Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

June 7, 2002 875 - 901                                                                           le 7 juin 2002

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Jada Fishing Co. Ltd. and Evco Fishing Ltd.

Murray L. Smith

Campney & Murphy

v. (29210)

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Pacific Licence Appeal Board - Groundfish Panel (F.C.)

Harry J. Wruck, Q.C.

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 14.5.2002

Scott Byron Morrison

Balfour Q.H. Der, Q.C.

Batting, Der

v. (29212)

Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

Goran Tomljanovic

A.G. of Alberta

FILING DATE 15.5.2002

Noël Ayangma

Noël Ayangma

v. (29168)

The P.E.I. Human Rights Commission, et al. (P.E.I.)

Paul D. Michael, Q.C.

FILING DATE 16.5.2002

Mark Anthony MacPhail, et al.

Tracey L. Clements

Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales

v. (29216)

Brenda MacKinnon, Katelyn MacKinnon, Jackson MacKinnon, and Brenda MacKinnon, Administratix of the Estate of Kent MacKinnon, and Litigation Guardian of Katelyn MacKinnon and Jackson MacKinnon, on behlaf of the Estate and Dependants of Kent MacKinnon, et al. (P.E.I.)

Kenneth L. Godfrey

Campbell, Lea, Michael, McConnell & Pigot

FILING DATE 17.5.200

Air Canada

Katherine L. Kay

Stikeman Elliott

v. (29202)

The Commissioner of Competition, et al. (F.C.)

Donald J. Rennie

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 21.5.2002

Sa Majesté la Reine

Michel Pennou

P.G. du Québec

c. (29217)

Etzer Myrthil (Qué.)

Gaétan Bourassa

DATE DE PRODUCTION 21.5.2002

G.S.

Philip Campbell

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell

v. (29203)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Karen Shai

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 23.5.2002

A.H.

A.H.

c. (29220)

Paul-André Lafleur (Qué.)

Michel Gagné

McCarthy Tétrault

DATE DE PRODUCTION 24.5.2002

David Bolingbroke

Daniel W. Monteith

Monteith, Baker & Johnston

v. (29197)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Susan Magotiaux

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 3.5.2002

Keyvan Nourhaghighi

Keyvan Nourhaghighi

v. (26982)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

W. Graeme Cameron

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 14.5.2002

F.L.

Sylvie Schirm

v. (29211)

M.F., et al. (Qué.)

Miriam Grassby

FILING DATE 15.5.2002

Léo-Paul Roy

Léo-Paul Roy

c. (29219)

Me Louise Comeau, ès qualités de syndic du Barreau du Québec, et autre (Qué.)

Jean Pomminville

Lavery, de Billy

DATE DE PRODUCTION 24.5.2002

Alexander Henri Legault

Julius H. Grey

Grey Casgrain

v. (29221)

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

Normand Lemyre

Côté, Marcoux & Joyal

FILING DATE 27.5.2002

Norman Bert Guimond

Jay Prober

Prober Law Offices

v. (29222)

Her Majesty the Queen (Man.)

Robert H. Morrison, Q.C.

A.G. of Manitoba

FILING DATE 27.5.2002

Garaga Inc.

Michel C. Chabot

Ogilvy Renault

c. (29226)

Ernst & Young Inc., et autres (Qué.)

Gordon Levine

Kugler Kandestin

DATE DE PRODUCTION 27.5.2002

JUNE 3, 2002 / LE 3 JUIN 2002

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Arbour

George Sutherland

v. (29028)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal - Criminal Law (Non Charter) - Whether Court of Appeal erred with respect to decision not to order disclosure - Whether Court of Appeal erred with respect to evidence of the complainant’s emotional state - Whether Court of Appeal erred with respect to applicant’s heritage in determining whether an indeterminate sentence was appropriate - Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that it would not consider the constitutionality of s. 761  of the Criminal Code  - Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider fresh evidence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Edward J. Nordquist and Domo Gasoline Corporation Ltd.

v. (28898)

Patricia Gurniak, Valerie Michelle Ross and Shannon Lee Ross,

by their guardian ad Litem, Patricia Gurniak (B.C.)

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

Olympia Interiors Ltd., et al

v. (29024)

Her Majesty the Queen, et al  (F.C.A)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Civil - Civil Procedure - Procedural Law - Application for declaration dismissed because commenced after statutory time limit - Whether public authorities should exercise a statutory discretion absolutely - The statutory correctness of  Certificates - Sections 1 , 7 , 9 , 12 , 15  and 32(1)  of the Charter  and 2(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights - Whether power to detain is lawful - Whether damages of irreparable harm were foreseeable - Whether Her Majesty The Queen may rely on statutory defence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Olympia Interiors Ltd. and Mary David

v. (29023)

Her Majesty the Queen and Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Civil - Civil Rights - Procedural Law - Application for extension of time to  appeal denied - Whether public authorities should exercise a statutory discretion absolutely - The statutory correctness of  Certificates - Sections 1 , 7 , 9 , 12 , 15  and 32(1)  of the Charter  and 2(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights - Whether power to detain is lawful - Whether damages of irreparable harm were foreseeable - Whether Her Majesty The Queen may rely on statutory defence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Rochelle Leah Moss and Danny Moss

v. (28973)

Attorney General of Canada (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Income tax - Assessments - Evidence - The determination of evidence presented at trial by expert witness and qualified witnesses ought not to be ignored by the court and is a matter of public importance - Whether the lower courts erred in failing to find that certain residences were principal residences - Whether the lower courts erred in rejecting witnesses’ evidence - Whether there are issues of public importance raised.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

October 8, 1999

Tax Court of Canada

(Sarchuk J.T.C.C.)

Applicant Danny Moss’s appeals from tax assessments for tax years 1991, 1992 and 1994 allowed in part: assessments referred back to Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment

December 15, 1999

Tax Court of Canada

(Sarchuk J.T.C.C.)

Applicant Rochelle Moss’s appeals from tax assessment for tax years 1987 to 1994 allowed in part: assessments referred back to Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment

November 21, 2001

Federal Court of Appeal

(Strayer, Linden and Sharlow JJ.A.)

Applicants’ appeals and applications for judicial review dismissed with costs

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache et Binnie

Richard Poirier

c. (29007)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)  (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit criminel - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en jugeant qu’il n’y a pas eu violation des art. 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11  et 24  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré dans son interprétation des art. 16, 367, 368 et 380 du Code criminel, L.R.C. 1985, ch. - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré dans l’évaluation des principes de la détermination de la peine en confirmant une peine trop sévère alors que les critères de l’art. 742.1  du Code criminel  étaient réunis - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en jugeant qu’il n’y a pas eu violation du droit du demandeur à la divulgation de la preuve - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en jugeant qu’il n’y a pas eu violation du droit d’être jugé dans un délai déraisonnable - Le dépôt tardif d’un acte d’accusation modifié devait-il mener à un ajournement ou un arrêt des procédures?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 26 juin 1998

Cour du Québec

(Dufour j.c.q.)

Demandeur déclaré coupable d’avoir fait des faux documents, de s’être servi de documents contrefaits, de fraude et de complot contrairement aux art. 367 , 368(1) a), 380(1) a), 465(1)  du Code criminel 

Andrew Scott Haydon

v. (29018)

Her Majesty the Queen Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Estoppel - In assessing applicant for 1997 taxation year Minister of National Revenue disallowed deduction for undeducted RRSP premiums paid in 1993 taxation year - Whether the courts below erred in holding that there is no liability on the part of the Crown for negligently given advice where the Crown relies upon the letter of the law to defend its decision?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Wayne Russel Norris, Sylvia Crowell‐Norris, Susan Catherine McNab,

Shannon Elizabeth McNab, Eileen Clare Norris and Catherine Alice Daisy Giffin

v. (29054)

Constable Mark Gatien and The City of Nepean (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Police officers - Investigation - Duty of care - Is a private law duty of care owed by a police officer to the victims of a crime to properly investigate the crime?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Maria Sokolowska, Elwira Sokolowska and Maria Sokolowska,

personal representative of the Estate of Henry Sokolowska

v. (28944)

Notre Dame Cemetery (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Damages - Applicants claim damages against respondent for fraud and deception concerning burial of husband/father - Whether the lower courts erred in their decision to dismiss the action of the applicants and erred in the award of costs?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

University Health Network (formerly Toronto General Hospital, Toronto Western Hospital and

Ontario Cancer Institute, c.o.b. as Princess Margaret Hospital)

v. (29027)

Her Majesty in right of Ontario (by her representative, the Minister of Finance) (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Retail sales tax -  Tax exemption - Public hospitals - Statutes - Interpretation - Enabling statutes of three individual hospitals each containing express tax exemption - Whether tax exemptions continued in amalgamated entities by virtue of “continuation of rights” clauses in amalgamating statutes.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:  Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Major et LeBel

                                                                          B.H., By her next friend, A.H., A.H.

v. (29174)

The Director of Child Welfare for the Province of Alberta (Alta.)

AND BETWEEN:

B.H., By her next friend, A.H.

v.

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta (as represented by the Director of Child Welfare), Alberta Children's Hospital, Attorney General for Alberta, L.H. (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  – Civil – Child welfare – Child in need of protection – Freedom of religion –  Right to security of the person – Right to equality – Age discrimination – “Mature minor” –  16 year old Jehovah’s Witness diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia refusing blood transfusions and administration of blood products because of religious beliefs – Treatment considered essential by medical experts –  Director of Child Welfare obtaining apprehension and treatment orders – Ongoing administering of unwanted treatment using sedation and restraints – Capacity at time of orders determined to be that of mature minor which was later lost because of undue influence –  Whether applicant a “mature minor” – If so, whether “mature minor” has right to refuse treatment under Alberta Child Welfare legislation or whether legislation a “complete code” – Whether granting apprehension and treatment orders and ongoing imposed treatment violates mature minor’s Charter  right to security of the person, freedom of religion or right to equality – If so, whether  imposed medical treatment was reasonable limitation under s. 1  of the Charter  –  Alberta Child Welfare Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. C-12, ss. 1(1)(d), 1(2), 2, 22(2), 22(5) – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ,   ss. 1 , 2(a) , 7 , 15(1) .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Chateau LaFleur Development Corporation and Can‐Euro Investments Limited

v. (29020)

Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company Limited and Maritime Tel & Tel Limited (N.S.)

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

Constantine Bassis

v. (28986)

Century 21 Parkland Ltd. (Ont.)

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

Noël Ayangma

v. (29002)

Government of Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.)

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

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION / DEMANDE DE RÉEXAMEN

CORAM:  Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Major et LeBel

Noël Ayangma v. NAV Canada, et al. (P.E.I.) (28426)

JUNE 6, 2002 / LE 6 JUIN 2002

28811                    Peter Randy Reifel ‐ v. ‐ John Halagan (B.C.) (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

Commercial law - Evidence - Escrow shares - Resulting trust - What are the substantive requirements to be met in order to rebut the presumption of resulting trust - Where no gift by the transferor can be established, whether the recipient of property can rebut the presumption of resulting trust by showing that the recipient provided “value” outside the context of a contract to transfer beneficial title to the recipient.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

October 1, 1998

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Satanove J.)

Respondent declared beneficial owner of 375,000 shares of Francisco Gold Corp.; Applicant’s counterclaim dismissed

28972                    AstraZeneca AB ‐ v. ‐ Novopharm Limited and Registrar of Trade‐Marks ‐ and between ‐ Ciba‐Geigy Canada Ltd. ‐ v. ‐ Apotex Inc. and Registrar of Trade‐Marks ‐ and between ‐ Ciba‐Geigy Canada Ltd. ‐ v. ‐ Novopharm Limited and Registrar of Trade‐Marks (FC) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents Apotex Inc. and Novopharm Limited.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimées Apotex Inc. et Novopharm Limited.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Trade-marks - Pharmaceutical preparations - Application for trade-mark in colour applied to surface of tablet or capsule - Whether the lower courts correctly applied the standard of review - Whether the lower courts applied the correct test for distinctiveness.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

September 17, 1997

Trade Marks Opposition Board

(M. Herzig)

Oppositions to Applicant Ciba-Geigy Canada Limited’s application to register trade-marks dismissed

December 9, 1997

Trade Marks Opposition Board

(M. Herzig) 

Opposition to Applicant Astra Aktiebolag’s application to register trade-mark dismissed

29135                    Ontario Public Service Employees Union ‐ v. ‐ Attorney General for Ontario (Ont.) (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

Procedural law - Courts - Contempt of court - Labour law - Labour relations - Lawful strike - Picketing of courthouses during lawful strike - Ex parte injunction restraining Applicant’s members from gathering, congregating or picketing within precincts of the courts granted on court’s own motion - Whether the Court of Appeal decision unjustifiably limits the freedoms of expression, assembly and association of the Applicant’s members contrary to subsection 2(b) , (c) and (d) of the Charter  - Whether the lower courts applied the wrong test - Whether the terms of the order are broader than necessary to safeguard the legitimate interest in preserving access to justice - Whether a “signalling effect” of picketing can be presumed - What evidence is necessary to raise a presumption of signalling - Whether the decision of the Court of Appeal and the decisions of this Court conflict on the intent required for the common law offence of criminal contempt.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28.5.2002

Before / Devant:   ARBOUR J.

Further order on motions for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Ontario

Procureur général du Québec

Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario)

IN/DANS:              Chee K. Ling

v. (28315)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

and

Warren James Jarvis

v. (28378)

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

Autre ordonnance sur des requêtes en autorisation d'intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉES

UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General for Ontario, the Attorney General of Québec and the Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario) for leave to intervene in the above appeals and pursuant to the orders of September 18, 2001, October 25, 2001, March 14, 2002 and April 25, 2002;

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said interveners are each granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding fifteeen (15) minutes in total at the hearing of the appeals.

À LA SUITE DE DEMANDES du procureur général de l’Ontario, du procureur général du Québec et de la Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario) visant à obtenir l’autorisation d’intervenir dans les appels susmentionnés et suite aux ordonnances du 18 septembre 2001, 25 octobre 2001, 14 mars 2002 et 25 avril 2002;

IL EST EN OUTRE ORDONNÉ que la plaidoirie des intervenants soit limitée en tout à quinze (15) minutes chacun lors de l’audition des appels.

28.5.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum of the intervener Canadian Labour Congress

Donald Martin

v. (28372)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire de l’intervenant le Canadian Labour Congress

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to May 24, 2002.

28.5.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum of the intervener Canadian Labour Congress

Ruth A. Laseur

v. (28370)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire de l’intervenant le Canadian Labour Congress

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to May 24, 2002.

29.5.2002

Before / Devant:   LEBEL J.

Motion for extension of time and leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Conseil scolaire acadien provincial

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

v. (28807)

Attorney General of Nova Scotia (N.S.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial 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 Conseil scolaire acadien provincial 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 appellants and respondent any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellants and respondent by the intervention.

29.5.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion for substitutional service

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

v. (29128)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Requête en substitution de signification

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    The motion by the respondent for substitutional service upon the applicant of the respondent’s response is granted.

30.5.2002

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Alberta

IN/DANS:              Her Majesty the Queen

v. (28946)

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

Requête en autorisation d'intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General of Alberta for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Attorney General of Alberta 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 respondent any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondent by the intervention. 

30.5.2002

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Motions for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Alberta

Attorney General for the Province of Ontario

IN/DANS:              Her Majesty the Queen

v. (28945)

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

Requêtes en autorisation d'intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉES

UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General of Alberta and the Attorney General for the Province 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 the Province 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 appellant and respondent any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondent by the interventions. 

31.5.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

R.R.

v. (28933)

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

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to August 9, 2002.

31.5.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Chee K. Ling

v. (28315)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to May 22, 2002.

31.5.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Warren James Jarvis

v. (28378)

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

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to May 22, 2002.

31.5.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Miscellaneous motion

David Scott Hall

v. (28223)

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

Autre requête

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    The motion to serve and file the respondent’s supplementary book of authorities on May 14, 2002 is granted.

31.5.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to file a lengthy factum

Hugues Duguay

c. (28903)

Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Qué.)

Requête visant le dépôt d’un long mémoire

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    La requête visant le dépôt d’un mémoire plus de quarante pages mais ne dépassant pas soixante pages est accordée.

3.6.2002

Before / Devant:   LEBEL J.

Miscellaneous motion

Glenda Doucet-Boudreau, et al.

v. (28807)

Attorney General of Nova Scotia (N.S.)

Autre requête

DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS / REJETÉE SANS DÉPENS

La requérante, la Commission Nationale des Parents Francophones soumet une requête en réexamen de la décision rejetant sa demande d’intervention.  Les motifs et l’opportunité de cette demande d’intervention ont été examinés à l’occasion de sa présentation à la Cour.  La demande de réexamen n’établit aucun motif exceptionnel justifiant la révision de la décision rendue au sujet de l’intervention proposée, dans la mesure même où le par. 51(12) des règles de la Cour suprême du Canada l’autorise.  La requête en réexamen est rejetée sans frais.

24.5.2002

In the matter of Earth Future Lottery: Attorney General for the Province of Prince Edward Island, et al.  (P.E.I.)    (29213)

(Reference)

16.5.2002

La Compagnie Pétrolière Impériale Limitée

c. (28835)

Le Procureur général du Québec pour et au nom du ministre de l’Environnement, Monsieur André Boisclair (anciennement Monsieur Paul Bégin) (Qué.)

17.5.2002

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79

v. (28840)

City of Toronto, et al. (Ont.)

17.5.2002

Ontario Public Service Employees Union

v. (28849)

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

21.5.2002

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (29083)

Steven Keith Mitchell (B.C.)

21.5.2002

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (29140)

Michael Edward Kelly (B.C.)

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 -

- 2002 -