Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

July 25, 2003 1171 - 1193                                                                    le 25 juillet 2003

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

John Yu

Marvin R. Bloos

Beresh Depoe Cunningham

v. (29861)

Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

James C. Robb, Q.C.

A.G. of Alberta

FILING DATE: 14.7.2003

Eurosport Auto Co. Ltd., et al.

Roger P. Thirkell

Thirkell & Company

v. (29863)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Sarah MacDonald

A.G. of British Columbia

FILING DATE: 15.7.2003

Bruno Riendeau

Bruno Riendeau

c. (29862)

La ville de Québec (Qué.)

Michel Vézina

Boutin et Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 14.7.2003

Dans l’affaire de la faillite de:

Stéphane Ouellet

Banque Nationale du Canada

Reynald Auger

Langlois Kronstrom Desjardins

c. (29864)

Samson Bélair Deloitte et Touche Inc., Syndic (Qué.)

Maurice Dussault

Brochet Dussault Larochelle

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 14.7.2003

JULY 21, 2003 / Le 21 JUILLET 2003

CORAM:  Chief Justice McLachlin and Bastarache and Deschamps JJ. /

La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Bastarache et Deschamps

Ronald Hickey

v. (29773)

Correctional Services Canada ‑ Rockwood Institution (Man.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Prerogative writs - Writ of habeas corpus - Natural justice - Internal grievance process - Whether a violation of natural justice occurred due to the fact that the lower courts disregarded the leading authorities of the Supreme Court of Canada - Whether the authorities of the Supreme Court of Canada are binding on the provincial courts - Whether a violation of natural justice occurred when lower courts disregarding evidence tendered by the Applicant - Whether the internal grievance process of Correctional Services Canada is an adequate alternate remedy that should have been exhausted prior to seeking relief from the court system by way of an application for a writ of habeas corpus

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Jacques Laurendeau

c. (29713)

Université Laval, Beauvais Truchon et Associés et Procureur général du Québec (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Exceptions déclinatoires - Requêtes en rejet d’appel - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en accueillant les requêtes en rejet d’appel? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en confirmant le jugement déclarant le demandeur plaideur vexatoire et abusif?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Leonel Conde

v. (29707)

Abrams Towing Services Ltd., Glen Kristoffersen and Dwight Williams (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Master and servant - Employee or independent contractor - Action in damages for constructive dismissal - Allegations of assault, harassment and racial discrimination in the workplace - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in confirming the judgment of the trial judge who did not accept the Applicant’s evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in concluding that constructive dismissal based on suspension from employment was not argued - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal when the trial judge had relied on inadmissible evidence in the form of hearsay testimony.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Weimin Wu

v. (29730)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the Applicant’s application for judicial review.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Les Immeubles Henry Ho

c. (29726)

Nour‑Eddine Benakezouh (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Responsabilité civile - Droit commercial - Contrats - Dommages-intérêts - Responsabilité extracontractuelle - Contrats nommés - Contrat de courtage immobilier - Vente d’un immeuble - Promesse d’achat - Défaut du promettant-acheteur d'acheter l'immeuble faute d'avoir obtenu d'une institution prêteuse les fonds nécessaires - Omission de décréter l'offre d'achat conditionnelle à l'obtention d'un prêt - Faute - Négligence et insouciance - Préjudice - Courtier immobilier privé de sa commission - Lien de causalité - Dommage indirect, incertain et hypothétique - Théorie de la perte de chance - Le jugement de la Cour d’appel du Québec va-t-il à l’encontre des principes juridiques établis en matière de responsabilité extracontractuelle ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle invalidé le principe selon lequel l’inexécution d’une obligation contractuelle peut être source de responsabilité extracontractuelle envers un tiers ? La Cour d’appel a-t-elle invalidé le principe selon lequel un tiers peut être indemnisé même s’il n’est pas la victime immédiate de la faute reprochée ? Le jugement de la Cour d’appel a-t-il pour effet de mettre en péril la stabilité et la validité des contrats?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

Benjamin Krela et 3588106 Canada Inc.

c. (29567)

Sulzer Medica AG, Orthosoft Inc., Orthosoft R&D Inc., agissant par l'entremise du séquestre‑gérant Chamberland Hodge, Louis‑Philippe Amiot et 3588092 Canada Inc. (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Droit des compagnies - Recours - Société  - Recours en oppression - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en refusant de reconnaître que des « droits équitables » peuvent exister au-delà des droits contractuels ou légaux lorsque le tribunal est saisi d’un recours pour abus en vertu de l’art. 241 de la Loi sur les sociétés par actions, L.R.C. 1985, c. C-44  ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en se limitant à une interprétation littérale et partielle de la convention d’actionnaires et en ignorant non seulement les dispositions de la Loi qui imposent aux administrateurs et dirigeants une conduite intègre et de bonne foi mais aussi en refusant de donner effet à la disposition prévue à la convention d’actionnaires ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en refusant d’intervenir afin d’éviter que soit pénalisée une partie, malgré des agissements et des décisions contraires aux principes de justice et d’équité qui doivent gouverner tous les membres du conseil d’administration d’une compagnie qui ont des intérêts commerciaux particuliers avec la société dont ils gèrent la destinée ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en ignorant tous les faits constatés par le juge de première instance, y inclus ceux relatifs à la mauvaise administration de la compagnie OrthoSoft, le complot entre les deux autres actionnaires d’OrthoSoft précédant la signature de la convention d’actionnaires, l’exclusion totale et subite des demandeurs des affaires d’OrthoSoft alors que ceux-ci n’ont jamais été de simples investisseurs ? - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en décidant que l’art. 65.1(3)  de la Loi sur la Cour suprême du Canada  l’autorisait à siéger en révision d’une ordonnance de sursis d’exécution rendue par un juge unique de la Cour d’appel du Québec ? - Ce faisant, s’est-elle  arrogée une juridiction qu’elle n’a pas et qui contrevient à la Loi sur la Cour suprême du Canada  ? - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle  erré en s’arrogeant une juridiction qu’elle n’avait ni en vertu de la Loi sur la Cour suprême du Canada  ni en vertu du Code de procédure civile du Québec en matière de sursis d’exécution ?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

                                                                  CORAM:  Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Major et Arbour

James Roger Demers

v. (29632)

Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal - Freedom of Expression - Canadian Charter  - Criminal - Freedom of Conscience and Religion - Canadian Charter  - s. 7 - Right to Life of the Unborn - Access to Abortion Services Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 1 providing access to abortion clinics - Act restricting protestors from protesting and interfering with this access within a prescribed zone of access: s. 2(1) - Do these provisions violate the Charter ? - If so, are these violations saved by s. 1? - Does the word “everyone” in s. 7  of the Charter  include the unborn? - Do the unborn have a right to life?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Jason Richard Kerr

v. (29714)

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

(As of Right / By Leave by Her Majesty the Queen)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Acquittal of charge of second degree murder and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace - Court of Appeal allowing appeal and substituting a conviction for possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose - Self defence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Errol Brown

v. (29762)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non Charter) - Evidence - Admissibility of expert opinion evidence - Extent to which the evidence of a police officer, testifying anecdotally from experience, is admissible as expert opinion evidence concerning the sociology of criminal subcultures.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

v. (29690)

Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Hon. Martin Cauchon

Minister of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law -  Judgments and orders - Order made under s. 40  of the Federal Court Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7  requiring Applicant to obtain leave to institute any proceedings in the Federal Court of Canada or to continue his current action or any of the outstanding appeals on interlocutory matters - Whether lower courts erred in granting and upholding such an order.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Michael Taylor

v. (29678)

Attorney General of Canada (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Certain members of the public wearing religious head coverings excluded from a criminal trial - Complaint to Canadian Judicial Council - Chairperson of Judicial Conduct Committee declining to refer complaint to a Panel of the Council for review - What is the standard of review of a decision by the Chairperson of the Judicial Conduct Committee to close a file without further investigation when there is a prima facie case that a judge’s conduct placed him in a position incompatible with the due execution of the office of judge? - Is it patently unreasonable for the Chairperson to close a file without further investigation when a judge has refused to allow a spectator to remain in court without removing his small religious head covering and has stated on the record that some religions deserve lesser Charter  protection than “major, recognizable” religions deserve? - Was there reasonable apprehension of bias in the closing of the file? - Is the failure of the Council to conduct an investigation or inquiry into this complaint a contravention of ss. 2( a ) , 15(1)  or 27  of the Charter ?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Henri Jacques

v. (29783)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Business losses - Business losses disallowed by Minister - Whether clarification required to Stewart to adequately determine whether the taxpayer’s activity can be classified as “for-profit” or “personal” undertaking - Whether subsection 60 (o) (i) of the Income Tax Act (Act) requires clarification as to what are the fees or expenses that can be claimed as a deduction when they are incurred in preparing, instituting or prosecuting an objection to, or an appeal in relation to an assessment of tax - Whether subsection 248(1) of the Act requires clarification as to which type of activities or undertakings can be classified as an adventure or concern in the nature of the trade.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                  CORAM:  Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ. /

Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et LeBel

Argia Maria Ziggiotti

c. (29756)

Justin Desmarais (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Appel - Norme de contrôle de l’appel d’une décision judiciaire - Code civil (interprétation) - Donation entre vifs - Révocation pour cause d’ingratitude - La Cour d’appel était-elle justifiée d’infirmer le jugement de la Cour supérieure?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Placements André Turgeon Inc.

c. (29715)

Ville de Longueuil, Procureur général du Québec et Lomer Gervais (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit des biens - Titres de propriété - La théorie de l’estoppel (by conduct et promissory) permet‑elle d’interpréter et de confirmer un titre de propriété, empêchant ainsi la Couronne d’en contester aujourd’hui la légalité? - L’acte de vente de 1990 entre Québec et Longueuil peut‑il être annulé pour cause de contravention à la Loi sur les terres du domaine public, L.R.Q. c. T‑8.1?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Dr Daniel Méthot

c. (29808)

Régie de l’assurance‑maladie du Québec et Procureur général du Québec

et Tribunal administratif du Québec (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Droit à une audition juste et impartiale - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erronément refusé la permission d’appel? - Le Tribunal administratif du Québec peut-il corriger des irrégularités procédurales commises par le Comité de révision des dentistes et la Régie de l’assurance-maladie du Québec? - Les instances précédentes ont-elles erré en jugeant que l’art. 49 de la Loi sur l’assurance-maladie, L.R.Q. ch. A-29, permettait à la Régie de baser sa réclamation sur des données statistiques?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, P.A.

v. (29594)

Lafarge Canada Ltd., Cigna Insurance Company of Canada and Boreal Insurance Inc.

and between

American Home Insurance Company

v.

Lafarge Canada Ltd. and Boreal Insurance Inc.

and between

Reliance Insurance Company

v.

Lafarge Canada Ltd., Boreal Insurance Inc. and Cigna Insurance Company of Canada (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial Law - Insurance - Duty to Defend - Insurer’s obligation to pay insured’s own and third party costs - Excess or Umbrella insurance - When does the excess/umbrella insurer’s obligation to defend arise? - When an insurer offers excess, or umbrella, insurance, does the duty to defend only arise when the underlying insurance has been exhausted? - When an excess or umbrella policy states that the terms of the policy only apply where the event insured against is not “covered” by the underlying insurance, does this coverage refer to the risk or to both the risk and the quantum of insurance?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Syndicat des employés de la Commission scolaire du fleuve et des lacs (CSN)

c. (29785)

Me Denis Gagnon, ès qualités d'arbitre de griefs, et Commission scolaire du fleuve et des lacs (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail - Convention collective - Arbitrage - Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Compétence - Libertés publiques - Discrimination en matière d’emploi - Handicap - Obligation d’accommodement - Employée atteinte de sclérose en plaques - Employeur mettant fin à son emploi en raison de son incapacité physique - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en refusant de réviser la décision de l’arbitre de griefs puisque celle-ci contient des erreurs relativement à l’interprétation et l’application de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., ch. C-12, portant sur la notion d’accommodement sans contrainte excessive pour les personnes handicapées en milieu de travail? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en appliquant la norme de contrôle de l’erreur manifestement déraisonnable à une interprétation et à une application de la Charte?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION / DEMANDE DE RÉEXAMEN

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

La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Major

Stuart Jordan, suing by his Litigation Guardian, Irene Jordan, and the said Irene Jordan, on her own behalf v. Dr. Luis Salgado de Leon (Sask.) (27404)

15.7.2003

Before / Devant :   BINNIE J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉES

UPON APPLICATION by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, the Canadian Publishers’ Council and Association of Canadian Publishers and La Société québécoise de gestion collective des droits de reproduction and The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency 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, the Federation of Law Societies of Canada  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 applicants, the Canadian Publishers’ Council and Association of Canadian Publishers is granted and the applicants shall be entitled to serve and file a joint factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

3.             The motion for leave to intervene of the applicants, La Société québécoise de gestion collective des droits de reproduction and The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency is granted and the applicants shall be entitled to serve and file a joint 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 intervener.

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

Pursuant to Rule 59(1)(a) the interveners shall pay to the appellant and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondents by the interventions. 

À LA SUITE DES DEMANDES de la Fédération des professions juridiques du Canada et du Canadian Publishers’ Council et l’Association des éditeurs canadiens et de la Société québécoise de gestion collective des droits de reproduction et The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency visant à obtenir l’autorisation d’intervenir dans l’appel susmentionné;

ET APRÈS AVOIR LU la documentation déposée;

L’ORDONNANCE SUIVANTE EST RENDUE:

1.             La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par la Fédération des professions juridiques du Canada est accordée; la requérante aura le droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire de 20 pages tout au plus.

2.             La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par le Canadian Publishers’ Council et l’Association des éditeurs canadiens est accordée; les requérants auront le droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire conjoint de 20 pages tout au plus.

3.             La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par la Société québécoise de gestion collective des droits de reproduction et The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency est accordée; les requérants auront le droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire conjoint de 20 pages tout au plus.

La demande visant à présenter une plaidoirie sera examinée après la réception et l’examen de l’argumentation écrite des parties et de l’intervenant.

Les intervenants n’auront pas le droit de produire d’autres éléments de preuve ni d’ajouter quoi que ce soit au dossier des parties.

Conformément au par. 59(1)(a) des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada, les intervenants paieront a appelante et aux intimés tous débours supplémentaires résultant de leur intervention.

16.7.2003

Before / Devant :   BINNIE J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to August 15, 2003.

16.7.2003

Before / Devant :   BINNIE J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    The motion to file a factum of no more than 60 pages so that the respondent Roger William may file one factum in response to the two factums filed by the appellants, is granted.

18.7.2003

Before / Devant :   BINNIE J.

GRANTED IN PART / ACCORDÉE EN PARTIE

This is an application by the Attorney General of Alberta for an extension of time and for leave to intervene in this appeal.  The application for an extension of time is granted. 

The questions in issue on the appeal have been framed by the appellants at paragraphs 19 and 20 of their factum as follows:

19.           Does the Provincial Crown have a constitutional or fiduciary duty to consult with First Nations and to seek to accommodate aboriginal interests in circumstances where First Nations have claimed, but not yet proven, aboriginal rights or title?  [Emphasis added.]

20.           If the duty is not constitutional or fiduciary, how may it be defined and applied in a manner which allows the Provincial Crown to strike a workable balance between its proprietary interests and statutory duties, its obligations to First Nations, and the public interest at large? 

The respondent Redfern is in substantial agreement with this statement of the issues but would somewhat reformulate the main issue as follows:

Does the Provincial Crown have a constitutional or fiduciary obligation to consult which arises on the assertion of an aboriginal right or aboriginal title but is independent of the existence of the asserted aboriginal right or title, such that enforcement of the obligation does not require proof, in accordance with the applicable standard of proof, that the asserted right or title exists?  [Emphasis added.]

Redfern further submits that the following additional issue is raised by this appeal:

What is the standard of review on judicial review of the decision of a Minister of the Crown to issue a Project Approval Certificate under the EQQ?

The respondent, Taku River Tlingit First Nation, takes a very fact-oriented approach in its statement of the issues:

28.           The Crown applied for Leave to Appeal to challenge the majority’s conclusions about fiduciary duty, which underlay the Court of Appeal’s Order.  The issue raises three questions:

- Did the Crown have fiduciary obligations in the circumstances of this case?

- What was the content and force of those obligations?

- Did Kirkpatrick J. err in quashing the Certificate for breach of those obligations?

29.           The Crown and Redfern have also made arguments about statutory and administrative law issues, which raise two questions:

- Did the majority in the Court of Appeal agree with Southin J.A. that the Certificate satisfied the requirements of the EAA?

- Did Kirkpatrick J. err in quashing the Certificate for non-compliance with statutory and administrative law requirements?

It is against this background of the issues as framed by the parties that we need to examine the points which, if permitted to intervene, the Attorney General of Alberta says he would seek to argue, inter alia, that:

. . .

(ii)           The duty to consult is limited in scope to the Crown’s regulation of Aboriginal food fishing and hunting or where Aboriginal title claims or other Aboriginal rights have been proven to exist.

(iii)          The duty to consult does not arise in treaty jurisdictions where the treaties have contemplated that land may be taken up in the treaties for settlement and other bona fide purposes.  In such circumstances, there is no infringement of treaty rights, and no requirement to consult.  [Emphasis added.]

Insofar as the Attorney General of Alberta seeks to widen the issues beyond those framed by the parties, the application should be denied.  Apart from anything else, point (iii) would require a substantial factual record with respect to specific treaties and their specific provisions, and such enlargement of the factual record is simply beyond the scope of this appeal.

Accordingly, the intervention of the Attorney General of Alberta, as with that of other interveners, must be restricted to the issues framed by the parties and other matters incidental thereto that do not require further evidence or other supplement to the record filed by the parties.

On that more restricted basis, the motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the 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.

As stated, the applicant, the Attorney General of Alberta, shall not be entitled to adduce further evidence or otherwise supplement the record of the parties.

Pursuant to Rule 59(1)(a), the intervener shall pay to the appellants and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellants and respondents by the intervention.

18.7.2003

Before / Devant :   BINNIE J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General of Ontario 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, the Attorney General of Ontario is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

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

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

Pursuant to Rule 59(1)(a) the intervener shall pay to the appellants and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellants and respondents by the intervention. 

18.7.2003

Before / Devant :   THE REGISTRAR

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Délai prorogé au 25 juillet 2003.

17.7.2003

IN THE MATTER OF a Reference by the Governor in Council concerning the Proposal for an Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, as set out in Order in Council P.C. 2003-1055, dated July 16, 2003 (29866)

Pursuant to s. 53 of the Supreme Court Act, the following questions are referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for hearing and consideration:

1.             Is the annexed Proposal for an Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes within the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada?  If not, in what particular or particulars, and to what extent?

2.             If the answer to question 1 is yes, is section 1 of the proposal, which extends capacity to marry to persons of the same sex, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?  If not, in what particular or particulars, and to what extent?

3.             Does the freedom of religion guaranteed by paragraph 2( a )  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  protect religious officials from being compelled to perform a marriage between two persons of the same sex that is contrary to their religious beliefs?

En vertu de l’art. 53  de la Loi sur la Cour suprême , les questions suivantes sont soumises au jugement de la Cour suprême du Canada :

1.             La Proposition de loi concernant certaines conditions de fond du mariage civil, ci-jointe, relève-t-elle de la compétence exclusive du Parlement du Canada ?  Dans la négative, à quel égard et dans quelle mesure ?

2.             Si la réponse à la question 1 est affirmative, l’article 1 de la proposition, qui accorde aux personnes du même sexe la capacité de se marier, est-il conforme à la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  ?  Dans la négative, à quel égard et dans quelle mesure ?

3.             La liberté de religion, que garantit l’alinéa 2 a )  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés , protège-t-elle les autorités religieuses de la contrainte d’avoir à marier deux personnes du même sexe contrairement à leurs croyances religieuses ?

                                                         SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

                                                             CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME

                                                                                                          - 2003 -

        04-07-2002

                                                                                                          - 2004 -