information Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1  - Whether Minister lawfully exercised his discretion to withhold information requested

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29030                    Manitoba Association of Optometrists ‐ v. ‐ Keith Mondesir (Man.) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Appeals - Professional misconduct - Respondent optometrist found guilty of professional misconduct by discipline committee - Court of Queen’s Bench upholding decision - Court of Appeal reversing that judgment - Whether Court of Appeal’s decision applies a level of procedural fairness which cannot be met at the preliminary, investigative stage of proceedings by professional bodies.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28898                    Edward J. Nordquist and Domo Gasoline Corporation Ltd. ‐ v. ‐ Patricia Gurniak, Valerie Michelle Ross and Shannon Lee Ross, by their guardian ad Litem, Patricia Gurniak (B.C.) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial Law - Insurance - Automobile accident insurance - Spouse and dependent children of victim killed in automobile accident in British Columbia commence claim under Family Compensation Act - Whether no-fault benefits paid in Quebec deductible from any award -   Proper approach to determining whether no-fault accident benefits paid under a legislative scheme of one province should be deducted from a subsequent damage award recovered in another province so as to avoid double recovery - Characterization of benefits paid under a complete or pure no-fault scheme - Whether there is a need to pronounce definitively on answer by the British Columbia courts to interpretive questions relating to Quebec’s no-fault scheme.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28844                    Sam Hall ‐ v. ‐ Barry Vogel, Andrew Larking and Alain Le Sann (Alta.) (Civil)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence - Procedural law - Civil Procedure - Standing - Municipal Law - Liability of municipal officers - Standing of ratepayers to bring action against municipal officer -  Is the MacIlreith test still relevant and if so, is the special damage requirement more than a mere formality - Is evidence municipality’s mill rate did not increase a basis for denying status - Should judicial discretion to grant status be permitted to extend beyond Thorson and Finlay to cases involving allegations of gross negligence relating to supervision - Whether a mental element such as conscious indifference is a necessary element distinguishing gross negligence from ordinary negligence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28886                    Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Nova Scotia as represented by Dr. Patricia Ripley, Deputy Minister of the Priorities and Planning Secretariat ‐ v. ‐ Daniel O'Connor (N.S.) (Civil)

CORAM:               L'Heureux‐Dubé, Bastarache and Binnie 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

Statutes - Interpretation - Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.S. 1993, c.5, ss. 3(1)(a), 13(1), 13(2) - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in interpreting the “substance of deliberations” of Cabinet under s. 13(1) of the Act, including advice or recommendations to Cabinet or its committees, or both, as falling within the meaning of “background information” required to be disclosed under ss. 3(1)(a) and 13(2)(c) of the Act - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in upholding the chambers judge’s interpretation of “feasibility study”in s. 3(1)(a)(ix) of the Act - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in upholding the chambers judge’s decision to grant access to requested information in the Respondent’s format of choice notwithstanding that this was acknowledged to constitute an excess of jurisdiction under the Act.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

March 2, 2001

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

(Cromwell J.A.)

Stay of February 2, 2001 order extended to June 12, 2001

October 2, 2001

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

(Saunders, Freeman and Bateman JJ.A.)

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed

October 30, 2001

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

(Roscoe J.A.)

Stay of proceedings of October 2, 2001 judgment granted pending decision on application for leave

December 3, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

28915                    Apotex Inc. ‐ v. ‐ Bayer AG, Bayer Inc. and The Minister of Health (FC) (Civil)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents Bayer AG and Bayer Inc.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimées Bayer AG et Bayer Inc.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property Law - Patents - Whether the court below made significant errors of law in maintaining the validity of the respondents’ patent rights - Whether the immediate availability of ciprofloxacin from the applicant is of crucial and demonstrated importance to the federal government, the provincial Ministries of Health and the general public - Whether the relevant claims of the respondents’ patent are invalid because its filing date was more than twelve months after an application for the same invention was filed in Chile - Whether a decision to grant a prohibition order on the basis that a foreign patent did not relate to the same invention was incorrect or inconsistent with jurisprudence - Whether the decision below appears to permit patent holders to obtain monopolies in excess of their entitlements - Whether the decision below allows avoidance of a foreign patent bar contrary to Canada’s treaty obligations and the policy of patent law.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28877                    Mr. Allan Milton Paul Smart, also known as A.M.P. Smart ‐ v. ‐ The Society of Lloyd's (Ont.) (Civil)

CORAM:               L'Heureux‐Dubé, Bastarache and Binnie 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

International law - Conflict of laws - Enforcement of foreign judgments - Defences - Respondent applying to have English judgments registered in Ontario - Applicant defending application on basis that to enforce judgments would be counter to public policy due to allegations of fraud and breach of securities laws - Whether foreign judgments that condone violations of the prospectus disclosure rules under Ontario securities laws should be enforceable under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments (U.K.) Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. R 6 because of principles of international comity - What meaning and scope is to be given to the public policy exception to the registration or enforcement of a foreign judgment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28965                    Jacques Laurendeau ‐ c. ‐ Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.) (Criminelle)

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

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Appel - Procédure civile - Preuve - Est-ce que le droit d’être entendu doit prévaloir sur le droit de l’irréfutabilité des jugements?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29039                    Giles Poirier ‐ v. ‐ Her Majesty the Queen (N.S.) (Criminal)

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

The application for an oral hearing and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed.

La demande d’audition et la demande d’autorisation d’appel sont rejetées.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Right to fair trial - Pre-trial Procedure - Stay of proceedings - Remedies - Costs - Allegations of wrongdoing on part of police and Crown prosecution - Whether “prejudice”  necessary to granting a stay of proceedings on the basis of the “residual category” where there is a finding of continuing or ongoing harm to the integrity of the judicial process - Scope of “continuing or ongoing harm to the integrity of the judicial process” - Threshold to be met for a stay of proceedings on the basis of a finding of prosecutorial misconduct - Circumstances in which  costs against the Crown an appropriate remedy in a finding of abuse of process - Whether Court of Appeal improperly substituted its own view of the trial judge’s findings of fact.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

January 4, 2001

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Trial Division

(Boudreau J.)

Applicant’s request for costs granted in part: Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $35,000 for costs

November 27, 2001

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

(Roscoe, Chipman and Flinn JJ.A.)

Respondent’s appeals allowed: stay of proceedings and order for costs set aside, new trial ordered 

January 28, 2002

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

29005                    Émile Dejardin ‐ c. ‐ Ville de Varennes ‐ et entre ‐ Habitations Turgeon Inc., Luth Balane et Émile Dejardin ‐ c. ‐ Ville de Longueuil ‐ et entre ‐ Émile Dejardin ‐ c. ‐ Ville de Longueuil ‐ et entre ‐ Émile Dejardin ‐ c. ‐ Sa Majesté la Reine ‐ et entre ‐ Émile Dejardin ‐ c. ‐ Ville de Longueuil, Daniel Gauthier et Jean‐Paul Dubois  (Qué.) (Civile)

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

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée.  Les requêtes accessoires et la demande d’autorisation d’appel sont rejetées.

The application for an extension of time is granted. The ancillary motions and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Tribunaux - Appel - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en rejetant les requêtes en suspension d’exécution de jugement, en arrêt de procédures, en rejet d’action, en rétractation de jugement, en précision de jugement, en rectification de jugement, en permission d’appeler et en irrecevabilité au motif qu’elles étaient sans mérite quant au fond? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que les démarches du requérant constituent un usage abusif du système judiciaire? - Y a-t-il atteinte en l’espèce à un droit protégé par la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 9 octobre 2001

Cour d'appel du Québec

(Baudouin, Chamberland et Biron [ad hoc] jj.c.a.)

Requêtes en suspension d’exécution de jugement, en arrêt de procédures, en rejet d’action, en rétractation de jugement, en précision de jugement, en rectification de jugement, en permission d’appeler et en irrecevabilité rejetées

Le 21 novembre 2001

Cour suprême du Canada

Requête en prorogation de délai, requête en sursis et requête pour la désignation d’un procureur déposées

Le 20 mars 2002

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée

28962                    Jane Baptist ‐ v. ‐ Her Majesty the Queen (FC) (Civil)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Appeal from an assessment of income tax for compensation received from “special duty pay” - Whether an employee who provides services to a third party outside of their regular employment and is paid by the third party should be regarded as doing so as part of their regular employment or regarded as providing services outside of their employment? - Whether the “four-in-one” test relied upon in this case, and since refined in the case of 671122 Canada Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., 2000 SCC 59, needs to be further examined in regards to how it applies to skilled and professional persons providing services to third parties outside the terms of their normal employment? - Whether there is a contract for services between an individual and a third party when a contract of services is arranged for an individual through processes administered by that individual’s employer, but payment for services is made directly by a third party in circumstances where the employer has no liability for payment? - Whether courts can ignore the characterization of a provincial statute that characterizes services in one way, such as in the Police Service Act which characterizes the services provided as being private, and make a different finding?     

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28993                    FWS Joint Sports Claimants Inc. ‐ v. ‐ Border Broadcasters Inc., Canadian Broadcasters Rights Agency Inc., Canadian Retransmission Collective, Canadian Retransmission Right Association, Copyright Collective of Canada, Major League Baseball Collective of Canada Inc. and Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (FC) (Civil)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents Border Broadcasters Inc., Canadian Broadcasters Rights Agency Inc., Canadian Retransmission Right Association and Copyright Collective of Canada.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimées Border Broadcasters Inc., Agence des droits des radiodiffuseurs canadiens, Association du droit de retransmission canadien et Société de perception des droits d’auteurs du Canada.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Copyright - Royalties - Allocation of royalties - Method of allocation - Administrative law - Judicial review - Standard of review - Whether the Board changed the legal standard under which it acts - If so, whether the Court of Appeal rewrote the Board’s decision to make it appear that the legal standard had not been changed - If so, whether the Court of Appeal erred in so doing - Whether allocating a sum of money among several claimants is a “polycentric” matter justifying substantial deference to the Board’s decision - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in referring to the hearing transcript to find that the Board “came to grips with” evidence not mentioned in its decision.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28825                    Société du Grand Théâtre de Québec ‐ c. ‐ Communauté urbaine de Québec et Ville de Québec  (Qué.) (Civile)

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

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit municipal — Fiscalité municipale — Évaluation foncière — Détermination de la valeur de l’immeuble du Grand Théâtre de Québec pour fins d’évaluation — Prise en compte des désuétudes physiques, fonctionnelles et économiques — Loi sur la fiscalité municipale, L.R.Q., ch. F-2.1, art. 43, 44 et 45 — Droit administratif — Appel — La décision de la Cour du Québec est-elle déraisonnable? — La Cour du Québec a-t-elle erré en refusant d’intervenir? — La Cour du Québec a-t-elle erré en refusant de renvoyer le dossier devant le Tribunal administratif du Québec? — L’immeuble du Grand Théâtre de Québec était-il affecté par des désuétudes économiques et fonctionnelles découlant des lois du marché?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29033                    Thomas Rory Clancey ‐ v. ‐ Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal)

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

The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Hearsay - Statutes - Interpretation - Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 231(5) (e) - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in ruling that the trial judge had not erred in refusing to permit the introduction into evidence of the statements of David Teed - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in ruling that the trial judge had not erred in his instruction to the jury as to the difference between first and second degree murder.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28924                    John Clarke, Mabel Clarke, 386724 Alberta Ltd. and 505807 Alberta Ltd. ‐ v. ‐ Peter Rossburger, Gisela Rossburger, Alan E. Spievak and G.A.P. Mining Supply Inc. (Alta.) (Civil)

CORAM:               L'Heureux‐Dubé, Bastarache and Binnie 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 - Remedies - Shareholders’ remedies - Oppression remedy - Whether respondents’ conduct had the effect of unfairly disregarding and unfairly prejudicing shareholder’s interest - Whether the court of appeal’s interpretation of s. 234 of the Act was too narrow and incorrectly held that causation needs to be established - Whether this decision is inconsistent with the case law - Business Corporations Act, S.A. 1981, c. B-15, s. 234.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28789                    Tri Gro Enterprises Ltd., G.M.F. Part 2 carrying on business as Greenwood Mushroom Farm, Brent Taylor Holdings Ltd., Rick Campbell Holdings Ltd. and Snobelen Mushrooms Ltd., carrying on business as G.M.F. Part 2, Clayton Russell Taylor, Donald Leslie Van Dusen, Nicholas Van Halteren and David Brent Taylor ‐ v. ‐ Craig Pyke, Patricia Pyke, Gary Young, Erlyne Young, Kenneth Giles, Sally Giles, Bernice Gardner, Jean Gardner, Donald Walker, Leslie Walker, Margaret Davis, Ronald Chapman, Gordon Donnison, Karen Donnison, John Lennox, Nadia Lennox, Chris Downes, Christa Downes and 1094581 Ontario Limited (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

Torts - Nuisance - Property law - Real property - Land use conflicts - Statutes - Interpretation - Neighbouring property owners suing operators of mushroom farm as a result of odours created by operation of farm - Trial judge finding farm operators liable in nuisance - Whether owners’ claims in nuisance barred by “right to farm” legislation -  Whether phrase “normal farm practice” accurately interpreted by Court of Appeal - Farm Practices Protection Act, 1988, S.O. 1988, c. 62, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.6 - Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 1.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28853                    Tom Mitchinson, Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario ‐ v. ‐ Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services, John Doe, Requester ‐ and between ‐ Tom Mitchinson, Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario ‐ v. ‐ Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services, Jane Doe, Requester ‐ and between ‐ Tom Mitchinson, Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario ‐ v. ‐ The Attorney General for Ontario, John Doe,  Requester (Ont.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Access to documents denied - Appeal to Information Privacy Commissioner - Quashing an Order - Statutes - Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.F.31 - Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.M.56 - Interpretation of Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982 -  Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 403

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28974                    Attorney General of British Columbia and the Ministry of Forests ‐ v. ‐ Thomas Paul, Forest Appeals Commission ‐ and between ‐ Forest Appeals Commission ‐ v. ‐ Attorney General of British Columbia and the Ministry of Forests, Thomas Paul  (B.C.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal by the Attorney General of British Columbia and the Ministry of Forests is granted.  The application for leave to appeal by the Forest Appeals Commission is dismissed without prejudice to the Applicant’s rights to apply for leave to intervene in the appeal by the Attorney General of British Columbia and the Ministry of Forests.

La demande d'autorisation d’appel du procureur général de la Colombie-Britannique et du Ministry of Forests est accueillie.  La demande d'autorisation d’appel de la Forest Appeals Commission est rejetée sous réserve du droit de la demanderesse de présenter une demande d'autorisation d'intervenir dans le pourvoi du procureur général de la Colombie-Britannique et du Ministry of Forests.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional law - Native law - Administrative law - Procedural law - Division of powers - Courts - Aboriginal rights - Province providing for administrative process for dealing with forest disputes - Forest dispute involving aboriginal right to take timber with band’s permission from traditional band territory - Whether province has the legislative capacity to confer on the Forest Appeals Commission any jurisdiction to decide questions of aboriginal rights or aboriginal title in the course of exercising its functions under the Forest Practices Code - Whether a provincially constituted administrative tribunal can determine questions of aboriginal rights and title in the course of exercising its statutory mandate.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

October 9, 1996

Ministry of Forests, Port Albani Forest District

(Pashnik, District Manager)

Determination that Respondent Paul violated s. 96(1) of the Forest Practices Code and s. 65(3) of the Forest Act

April 24, 1998

Forest Appeals Commission

(Vigod, Chair)

Determination that Commission has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon questions involving aboriginal rights

28927                    Julio Cesar Lucas ‐ v. ‐ Attorney General of Canada (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

Procedural law - Proceedings against the Crown - Motion to strike portions of statement of claim and to dismiss action against Respondent - Criminal charges against Applicant for anal intercourse with person under 18 contrary to s. 159  of Criminal Code  withdrawn - Section 159 having been declared unconstitutional before charge laid - Applicant bringing civil action against Attorney General of Canada and others - Claim against Attorney General for failing to exercise legislative power to amend Criminal Code  struck - Whether Applicant’s claim against Attorney General justiciable - Whether there exists tort of constitutional negligence - Whether Respondent has duty to repeal or amend legislation declared unconstitutional - Whether remedies available where Charter  rights violated subsequent to declaration of constitutional validity

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28365                    The Chippewas of Sarnia Band ‐ v. ‐ Attorney General of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, Canadian National Railway Company, Dow Chemical Canada Inc. and Union Gas Ltd., The Corporation of the City of Sarnia, Amoco Canada Resources Ltd. and Amoco Canada Petroleum Company Ltd., Ontario Hydro Networks Company Inc., Union Gas Limited, Interprovincial Pipe Line Inc., The Bank of Montreal, The Toronto‐Dominion Bank and Canada Trustco Mortgage Company individually and as class representatives (Ont.) (Civil)

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

The motion for reconsideration of the application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents.

La demande de réexamen de la demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimés.

4.6.2002

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Motion for a stay of execution

Magdy Rashwan

v. (29215)

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

Requête en vue de surseoir à l'exécution

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the applicant for an order granting a stay of execution;

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The application for a stay of execution is dismissed.

4.6.2002

Before / Devant:   GONTHIER J.

Miscellaneous motion

James Chamberlain, et al.

v. (28654)

The Board of Trustees of School District #36 (Surrey) (B.C.)

Autre requête

DISMISSED / REJETÉE    The motion to reconsider the order of Gonthier J. dated April 17, 2002 is dismissed.

REVISED / RÉVISÉ

5.6.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondent’s response and book of authorities to August 9, 2002

G.S. (A Young Person)

v. (29203)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les réponse et recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’intimée au 9 août 2002

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

7.6.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (28628)

Antonio Portante (Crim.)(Ont.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to June 5, 2002.

10.6.2002

Before / Devant:   THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Motion for additional time to present oral argument

James Chamberlain, et al.

v. (28654)

The Board of Trustees of School District #36 (Surrey) (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du temps alloué pour les plaidoiries

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the appellants for additional time for oral argument in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The application on behalf of the appellants for additional time for oral argument is dismissed.

10.6.2002

Canadian Cable Television Association

v. (28826)

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

11.6.2002

Geoffrey Saldanha, et al.

v. (28829)

Frederick H. Beals, III, et al. (Ont.)

6.6.2002

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Manitoba

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

  v. (28261)

Devon Gary Ell, et al. (Alta.)

7.6.2002

BY/PAR:                Procureur général du Québec

Attorney General of British Columbia

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

  v. (28261)

Devon Gary Ell, et al. (Alta.)

11.6.2002

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

Hughes Communications Inc., et al.

v. (28070)

Spar Aerospace Limited (Que.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Colin K. Irving and Catherine McKenzie for the appellant Hughes Communications Inc.

Jean Bélanger et Louis Charette pour l’appelante Adaptive Broadband Corporation (Formerly Satellite Transmissions Systems Inc.).

James A. Woods and Christian Immer for the appellant Motient Corporation (Formerly American Mobile Satellite Corporation).

Joshua C. Borenstein for the appellant Viacom Inc. (Formerly Westinghouse Electric Corporation).

Marc-André Blanchard pour l’intimée.

DISMISSED WITH COSTS, REASONS TO FOLLOW / REJETÉ AVEC DÉPENS, MOTIFS À SUIVRE

GONTHIER J.: (orally)

This appeal is dismissed with costs.  Reasons to follow.

LE JUGE GONTHIER (oralement)

Cet appel est rejeté avec dépens.  Motifs de jugement à suivre.

Nature of the case:

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

Nature de la cause:

Droit international - Droit international privé - Articles 3135 et 3148 du Code civil du Québec - Compétence des tribunaux du Québec - Forum non conveniens - L’action intentée par l’intimée contre les appelantes est-elle du ressort des tribunaux du Québec? - L’atteinte à la réputation constitue-t-elle un « fait dommageable » au sens de l’art. 3148 du C.C.Q.? - Un fait dommageable s’est-il produit au Québec ? - L’intimée a-t-elle subi un dommage au Québec? - Y a-t-il un lien réel et substantiel entre l’objet de l’action intentée par l’intimée et le Québec? - Les tribunaux du Québec devraient-ils décliner compétence en se fondant sur la doctrine du forum non conveniens?

11.6.2002

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

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (28628)

Antonio Portante (Ont.) (Criminal) (As of Right)

Scott C. Hutchison for the appellant.

Philip Campbell for the respondent.

DISMISSED / REJETÉ

THE CHIEF JUSTICE (orally):

This is an appeal as of right.  We are all of a view to dismiss the appeal, substantially for the reasons of Charron JA in the Court of Appeal.

[TRANSLATION]  LE JUGE EN CHEF (oralement):

Le présent appel a été interjeté de plein droit.  Nous sommes tous d’avis de rejeter l’appel, essentiellement pour les mêmes motifs que ceux exposés par le juge Charron de la Cour d’appel.

Nature of the case:

Criminal law - Evidence - Hearsay - Out-of-court statement - Jury instructions - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in law in concluding that the jury had to ignore Coiro’s evidence about Angelo Portante’s statement in considering DeFrancesca’s credibility, but only in so far as he implicated the Respondent.

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel - Preuve - Ouï-dire - Déclaration extra-judiciaire - Directives au jury - Les juges majoritaires de la Cour d’appel ont-ils commis une erreur de droit en concluant que le jury devait ne pas tenir compte du témoignage de Coiro au sujet de la déclaration d’Angelo Portante dans l’examen de la crédibilité de DeFrancesca, mais seulement dans la mesure où Coiro mettait l’intimé en cause.

12.6.2002

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

James Chamberlain, et al.

v.  (28654)

The Board of Trustees of School District # 36 (Surrey)

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

Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C. and Catherine J. Parker for the appellants.

John G. Dives and Kevin L. Boonstra for the respondent.

Chris W. Sanderson, Q.C. and Keith B. Bergner for the intervener British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

Susan Ursel and David A. Wright for the intervener Families in Partnership.

Andrew K. Lokan and Stephen L. McCammon for the intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Cynthia Petersen and Kenneth W. Smith for the intervener EGALE Canada Inc.

No one appeared for the intervener Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (written submission by H. Goldblatt).

Daniel R. Bennett and Paul A. Craven for the intervener The Board of Trustees of School District no. 34 (Abbotsford).

D. Geoffrey Cowper, Q.C. and Cindy Silver for the interveners Evangelical Fellowsphip of Canada, et al.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Administrative law - Jurisdiction - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Equality rights- Freedom of religion - School Board refused approval of books depicting positive representations of same-sex parents for use as learning resources in kindergarten and grade one classrooms -Whether the School Board’s refusal pursuant to section 85(2)(b) of the School Act to approve learning resources because they include positive representations of same sex parents offends the rights and freedoms guaranteed by sections 15(1) , 2(a)  and 2(b)  of the Charter  - Whether the proper interpretation of the School Act precludes a School Board from refusing to approve books which include positive representations of same sex parents on the basis that affirming the value of such families would conflict with the religious views of some parents.

Nature de la cause:

Droit administratif - Compétence - Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droits à l’égalité- Liberté de religion - La commission scolaire a refusé d’approuver l’utilisation, comme matériel pédagogique pour les classes de maternelle et de première année, de livres décrivant de façon positive les parents de même sexe - Fondé sur l’alinéa 85(2)b) de la School Act, le refus de la commission scolaire d’approuver du matériel pédagogique parce qu’il comporte des descriptions positives des parents de même sexe porte‐t-il atteinte aux droits et libertés garantis par le paragraphe 15(1)  et les alinéa 2 a )  et 2 b )  de la Charte ? - Bien interprétée, la School Act interdit-elle à une commission scolaire de refuser d’approuver des livres comportant des descriptions positives des parents de même sexe au motif que l’affirmation de la valeur de telles familles entrerait en conflit avec les croyances religieuses de certains parents?

13.6.2002

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

Chee K. Ling

v. (28315)

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

and between

Warren James Jarvis

v. (28378)

Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Craig C. Sturrock and Thomas M. Boddez for the appellant Chee K. Ling.

Alan D. Macleod, Q.C. and Wendy K. McCallum for the appellant Warren James Jarvis.

S. David Frankel, Q.C., Bruce A. Harper and Janet Henchey for the respondent.

Scott K. Fenton for the intervener Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario).

Trevor Shaw for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario.

Monique Rousseau et Gilles Laporte pour l’intervenant

le procureur général du Québec.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

28315

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Taxation - Self-incrimination - Assessment - Income tax audit conducted pursuant to Income Tax Act - Statutorily compelled evidence obtained from audit used against taxpayer - Whether Respondent is precluded under the Charter  from tendering statutorily compelled evidence in a criminal prosecution of the Appellant for tax evasion for which the Appellant claims use immunity and derivative use immunity.

Nature de la cause:

28315

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit fiscal - Auto‐incrimination - Cotisation - Vérification de l’impôt sur le revenu effectuée suivant la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu - L’utilisation contre un contribuable d’un témoignage donné sous contrainte légale dans le cadre d’une vérification - La Charte empêche‐t‐elle l’intimée, lors d’une poursuite criminelle contre l’appelant pour fraude fiscale,  de déposer un témoignage donné sous contrainte légale lorsque l’appelant réclame l’immunité contre l’utilisation de la preuve et de la preuve dérivée?

28378

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Income tax - Search and seizure - Right to remain silent - Whether Revenue Canada can use its administrative powers under s. 231.1 and 231.2 of the Income Tax Act to pursue an investigation once a compliance audit has become an investigation - Were the taxpayer’s rights under s. 7  and s. 8  of the Charter  breached and is exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2) 

28378

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit criminel - Impôt sur le revenu - Fouille, perquisition et saisie - Droit de garder le silence - Revenu Canada peut-il utiliser les pouvoirs administratifs d’enquête que lui confèrent les art. 231.1 et 231.2 de la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu une fois qu’une vérification de conformité s’est transformée en enquête? - Les droits garantis au contribuable par les art. 7 et 8 de la Charte  ont-ils été

the appropriate remedy - What role can evidence not presented at the Crown’s instance to the issuing judge at the time of the application for a search warrant play in a judicial review of the authorization.

violés et l’exclusion des éléments de preuve en vertu du par. 24(2) constitue‐t‐elle la réparation appropriée? - Quel rôle les éléments de preuve que le ministère public n’a pas présentés au juge lorsqu’il lui a soumis sa demande de mandat de perquisition peuvent‐ils jouer dans le cadre de la révision judiciaire de l’autorisation?

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

- 2001 -