Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

May 10, 2002 743 - 764                                                                        le 10 mai 2002

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Dr. Sylvia R. Hicks

Dr. Sylvia R. Hicks

v. (29167)

West Coast General Hospital, et al. (B.C.)

John G. Dives

Dives, Grauer & Harper

FILING DATE 18.4.2002

Charles Henry Beauchamp

Marvin R. Bloos

Beresh Depoe Cunningham

v. (29175)

Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

Eric Tolppanen

A.G. of Alberta

FILING DATE 18.4.2002

Marvin A. Haggith

Ronald E. Carr

Goodman and Carr

v. (29173)

33 Parliament Street Inc., et al. (Ont.)

Kirk F. Stevens

Lerner & Associates

FILING DATE 19.4.2002

Tai Foong International Limited

Brian J.E. Brock, Q.C.

Dutton, Brock, MacIntyre & Collier

v. (29176)

Lombard Canada Limited (Ont.)

Mark L.J. Edwards

Beard Winter

FILING DATE 19.4.2002

Service Corporation International (Canada) Limited

Robert S. Russell

Borden Ladner Gervais

v. (29177)

Scanfield Holdings Ltd., et al. (Ont.)

Michel E. Barrack

McCarthy Tétrault

FILING DATE 23.4.2002

Barbara Haight-Smith

Barbara Haight-Smith

v. (29172)

Janice Neden, Wendy Lichlyter, Evelyn Spicer, Tony Dufficy, Ross Dickson, Tarry Grieve, Allan Critchley, Geoff Gibbard, Connie Burris, et al. (B.C.)

James A. Dowler

Alexander Holburn Beaudin & Lang

FILING DATE 29.4.2002

MAY 6, 2002 / LE 6 MAI 2002

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Arbour

Kwok Ki Fong, a.k.a. Jimmy Fong

v. (28999)

United States of America (Crim.) (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Procedural law - Right to counsel - Evidence - Inculpatory statement without advice to right to counsel - Statement admitted by chambers judge conducting extradition hearing - Whether Applicant detained at time statement made - Whether statement admissible - Whether documents seized in the search are sufficient to justify the order of committal without inculpatory statement.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

410675 Alberta Ltd., Abbey Lane Homes Ltd., and B & R Development Corporation,

operating under the trade name of "Abbey Lane Homes"

v. (28938)

Trail South Developments Inc.(Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Real Property - Sale of land - Remedies - Specific performance - Contract for the sale of commercial land  - Principles governing the granting of specific performance - Whether the lands are unique - Whether there is conflict in the case law regarding the remedy of specific performance - Whether the lower courts erred in awarding damages.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Jeanette Black, et al

v. (28876)

Canada Employment Insurance Commission (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour Law - Unemployment Insurance - Entitlement - Employee did not attempt to cross picket line during a strike by co-workers represented by another Local of her union - Terms of an Essential Services Order excluded her from her workplace during strike - Employee dis-entitled from unemployment insurance benefits because unemployment resulted from a labour dispute - Whether employee re-entitled because she did not participate nor had a direct interest in other Local’s labour dispute - Whether non-striking employee precluded by an essential service order can be found to be participating in another Local’s strike - Whether employee’s interest in the outcome of strike or actions of employee’s union can be grounds for finding participation - Whether failure to indicate willingness to work was grounds for finding participation - Whether employer’s view as to whether employees might cross picket line can be grounds for finding participation - Whether Court of Appeal’s approach makes unions the agent or mandatory of their members - Whether Court of Appeal’s approach provides a disincentive to participate in negotiations respecting essential services.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

August 30, 2001

Federal Court of Appeal

(Rothstein, Sexton and Evans JJ.A.)

Application for judicial review dismissed

October 26, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

The Information Commissioner of Canada

v. (28883)

The Minister of Industry Canada and Patrick McIntyre (F.C.A)

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

The Information Commissioner of Canada

v. (28884)

The Minister of Industry Canada (F.C.A)

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

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache et Binnie

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. (28886)

Daniel O’Connor (N.S.)

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

Apotex Inc.

v. (28915)

Bayer AG, Bayer Inc. and The Minister of Health (F.C.A)

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

Mr. Allan Milton Paul Smart, also known as A.M.P. Smart

v. (28877)

The Society of Lloyd's (Ont.)

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

Centre hospitalier St‐Mary's

c. (29066)

Cathy Chouinard (Qué.)

ET ENTRE :

Michel Demarchie, Luc Laurier‐Oligny et Howard Dawang

c.

Cathy Chouinard (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Responsabilité civile - Prescription - Interruption de la prescription - Solidarité - Obligation in solidum - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré dans la qualification de la nature des obligations respectives des demandeurs et du Dr Robbins? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en déclarant que le Dr Robbins et les médecins du Centre hospitalier St-Mary’s étaient coauteurs du même délit? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant à l’existence d’une solidarité en vertu de l’art. 1106 du Code civil du Bas-Canada entre les demandeurs et le Dr Robbins? - Quels sont les effets secondaires de la solidarité imparfaite (obligation in solidum)? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en déclarant que la poursuite intentée contre le Dr Robbins avait eu pour effet d’interrompre la prescription contre les demandeurs? - L’intimée était-elle dans l’impossibilité absolue en droit ou en fait d’agir?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Steven I. Robbins

v. (29068)

Catherine Chouinard (Que.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence - Respondent suffering from hyponatremia - Applicant family physician found to be negligent in treating condition - Respondent admitted to hospital and given inappropriate treatment - Respondent sustaining substantial brain damage - Whether the Court of Appeal’s decision increases uncertainty and confusion about the test for adequate causation in medical negligence suits - Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly relied on the doctrine of adequate causation - Whether the Court of Appeal’s decision casts doubt on the principle of non-interference with determinations of fact by a trial judge.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:  Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Major et LeBel

Tri Gro Enterprises Ltd., G.M.F. Part 2 carrying on business as Greenwood Mushroom Farm, Brent Taylor Holdings Ltd., Rick Campbell Holdings Ltd., 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. (28789)

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.)

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

August 3, 2001

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Abella, Charron [dissenting] and Sharpe JJ.A.)   

Appeal dismissed

October 2, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

October 12, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Stay of execution granted

Tom Mitchinson, Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario

v. (28853)

Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services, John Doe, Requester (Ont.)

AND BETWEEN:

Tom Mitchinson, Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario

v.

Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services and John Doe, Requester (Ont.)

AND BETWEEN:

Tom Mitchinson, Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario

v.

Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services and Jane Doe, Requester (Ont.)

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

Toronto Catholic District School Board

v. (28935)

Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association (Toronto Elementary Unit) (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law – Judicial review – Standard of review – Labour law – Arbitration – Labour relations – Arbitrator interpreting regulation made pursuant to Education Act, considered “outside” legislation – Standard when reviewing decision of arbitrator  patent unreasonableness according to Court of Appeal – Whether external statute so intimately connected with mandate of tribunal as to constitute an exception to general rule that judicial review to be on correctness standard – If so, whether arbitrator’s awards patently unreasonable – Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2 – O.Reg. 298, R.R.O. 1990, as amended.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Falls Creek Falling Contractors Ltd.

v. (28969)

Pat Carson Bulldozing Ltd. (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Contracts - Damages - Indemnity clause in contract - In the absence of a judgment obligating the indemnitee to pay monies to a third party, is an indemnitee required to show that the payment is a reasonable settlement of the indemnitee’s legal liability to that third party, in order to recoup from the indemnitor - Where there is no proof of a reasonable settlement of a legal liability, does the fact that the indemnitor has a right of subrogation against the third party justify recovery by the indemnitee of the payment?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Elizabeth Mulak and Roman Mulak

v. (28951)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.A)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Business Tax - Business expenses - Whether the lower courts failed to give the Applicants due process of law - Whether the strict technical rules of evidence apply in an informal tax court hearing - Whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the appeals from reassessment - Whether there are any issues of public importance raised.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

MAY 9, 2002 / LE 9 MAI 2002

28788                    Jeffrey Scott Schellenberg ‐ v. ‐ Her Majesty the Queen (Man.)(Criminal)

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

Criminal Law (Non-Charter) - Verdicts - Sentencing - Conditional sentences -Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that guilty verdict was not unreasonable or that sentence was not unfit.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29044                    Atmah Singh ‐ v. ‐ British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (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

Labour law - Master and Servant - Wrongful dismissal - Whether the rules concerning notice under the British Columbia Employment Standards Act, RSBC 1996, c.113, were breached resulting in the wrongful termination of the applicant?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28912                    Re‐Con Building Products Inc. ‐ v. ‐ Western Union Insurance Company and The Nordic Insurance Company of Canada (B.C.) (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

International law - Conflict of laws - Forum non conveniens - Applicant commencing suit in California court for declaration that Respondent insurers were obligated to defend class action brought against it - Insurers bringing action in British Columbia Supreme Court seeking declaration that insurance policies were void ab initio - Applicant’s application for declaration that British Columbia court had no jurisdiction dismissed - Whether Canadian courts, faced with litigation for which two jurisdictions are appropriate, will countenance maintenance of a second suit.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28459                    Denis Brazeau ‐ c. ‐ Gérard Guay et Le Barreau du Québec  (Qué.) (Civile)

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

La demande de réexamen est rejetée avec dépens.

The application for reconsideration is dismissed with costs.

30.4.2002

Before / Devant:   LEBEL J.

Motion for a stay of execution

Phil Lajeunesse, operating as “Prince Albert Northern Bus Repair” (Northern Bus Repair Centre Inc.)

v. (29070)

Wahpeton Dakota First Nation and Lorne Waditaka (Sask.)

Requête en vue de surseoir à l'exécution

GRANTED, COSTS TO FOLLOW / ACCORDÉE, DÉPENS À SUIVRE

The applicant Phil Lajeunesse has applied for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dated February 25, 2002.  This judgment upheld a judgment of the Court of Queen’s Bench of March 23, 2001 which ordered the applicant to return to the respondents the school buses which were withheld under the Garage Keeper’s Act, R.R.S. 1978 c. G2, which belonged to the respondent Waditika, a status Indian, and which were used to transport school children living on an Indian reserve.  The applicant was granted a temporary stay for thirty days by Justice Tallis, J.C.A. of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in order to file a motion for leave to appeal and is now petitioning for a further stay, pending disposition of the motion for leave to appeal.  The respondents object to the granting of a further stay.

After a review of the application and material filed in its support and in response to it, it appears this is a case where a further stay should be granted.  The legal issues seem of significant importance and do not seem to have been addressed directly until now by our Court.  Moreover, the central issue in this case is the validity of the security interest claimed by the applicant.  The denial of a stay would deprive the applicant of the only security he appears to hold for the alleged indebtedness and might render the appeal moot.  Moreover, at this stage, the balance of convenience favors the applicant.  For these reasons, it is ordered that the execution of the Judgment of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal be stayed until the disposition of the motion for leave to appeal, costs to follow.

30.4.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

ECU-Line N.V.

v. (28472)

Z.I. Pompey Industrie, et al. (F.C.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to April 8, 2002.

1.5.2002

Before / Devant:   THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Motion to state a constitutional question

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta

v. (28261)

Devon Gary Ell, et al. (Alta.)

Requête pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Notices of intervention are to be filed on or before June 10, 2002.

1.             Does s. 2.4(8) of the Justice of the Peace Act, R.S.A. 1980, c.J-3, as amended, interfere with the tenure of non-sitting justices of the peace and thereby violate the principle of judicial independence guaranteed by:

(a) the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867 , or

(b) section 11( d )  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

2.             If the answer to question 1(b) is yes, is the Act demonstrably justified as a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1  of the Charter ?

1.             Le paragraphe 2.4(8) de la Justice of the Peace Act, R.S.A. 1980, ch.J-3 et ses modifications, porte-t-il atteinte à l’inamovibilité des juges de paix qui ne siègent pas et contrevient-il, de ce fait, au principe de l’indépendance judiciaire garanti par :

a) le préambule de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867  ou

b) l’alinéa 11 d )  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

2.             Si la réponse à la première question est affirmative, s’agit-il d’une loi dont la justification peut se démontrer en tant que limite raisonnable prévue par une règle de droit en vertu de l’article premier de la Charte ?

2.5.2002

Before / Devant:   THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Motion to state a constitutional question

Glenda Doucet-Boudreau, et al.

v. (28807)

Attorney General of Nova Scotia (N.S.)

Requête pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the appellants for an order stating a constitutional question;

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The application to state a constitutional question is denied.

7.5.2002

Before / Devant:   IACOBUCCI J.

Motions by the respondent to expedite the decision on the applications for leave to appeal

Centre hospitalier St-Mary’s, et al.

v. (29066)

Cathy Chouinard, et al. (Que.)

and

Steven I. Robbins

v. (29068)

Cathy Chouinard (Que.)

Requêtes de l’intimée visant à obtenir rapidement une décision sur les demandes d’autorisation d’appel

GRANTED / ACCORDÉES

UPON APPLICATION by the respondent, Cathy Chouinard for an order expediting the applications for leave to appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motions on behalf of the respondent, Cathy Chouinard for an order expediting the applications for leave to appeal are granted.

Date of Hearing/   Case Number and Name/    

Date d'audition     Numéro et nom de la cause

9:30 a.m.

2002/05/13             Motions / Requêtes

Procureur général du Québec c. R.C. (Qué.) (28923)

(Audition orale sur la demande d’autorisation d’appel / Oral hearing on leave)

Procureur général du Québec c. Sébastien Beauchamp et autres (Qué.) (29121)

(Audition orale sur la demande d’autorisation d’appel / Oral hearing on leave)

28923      Attorney General of Quebec v. R.C.

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.

28923      Procureur général du Québec c. R.C.

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?

29121      Attorney General of Quebec v. Sébastien Beauchamp et al.

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.

29121      Procureur général du Québec c. Sébastien Beauchamp et autres

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?

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME

- 2001 -

- 2002 -