Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

May 17, 2002  765 - 793                                                                      le 17 mai 2002

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Her Majesty the Queen

Shelley Hallett

A.G. for Ontario - Crown Law Office

v. (29137)

Brendon McFadyen (Ont.)

Sean R. Fraser

Risen & Inch

FILING DATE 25.3.2002

Claude Landry

Dominique Neuman

c. (29169)

La Cour du Québec, et autre (Qué.)

DATE DE PRODUCTION 19.4.2002

Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec

Michel Blais

Cardinal, Landry

c. (29178)

C.B.R. Laser Inc. et Claude Beauvillier (Qué.)

Jean-Guy Provencher

Massicotte, Carrier

DATE DE PRODUCTION 23.4.2002

The Continental Insurance Company of Canada

Richard B. Lindsay

Lindsay Kenney

v. (29179)

International Nesmont Industrial Corporation,

et al. (B.C.)

Leslie Muir

Holmes & King

FILING DATE 23.4.2002

Le procureur général du Québec

Gilles Laporte

P.G. du Québec

c. (29180)

Paul Brisebois, et autres (Qué.)

Réal Charbonneau

- et entre -

Commission des services juridiques

Jean-Marie Larivière

Meloche, Larivière

c. (29180)

Paul Brisebois, et autres (Qué.)

Réal Charbonneau

DATE DE PRODUCTION 26.4.2002

Frederick Whitmore, et al.

Albert E. King

King Sutton

v. (29182)

Bernie Proznick (B.C.)

Barry G. Bergh

Gregg Alfonso

FILING DATE 29.4.2002

Mizanur Rahaman

Pia Zambelli

v. (29183)

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.)

Jocelyne Murphy

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 29.4.2002

Edperbrascan Corporation

R. Paul Steep

McCarthy Tétrault

v. (29184)

177373 Canada Limited, et al. (Ont.)

Neil Finkelstein

Blake, Cassels and Graydon

FILING DATE 29.4.2002

MAY 13, 2002 / LE 13 MAI 2002

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Arbour

Peter Randy Reifel

v. (28811)

John Halagan (B.C.)

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

AstraZeneca AB

v. (28972)

Novopharm Limited (F.C.A)

AND BETWEEN:

Ciba‐Geigy Canada Ltd.

v.

Apotex Inc. (F.C.A.)

AND BETWEEN:

Ciba‐Geigy Canada Ltd.

v.

Novopharm Limited (F.C.A.)

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

Ontario Public Service Employees Union

v. (29135)

Attorney General for Ontario (Ont.)

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

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache et Binnie

Jacques Laurendeau

c. (28965)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.) (Qué.)

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

Giles Poirier

v. (29039)

Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (N.S.)

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

Émile Dejardin

c. (29005)

Ville de Varennes (Qué.)

ET ENTRE :

Habitations Turgeon Inc., Luth Balane et Émile Dejardin

c.

Ville de Longueuil (Qué.)

ET ENTRE :

Émile Dejardin

c.

Ville de Longueuil (Qué.)

ET ENTRE :

Émile Dejardin

c.

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)

ET ENTRE :

Émile Dejardin

c.

Ville de Longueuil et al. (Qué.)

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

CORAM:  Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Major et LeBel

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (29015)

Peter Fraser (Crim.) (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non Charter) - Jury charge - Post-offence conduct - Intent - Whether trial judge adequately instructed jury on proper use of post-offence flight - Whether trial judge erred in jury charge on relevance of evidence of intoxication to issue of intent.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

February 22, 1997

Ontario Court (General Division)

(Killeen J.)

Applicant convicted of second degree murder, co-accused acquitted

February 28, 1997

Ontario Court (General Division)

(Killeen J.)

Applicant sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 15 years

November 7, 2001

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Carthy, Weiler and Feldman JJ.A.)

Appeal from acquittals dismissed; Appeal against conviction allowed, conviction quashed, new trial ordered against applicant

January 4, 2002

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal with respect to granting appeal from conviction filed

Myra M. D. Simanek

v. (28932)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sentencing - Psychiatric assessment

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission

v. (28941)

Terrence Burridge and Daniel Meehan (Nfld.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Labour law - Workers’ compensation - Statutes - Interpretation - Applicant Commission using net from net method of CPP offset in calculating overpayment of Respondents’ workers' compensation for periods commencing January 1, 1993 - Review Division overturning Commission’s decisions - Appropriate standard of review of a decision of the Review Division in a case where the Review Division interprets a particular provision of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act - Under the statutory direction in s. 81(4) of the Act, whether the Commission may alter the manner in which CPP benefits are taken into account in a case where the Commission had not previously determined the effect of CPP benefits prior to the transition date of January 1, 1993 - Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, R.S.N. 1990, c. W-11, s. 81(4).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

MAY 13, 2002 / LE 13 MAI 2002

CORAM:           Le Juge en chef et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour  et LeBel JJ.

Procureur général du Québec

c. (28923)

R.C. (Crim.) (Qué.)

Daniel Grégoire et Gilles Laporte pour le demandeur.

Pierre Gagnon pour l’intimé.

RENVOYÉE À LA COUR D’APPEL / REMANDED TO THE COURT OF APPEAL

LE JUGE EN CHEF (oralement):

La requête pour permission d’en appeler est renvoyée à la Cour d’appel du Québec pour qu’elle se prononce sur la demande d’autorisation de pourvoi des jugements rendus par la Cour supérieure sous l’autorité de l’article 676.1  du Code criminel .  Motifs à suivre.

[Translation] THE CHIEF JUSTICE (orally):

The motion for leave to appeal is referred to the Quebec Court of Appeal so that it may rule on the application for leave to appeal the judgments rendered by the Superior Court pursuant to s. 676.1  of the Criminal Code .  Reasons to follow.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit criminel - Procédure - Appel - Compétence - Droit à l’avocat - Art. 7  et 11d)  de la Charte  -  La Cour supérieure a-t-elle erré en reconnaissant à l’intimé  un droit constitutionnel à la représentation par avocat aux frais de l’État à l’étape de l’enquête pour remise en liberté? - La Cour supérieure pouvait-elle ordonner à l’État de fournir les services d’un avocat à l’intimé en s’attardant uniquement aux intérêts de celui-ci et en ne tenant aucunement compte des intérêts de la société, notamment des limites à la capacité de l’État de payer? - La Cour supérieure pouvait-elle dicter au Gouvernement les mécanismes de prestation des services? - La décision de la Cour supérieure peut-elle faire l’objet d’un appel à la Cour suprême?

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  ‐ Criminal  Law - Procedural Law - Appeals - Jurisdiction - Right to legal counsel - Sections 7  and 11( d )  of the Charter  - Whether the Superior Court erred in holding that the Respondent has a constitutional right to representation by a publicly funded lawyer at stage of hearing for judicial interim release - Whether the Superior Court had the authority to order the state to provide the services of a lawyer to the Respondent by looking only at his interests and not taking into account the interests of society, notably, the ability of the state to pay - Whether the Superior Court had the authority to dictate to the government the mechanism for providing this benefit - Whether the decision of the Superior Court can be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

CORAM:           Le Juge en chef et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour  et LeBel JJ.

Procureur général du Québec

c.  (29121)

Sébastien Beauchamp et autres (Crim.) (Qué.)

Daniel Grégoire, Gilles Laporte, Patrice Peltier-Rivest et Sébastien Bergeron-Guyard pour le demandeur.

Christian Desrosiers et Alexandre Boucher pour les intimés.

RENVOYÉE À LA COUR D’APPEL / REMANDED TO THE COURT OF APPEAL

LE JUGE EN CHEF (oralement):

La requête pour permission d’en appeler est renvoyée à la Cour d’appel du Québec pour qu’elle se prononce sur la demande d’autorisation de pourvoi des jugements rendus par la Cour supérieure sous l’autorité de l’article 676.1  du Code criminel .  Motifs à suivre.

[Translation] THE CHIEF JUSTICE (orally):

The motion for leave to appeal is referred to the Quebec Court of Appeal so that it may rule on the application for leave to appeal the judgments rendered by the Superior Court pursuant to s. 676.1  of the Criminal Code .  Reasons to follow.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit criminel - Procédure - Appel - Compétence - Droit à un procès équitable - Majoration du tarif d’aide juridique - Art. 7  et 11d)  de la Charte  - La décision de la Cour supérieure peut-elle faire l’objet d’un appel à la Cour suprême en vertu du par. 40(1)  de la Loi sur la Cour suprême du Canada ? - La Cour supérieure a-t-elle erré en concluant que les intimés avaient rencontré leur fardeau de démontrer une violation de leur droit à un procès équitable? - La Cour supérieure a-t-elle erré en omettant de tenir compte et de respecter les dispositions du régime québécois de l’aide juridique qui permettent aux personnes admissibles d’obtenir les services d’un avocat compétent? - La Cour supérieure a-t-elle erré en substituant un nouveau régime parallèle d’aide juridique à celui déjà prévu par le législateur québécois?

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Procedure - Appeal - Jurisdiction - Right to a fair trial - Increase in legal aid tariff - Sections 7  and 11( d )  of the Charter  - Whether Superior Court’s decision can be appealed to the Supreme Court under s. 40(1) of the Supreme Court of Canada Act - Whether Superior Court erred in finding that the Respondents had met their onus of establishing an infringement of their right to a fair trial - Whether Superior Court erred in failing to take into account and comply with the provisions of the Quebec legal aid plan which allow eligible persons to obtain the services of a competent lawyer - Whether Superior Court erred in substituting a new legal aid system parallel to the one already provided for by the Quebec legislature.

MAY 16, 2002 / LE 16 MAI 2002

28826                    Canadian Cable Television Association ‐ v. ‐ Barrie Public Utilities, Essex Public Utilities Commission, Guelph Hydro, Innisfil Hydro, Leamington Public Utilities Commission, Markham Hydro Electric Commission, Mississauga Hydro Electric Commission, Niagara‐on‐the‐Lake Hydro Electric Commission, The Hydro Electric Commission of North Bay, Oakville Hydro, Orillia Water, Light and Power, Perth Public Utilities Commission, Richmond Hill Hydro Electric Commission, Shelburne Hydro, Stoney Creek Hydro‐Electric Commission, Stratford Public Utility Commission, Toronto Hydro‐Electric Commission (formely Hydro Electric Commission of the City of North York and the Public Utilities Commission of the City of Scarborough), Waterloo North Hydro and Kitchener‐Wilmot Hydro ‐ and ‐ Canadian Radio‐Television and Telecommunications Commission, Saskatchewan Power Corporation, Attorney General of New Brunswick and Attorney General of Canada (FC) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, L'Heureux‐Dubé and Bastarache JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted with costs to the applicant in any event of the cause.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée avec dépens en faveur de la demanderesse quelle que soit l’issue de l’appel.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional law - Division of powers - Statutes - Interpretation - Administrative law - Judicial review - CRTC order granting television cable companies access to poles owned by provincial utility companies at fixed rate - Does ss. 43(5) of the Telecommunications Act , S.C. 1993, c. 38 , confer authority on the CRTC to regulate access by cable companies and telecommunications carriers to power utility support structures - Does Parliament have constitutional authority to regulate access by federal communications undertakings to electric power utility support structures - Appropriate standard of review of CRTC decision. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

September 28, 1999

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)

Order granting access to Respondents’ poles

28964                    Léo‐René Maranda ‐ c. ‐ Caporal Normand Leblanc, ès qualités de dénonciateur (Qué.) (Criminelle)

CORAM:               Le Juge en chef et les juges Iacobucci et Arbour

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit Criminel - Preuve - Privilège des communications entre avocat et client - Procédure - Saisie - Perquisition et saisie dans un cabinet d’avocat - Le montant des honoraires versés à un avocat par un client pour assurer sa défense à une accusation criminelle est-il un renseignement protégé par le privilège du secret professionnel de l’avocat? - Le fait qu’une personne a payé des honoraires professionnels à un avocat pour se défendre d’une accusation criminelle peut-il être utilisé en preuve par la poursuite pour établir une accusation de recel des produits de la criminalité sans violer la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ? - Le juge de paix excède-t-il sa compétence s’il émet un mandat visant un cabinet d’avocat en l’absence d’une preuve qu’il n’existe pas d’alternative à la perquisition? - Le juge de paix excède-t-il sa compétence s’il ne fixe pas comme condition de l’exécution du mandat qu’une occasion raisonnable soit offerte à l’avocat d’être présent lors de l’exécution du mandat? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en décidant que l’exception de crime s’appliquait?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29083                    Her Majesty the Queen ‐ v. ‐ Steven Keith Mitchell (B.C.) (Criminal)

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

Criminal law - Sentencing - Dangerous offender - Long term offender - Retrospectivity - Whether the court of appeal for British Columbia erred by narrowing the definition of dangerous offender? - Whether the court of appeal erred in holding that only offenders for whom there is no reasonable possibility of cure or control within the length of a determinate or long-term offender sentence are to be designated dangerous offenders? - Whether the majority of the court of appeal erred in holding that the long-term offender provisions constitute a lesser punishment?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29140                    Her Majesty the Queen ‐ v. ‐ Michael Edward Kelly (B.C.) (Criminal)

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

Criminal law - Sentencing - Dangerous offender - Long term offender -  Whether the court of appeal for British Columbia erred by narrowing the definition of dangerous offender? - Whether the court of appeal erred in holding that only offenders for whom there is no reasonable possibility of cure or control within the length of a determinate or long-term offender sentence are to be designated dangerous offenders? - Whether the majority of the court of appeal erred in ordering a new hearing without considering whether, on the evidence, the result would necessarily have been the same if the long-term offender provisions had been applied? 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28829                    Geoffrey Saldanha and Leueen Saldahna ‐ v. ‐ Frederick H. Beals III and Patricia Beals ‐ and between ‐ Dominic Thivy ‐ v. ‐ Patricia Beals and Frederick H. Beals III (Ont.) (Civil)

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

The applications for leave to appeal are granted.

Les demandes d’autorisation d’appel sont accordées.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms   - International law - Conflict of laws - Commercial law - Fraud - Procedural law - Default judgment - Public policy and natural justice - Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye (1991), 76 D.L.R. (4^TH) 256 (S.C.C.) - Whether the ability of foreign courts to take jurisdiction over Canadian residents under the “real and substantial” test in Morguard should be re-examined, in a situation where the possibility exists of fraud regarding the process by which the judgment was obtained - Whether Canadian courts should give a broader interpretation to the defences of public policy and natural justice, as raised in the Morguard judgment, which  referred to “fairness to the defendant through fair process” and remedies being available to foreign default judgments in certain cases where public policy issues are raised - Whether the failure of the defendants to appear in foreign proceedings estops them from seeking redress for failings in the processes of the foreign court, which ultimately results in a denial of fundamental justice   

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

November 6, 1998

Ontario Court of Justice

(Jennings J.)

Respondents’ action seeking to enforce, in Ontario, a judgment obtained in Florida dismissed

June 29, 2001

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Catzman, Doherty and Weiler JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed; judgment for Respondents in the amount of $556,185. (U.S. funds)

September 27, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

First application for leave to appeal filed

September 28, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Second application for leave to appeal filed

29058                    Mansour Ahani ‐ v. ‐ The Minister of Citizenship & Immigration (Ont.) (Civil)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed, L’Heureux-Dubé J. dissenting.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée. Le juge L’Heureux-Dubé est dissidente.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Immigration law - Deportation - Stay of deportation order sought - Petition to the United Nations Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - Human Rights Committee interim request that deportation be stayed - Whether as a matter of fairness, under s. 7  of the Charter , an individual is entitled to exhaust an international remedy - Whether the principle of legitimate expectation extends to international remedies.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

7.5.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Kevin Shapwaykeesic

v. (29141)

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

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to May 6, 2002.

8.5.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Miscellaneous motion

R.R.

v. (28933)

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

Autre requête

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    The motion for an order permitting the appellant to file his record without being bound by cerlox binding, with the pages numbered and devoid of heading and tabs and to reduce the number of copies to 14, is granted.

8.5.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

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’intimée

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to April 22, 2002.

8.5.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

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’intimée

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to April 22, 2002.

9.5.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

The Corporation of the City of Ottawa

v. (28469)

Ken Goudie, et al. (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les dossier, mémoire et recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine des intimés

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to April 26, 2002.

9.5.2002

Before / Devant:   The 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 Ontario

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’Ontario

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to May 31, 2002.

9.5.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the appellant’s record and factum

Bell Canada

v. (28743)

Canadian Telephone Employees Association, et al. (F.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les dossier et mémoire de l’appelante

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to 21 days following the decision on the motion to state constitutional questions.

9.5.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the appellant’s record and factum

Government of the Northwest Territories

v. (28737)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les dossier et mémoire de l’appelant

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to 10 days following the decision on the motion to state constitutional questions.

10.5.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the appellants’ factum

K.L.B., et al.

v. (28612)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire des appelants

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to May 21, 2002.

10.5.2002

Before / Devant:   IACOBUCCI J.

Motion by the respondent for an order to permit filing of supplementary materials and for additional time to present oral argument

The Commissioner of Patents

v. (28155)

The President and Fellows of Harvard College (F.C.)

Requête de l’intimé en obtention d'une ordonnance autorisant le dépôt des documents supplémentaires et en prorogation du temps alloué pour les plaidoiries

GRANTED IN PART / ACCORDÉE EN PARTIE

UPON APPLICATION by the respondent The President and Fellows of Harvard College for leave to file a supplementary factum and book of authorities, and for 30 minutes of additional time for oral argument in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1.             The application for leave to file a supplementary factum of 22 pages in response to the submissions made in the facta filed by the four groups of public interest interveners is granted;

2.             The application for leave to file a supplementary book of authorities, containing only those additional authorities or excerpts of authorities not contained in the books of authorities already filed by the appellant, respondent and interveners is granted.

3.             The application for an additional 30 minutes of time to make oral argument is dismissed.

10.5.2002

Before / Devant:   IACOBUCCI J.

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

Noël Ayangma

v. (29168)

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

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

DISMISSED WITH COSTS / REJETÉE AVEC DÉPENS

UPON APPLICATION by the applicant Noël Ayangma for an extension of time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal within 60 days from the date of the decision of the Board of Inquiry established by the P.E.I. Human Rights Commission as ordered by the P.E.I. Court of Appeal judgment of March 4, 2002,

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The application for an extension of time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

2.5.2002

Servier Canada Inc.

c. (29115)

Yolande Hotte (Qué.)

3.5.2002

Léonard Speer

c. (28848)

Richard Corriveau (Qué.)

8.5.2002

Fellowes, McNeil

v. (28199)

Kansa General International Insurance Company, et al.  (Ont.)

(appeal)

14.5.2002

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

B., et al.

v. (28383)

A., et al. (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Edward A. Canning and Sean T. Jackson for the appellants.

Naomi Overend and Joanne Rosen for the respondent Ontario Human Rights Commission.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Civil rights - Discrimination - Family status and marital status - Employee fired after his daughter, supported by her mother, made allegations of sexual abuse by the employer - Employer is the brother of the wife and uncle to the daughter - Whether the term “marital status” and “family status” as defined in Ontario’s Human Rights Code is broad enough to include the particular identity of one’s spouse and child - Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding that “discrimination” within the meaning of the Ontario Human Rights Code had been proved.

Nature de la cause:

Libertés publiques - Discrimination - État familial et état matrimonial - Un employé a été congédié après que sa fille, appuyée par sa mère, eut allégué avoir été agressée sexuellement par l’employeur - L’employeur est le frère de l’épouse de l’employé et l’oncle de sa fille - Les termes « état matrimonial » et « état familial » définis dans le Code des droits de la personne de l’Ontario sont‐ils suffisamment larges pour inclure l’identité particulière du conjoint et de l’enfant d’une personne? - La Cour d’appel a‐t‐elle commis une erreur lorsqu’elle a conclu qu’on avait prouvé qu’il y avait eu « discrimination » au sens du Code des droits de la personne de l’Ontario?

14.5.2002

CORAM:               Le Juge en chef et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour  et LeBel JJ.

Camille Noël

c.  (28734)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.) (Criminelle)

(De plein droit)

Josée Ferrari pour l’appelant.

Henri-Pierre Labrie et Michel Breton pour l’intimée.

EN DÉLIBÉRÉ / RESERVED

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel - Preuve -Exposé au jury - Fardeau de preuve - Doute raisonnable - Témoins experts - Contre-interrogatoire - Le juge de procès a-t-il commis une erreur dans ses directives au jury concernant le fardeau de preuve et la notion de doute raisonnable? - Le juge de procès a-t-il commis une erreur en donnant des directives insuffisantes quant à la preuve de témoins experts? - La majorité de la Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que le contre-interrogatoire de l’accusé n’était pas irrégulier, en ce qui a trait à l’application de l’art. 13  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  et de l’art. 5 de la Loi sur la preuve au Canada?

Nature of the case:

Criminal law - Evidence - Charge to jury - Onus of proof - Reasonable doubt - Expert witnesses - Cross-examination - Did the trial judge err in the charge to the jury concerning the onus of proof and the concept of reasonable doubt? - Did the trial judge err by giving inadequate instructions concerning the evidence of expert witnesses? - Did the majority in the Court of Appeal err in finding that the accused’s cross-examination was not irregular with respect to the application of s. 13  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  and s. 5 of the Canada Evidence Act?

MAY 14, 2002 / LE 14 MAI 2002

27427                    Janine Bailey ‐ v. ‐ Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, The Public Service Commission ‐ and between ‐ Elisabeth Lavoie, Jeanne To‐Thanh‐Hien ‐ v. ‐ Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, The Public Service Commission ‐ and ‐ Center for Research‐Action on Race Relations ["CRARR"] (FC) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and L'Heureux‐Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

The application for a rehearing is dismissed with costs.

La demande de nouvelle audition est rejetée avec dépens.

26980                    Robert William Latimer ‐ v. ‐ Her Majesty the Queen ‐ and ‐ Canadian AIDS Society, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Christian Medical Dental Society, Physicians for life, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Council of Canadians with disabilities, Saskatchewan voice of people with disabilities, Canadian Association for Community Living, People in Equal Participation Inc., DAWN Canada: Disabled Women's Network Canada and People First of Canada, Catholic Group for Health, Justice and Life, Attorney General of Canada and Attorney General for Ontario (Sask.) (Criminal)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and L'Heureux‐Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

The application for an extension of time is granted.  The application for a rehearing is dismissed.

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée.  La demande de nouvelle audition est rejetée.

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME

- 2001 -

- 2002 -