Bulletins

      OF CANADA                                             DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

December 17, 2004 1886 - 1937                                                        le 17 décembre 2004

CONTENTS                                                     TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Li Liang

Li Liang

v. (30587)

Her Majesty the Queen  (N.B.)

Cameron H. Gunn

A.G. of New Brunswick

FILING DATE   18.11.2004

Ernest William Westergard

Christopher Hicks

Hicks Block Adams

v. (30623)

Her Majesty the Queen  (Ont.)

Michal Fairburn

A.G. of Ontario

FILING DATE   18.11.2004

Eton Anthony Greaves

Jeffrey T. Campbell

Peck and Company

v. (30627)

Her Majesty the Queen  (B.C.)

W.J. Scott Bell

A.G. of British Columbia

FILING DATE   19.11.2004

Bank of Montreal, et al.

Robert E. Charbonneau

Borden Ladner Gervais

v. (30645)

Attorney General of Quebec, et al.  (Que.)

Jean-François Jobin

Bernard, Roy & Associés

FILING DATE   29.11.2004

Banque Canadienne Impériale de Commerce

Mortimer G. Freiheit

Stikeman Elliott

c. (30646)

Procureur Général du Québec, et autres  (Qc)

Jean-François Jobin

Bernard, Roy & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION   29.11.2004

MBNA Canada Bank, et al.

Robert J. Torralbo

Blake, Cassels & Graydon

v. (30647)

Attorney General of Quebec, et al.  (Que.)

Jean-François Jobin

Bernard, Roy & Associés  

FILING DATE   29.11.2004

National Bank of Canada, et al.

Gérald R. Tremblay, Q.C.

McCarthy Tétrault

v. (30648)

Attorney General of Quebec, et al.  (Que.)    

Jean-François Jobin

Bernard, Roy & Associés

FILING DATE   29.11.2004

Royal Bank of Canada

Christine A. Carron

Ogilvy Renault

v. (30649)

Attorney General of Quebec et al.  (Que.)

Jean-François Jobin

Bernard, Roy & Associés

FILING DATE   29.11.2004

Banque Laurentienne du Canada

Yves Martineau

Stikeman Elliott

c. (30650)

Procureur Général du Québec, et autres  (Qc)

Jean-François Jobin

Bernard, Roy & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION   29.11.2004

La Banque Toronto-Dominion

Sylvain Deslauriers

Deslauriers Jeansonne

c. (30651)

Procureur Général du Québec, et autres  (Qc)

Jean-François Jobin

Bernard, Roy & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION  29.11.2004

Canadian Bearings Ltd., et al.

Robert B. Bell

Borden Ladner Gervais

v. (30652)

Celanese Canada Inc., et al.  (Ont.)

Gavin MacKenzie

Heenan Blaikie

FILING DATE   30.11.2004

DECEMBER 13, 2004 / LE 13 DÉCEMBRE 2004

                                                CORAM:  Chief Justice McLachlin and Binnie and Charron JJ.

La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Binnie et Charron

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (30394)

Ernest Nicholas Dolynchuk (Crim.) (Man.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal - Criminal law - Detention - Evidence - Right to counsel - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that the Respondent was detained within the meaning of s. 9  and s. 10  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  when he was asked one potentially incriminating question by the police that was not preceded by any demand or direction on the part of the officers?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Aerotech Herman Nelson Inc. and  Paul R. Sigurdson

                                                                                                v. (30448)

Kellog Brown & Root Inc. (Man.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Contracts - Statutes - Interpretation - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of and failure to apply the International Sale of Goods Act - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Respondent was entitled to rescind the contract in question despite the Respondent’s use of the goods - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the damages based on an amount of foreign currency be converted into Canadian currency as of the date of the reasons for decision in the court of first instance.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mario Proulx

c. (30574)

Christiane Alary, Jacques L. Archambault, André P. Asselin, François Beauchamp,

Jean Benoît, Louis Demers, Jean‑Pierre Desmarais, Gilles Fafard, Jean‑Jacques Gagnon, Gilles Godin,

Andrée Gosselin, Gabriel Kordovi, Pierre Labelle, Diane Lajeunesse, Jean‑François Ménard, Pierre

Mercille, Yves Poirier, Olivier Prat, Alain Robichaud et Hélène Schampaert (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Contrats - Droit des compagnies - Société - Le principe du formalisme dans le contrat a-t-il pour conséquence que la convention de société ne peut être considérée comme un amendement? - L’art. 2216 C.c.Q. exige-t-il l’unanimité des associés pour amender la convention de société - Le second paragraphe de l’art. 2216 C.c.Q. n’est-il que supplétif? - Qu’en est-il de l’absence d’acceptation tacite et de ratification de la part du demandeur?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

Gina Zanetti and Tina Zanetti

                                                                                                v. (30470)

Bonniehon Entreprises Ltd., Bonniehon Management Inc., Paul H. Cody and

Andrew James Baillargeon (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law-Appeal-Judicial review- Is the failure from the Chief Justice of the Appeal Court to recuse himself a violation of principles of procedural fairness and gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias? - Is the issue of failing to apply the principles of procedural fairness  infringing upon Canadians right to fair hearings and access to justice?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                                      D.L.

                                                                                                c. (30607)

A.L. et P.M. (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Procédure civile - Actions - Exception déclinatoire - Droit de la famille - Garde - Aliments - Responsabilité civile - Dommages-intérêts - Requête introductive d’instance du demandeur contre les intimés pour garde d’enfants, fixation de pension alimentaire et dommages-intérêts - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en confirmant le jugement de la Cour supérieure suivant lequel il n’y a pas de fondement juridique pour poursuivre l’intimé parce qu’il n’assume pas les obligations parentales du demandeur et que les conditions ayant trait à la faute, au préjudice et au lien de causalité ne sont pas remplies envers lui?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

The Neighbourhoods of Cornell Inc.

                                                                                                v. (30513)

1440106 Ontario Inc., Samuel Lam and Peter Wong (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Real property - Remedies - Specific performance -  Procedural law - Motion for summary judgment - Respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing Applicant’s action for specific performance of alleged oral agreement for purchase of land granted - Court of Appeal affirming decision - Appropriate test for disregarding a party’s evidence on a summary judgment motion as “self-serving” to ensure that such motions do not become paper trials - Use courts should make of drafts of agreements proffered by one party in the course of memorializing an alleged oral agreement in determining whether essential terms of a contract have been agreed to orally - What constitutes part performance of an oral agreement for the purchase and sale of land so as to take the agreement out of the Statute of Frauds, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.19?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:  Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

Les juges Major, Fish et Abella

Bayer AG and Bayer Inc.

                                                                                                v. (30535)

Apotex Inc. and The Minister of Health (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Patents - Whether order is in direct conflict with previous decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal- Whether Court of Appeal’s contradictory decisions provide a right to appeal to a distinct class of person (i.e. generic drug manufacturers) while denying this right to a different class of person (i.e. owners of patents for medicines) based on identical fact situations.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Brookfield Lepage Johnson Controls Facility Management Services

                                                                                                v. (30486)

Minister of Public Works and Government Service (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes - Administrative law - Interpretation - Judicial review - How should s. 20(1)  of the Access to Information Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1 , operate where a third party is invited to submit confidential information to a government institution with assurances from said institution that confidentiality will be maintained over the documents and where the third party, relying on such assurances, submits confidential information? - What is the the deference that should be accorded to the findings of fact by the judge of first instance and the inherent danger and potential harm to the judicial system and the administration of justice where an appeal court, in effect, “rewrites” the judge’s findings of fact;

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Maribel Anaya Castillo

                                                                                                v. (30534)

Antonio Munoz Castillo (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes – Interpretation – Procedural law – Limitation of actions – Torts – Motor vehicles – Motor vehicle accident occurring in California where limitation period is one year – Parties both Alberta residents – Action commenced in Alberta after two years less one day – Alberta limitation period is two years – Alberta Limitations Act s. 12 providing Alberta limitation period applies “notwithstanding” claim will be adjudicated under “substantive law of another jurisdiction” – Courts below finding defence of expired California limitation period available to defendant because tort no longer actionable under law of place where tort occurred, per Tolofson v. Jensen, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022 – Courts below further finding common law in Tolofson not changed by s. 12 and that both Tolofson and s. 12 apply – Whether Alberta Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s. 12 Limitations Act by failing to give effect to plain language of section, and failing to properly consider admissible extrinsic aids reflecting intention of Alberta Legislature to change the common law – Limitations Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-12, s. 12.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Her Majesty the Queen

                                                                                                v. (30533)

Dale Sappier and Clark Polchies (N.B.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Native law - Constitutional law ‑ Treaty rights ‑ Aboriginal rights - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the respondents have a treaty right to harvest trees for personal use from Crown lands - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the respondents have an aboriginal right to harvest trees for personal use from Crown lands - Whether the Court of Appeal erred for judgment when it incorporated evidence into its reasons for judgment from another trial  and from an historical article which was not an exhibit and not part of the trial record .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Crown in Right of Alberta as represented by the Minister responsible for

Alberta Human Resources and Employment

v. (30449)

The Director of the Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional law - Human rights - Equality - Discrimination of the basis of marital status - Widows’ Pension Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. W-7.5 - Legislation providing pension to low income widows and widowers aged 55 to 66 - Whether a complaint brought pursuant to the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. H-11.7 must identify an individual victim of an alleged contravention of that Act - Whether the Legislature has constitutional authority to empower a human rights panel to direct future administration and application of legislation that it has found to contravene the HRCMA - Whether the HRCMA empowers a human rights panel to direct the future administration and application of the legislation that contravenes that Act, or whether a panel is charged to repair discrimination suffered by individuals whose circumstances are before it - Whether the Widows’ Pension Act, which grants benefits similar to benefits available to seniors to low-income widows near retirement age, discriminations against divorced women with deceased ex-husbands, who were not entitled to spousal support after divorce?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Her Majesty the Queen

                                                                                                v. (30531)

Darrell Joseph Gray (N.B.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Native law - Constitutional law ‑ Treaty rights ‑ Aboriginal rights - Aboriginal title ‑ Whether the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick erred  in determining that the respondent has an aboriginal right to harvest trees for personal use from Crown lands - Whether the Court of Appeal erred when it incorporated evidence into its reasons for judgment from another trial which evidence was not part of the trial record.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:  Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

                                                                                   Société Asbestos Limitée

                                                                                                c. (30591)

Charles Lacroix (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif – Procédure – Droit du travail – Recours collectif – Régime de retraite – Convention collective – Compétence – « Essence » du litige – La Cour d’appel a‑t‑elle erré en déclarant que la Cour supérieure était compétente pour autoriser ou refuser l’exercice d’un recours collectif au nom de tous les bénéficiaires du régime de retraite?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

Natalie Luffer, Henry Sztern, Es Qualité Trustee and Henry Sztern & Associés Inc.

                                                                                                v. (30608)

Kenneth Roy Sinclair, Éric Lacroix, Meco Limited, 9084‑8144 Québec Inc.,

Service de Mini- Remorque H.C.H. Inc., H.H. Davis & Associés Inc., Alain Lafontaine Es qualité,

Deputy Superintendent and L’Officier de la publicité des droits (Que.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural Law - Commercial Law - Bankruptcy - Civil procedure - Judgments and orders - Pre-trial procedure - Seizure before judgment - Whether section 5(3)(e) and 14.03(1)(b) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act  give the right to the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, on its own or through its agents, to conduct a search without a court ordered search warrant - Whether a Federal court order of the specific nature of an Anton Piller Order gives the right to the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, on its own or through its agents, to conduct a search - Whether a search executed  under the circumstances raised in this Application supersede those rights guaranteed by sections 8  and 24 (1)  and 24 (2)  of the Canadian Charter  of Human Rights and Freedom and section 24.1 of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedom - Whether the Quebec Court of Appeal erred by concluding that « D’autre part, l’appelante et la mise en cause exerçaient les pouvoirs, devoirs et functions prévus aux articles 5 (3) e) et 14.03 de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité », completely ignoring the fact that the seizure was based on allegations that were adjudicated to be completely unproven and the document « Offer to Purchase », upon which the seizure itself was grounded was illegally obtained in violation of the Canadian and Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Whether the Québec Court of Appeal erred in substituting it’s own judgment in place of the Lower Court’s judgment, where no manifest error in law or fact was established and with the Lower Court having had the benefit of a lengthy hearing of testimony and evidence of numerous witnesses.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Assunta Mellichio Baldino, Fernando Baldino

                                                                                                c. (30549)

Hammadi Sabar, Dominique Verhas (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial – Vente – Vices cachés – La Cour du Québec a-t-elle erré dans l’appréciation de la preuve? – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en rejetant la requête pour permission d’appel?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

Société canadienne de Métaux Reynolds, Limitée

                                                                                                v. (30511)

The Deputy Minister of Revenue of Quebec and The Attorney General of Quebec (Que.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional Law – Taxation – Statutes – Retroactive statute enacted during court proceedings relating to subject-matter of legislation – Statute has the effect of removing cause of action – Whether the lower courts erred by holding that the retroactive statute did not violate the principles of the Rule of Law, of the separation of powers and of judicial independence in the circumstances and was not unconstitutional as a result.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Leslie Greenberg and Nelson Greenberg

                                                                                                v. (30495)

Michael Gruber (Que.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law – Company law – Remedies – “Oppression” –  Prescription – Whether the lower courts erred in holding that the Civil Code of Québec was applicable to determine the prescription applicable to a recourse under s. 241  of the Canada Business Corporations Act , R.S. 1985, c. C-44  – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondent’s claim to ownership of the shares was not prescribed? – What is the applicable prescription period for claims of oppression?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Alliance professionnelle des infirmières et infirmiers auxiliaires du Québec

                                                                                                c. (30497)

Hôpital Jean‑Talon

- et -

Me Marc Gravel, en sa qualité d’arbitre de griefs (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Droit du travail - Arbitrage - Convention collective - Régime d’assurance-salaire - Définition d’invalidité - Un arbitre excède-t-il sa juridiction lorsque, dans l’interprétation des droits découlant d’un régime d’assurance-salaire intégré à la convention collective, il ajoute des éléments étrangers à la convention collective convenue entre les parties? - En restreignant les bénéfices du régime d’assurance-salaire aux seuls salariés pour qui la médecine peut offrir un espoir de guérison, la décision de la Cour d’appel conduit-elle à un résultat discriminatoire?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

DECEMBER 16, 2004 / LE 16 DÉCEMBRE 2004

30223                    Patrick Manningham v. United States of America AND BETWEEN Patrick Manningham v. Minister of Justice for Canada (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Binnie and Charron JJ.

The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Numbers C33598 and C38933, dated March 10, 2004, is dismissed.

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéros C33598 et C38933, daté du 10 mars 2004, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal law - Statutes - Interpretation - Extradition - Money laundering charge - Whether Court of Appeal erred in relying on their decision in U.S.A. v. Yang which upheld and constitutional validity of ss. 32-34 of the Extradition Act - Whether ss. 32 and 34 of the Extradition Act are unconstitutional - Whether s. 29 of the Act requires the extradition judge to define conduct - Whether the Minister committed a reviewable error with respect to the application of ss. 6  and 7  of the Charter .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30222                     Michael McDowell v. United States of America (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Binnie and Charron JJ.

The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C37643, dated March 10, 2004, is dismissed.

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C37643, daté du 10 mars 2004, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Extradition - Whether  ss. 32-24 of the Extradition Act are contrary to section 7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in dismissing the appeal of committal regarding the definition of the conduct (the nature of the conspiracy charged) by ruling that the extradition judge need not define the “conduct” under section 29 of the Extradition Act - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in dismissing the appeal in relation to the proof of identity by relying on evidence obtained in Canada contrary to section 32(2) of the Extradition Act

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30372                     Ryan Eichmanis, by his Litigation Guardian, Bonnie Eichmanis, Ken Eichmanis, James Eichmanis and the said Bonnie Eichmanis, personnally v. Ryan Prystay, by his Litigation Guardian, The Children’s lawyer, James Prystay, John Prystay, Catherine Prystay, Tracey Lauersen (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Binnie and Charron JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C39622, dated April 6, 2004, is dismissed with costs to the respondents Tracey Lauersen, Catherine Prystay and John Prystay.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C39622, daté du 6 avril 2004, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimés Tracey Lauersen, Catherine Prystay et John Prystay.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence - Apportionment of liability - Standard of care - Damages - When members of a blended family of necessity delegate temporary supervisory responsibility for a child among themselves, what is the applicable standard of care? - Is it less than that of a reasonable parent, especially when unsecured firearms are in the factual matrix? - When the key defendant does not testify at trial to rebut the critical evidence in such cases, when and by what overt protocol should the court draw an adverse inference against the defendant? - When should an appellate court be allowed to selectively reverse key findings of fact in a case, despite some evidence on the record which would have supported the trial judge’s finding?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30422                    Rainer Zenner v. Prince Edward Island College of Optometrists (P.E.I.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island, Appeal Division, Number S1‑AD‑0983, dated April 19, 2004, is granted.

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour suprême de l’Île‑du‑Prince‑Édouard, Section d’appel, numéro S1‑AD‑0983, daté du 19 avril 2004, est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Law of professions - Optometrists - Respondent refused to provide Applicant with a licence to practice optometry in Prince Edward Island until Applicant complied with the requirements of the Optometry Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. O-6, s. 12(1)(e) - Whether Applicant was entitled to an order requiring the Respondent to issue a licence or otherwise process the application.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30399                    Georges Agazarian v. Her Majesty the Queen (FC) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‑36‑03, dated April 23, 2004, is dismissed with costs to the respondent.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale, numéro A‑36‑03, daté du 23 avril 2004, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de l’intimée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Statutes - Interpretation - Income Tax Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th supp .) as amended - Extended  reassessment provisions  - Whether Minister of National Revenue has the power to reassess a person’s tax for the year within or beyond time limitations imposed by the  Act in s. 152(4)(b)(i) 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30478                    Monique Marie Turenne v. The Minister of Justice, United States of America (Man.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba, Numbers AR03‑30‑05525 and AR99‑30‑04400, dated July 21, 2004, is dismissed and the application for an oral hearing is dismissed.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Manitoba, numéros AR03‑30‑05525 et AR99‑30‑04400, daté du 21 juillet 2004, est rejetée et la demande d’audition orale est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal - Criminal Law (Non Charter) - Extradition - Whether an order for committal and an order for surrender ought to have been issued.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30468                    Victoria Steffen v. Rodney Breyer, Barbara Breyer, Rodney Breyer and Barbara Breyer Operating as Wolverine Farms, Attorney General of Manitoba (Man.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba, Number AI 03‑30‑05679, dated June 4, 2004, is dismissed with costs to respondents Rodney Breyer, Barbara Breyer, Rodney Breyer and Barbara Breyer Operating as Wolverine Farms.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Manitoba, numéro AI 03‑30‑05679, daté du 4 juin 2004, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimés Rodney Breyer, Barbara Breyer, Rodney Breyer et Barbara Breyer opérant sous Wolverine Farms.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional law - Civil rights - Procedural law - Civil procedure - Summary judgment - Constitutional issues - Fatal Accidents Act c. F50, s. 3(5)(a) “common-law spouse” - Whether the Applicant raised a triable issue as to whether she had cohabited with the deceased - Whether it is permitted under the Constitution Act, 1867  that the provinces and territories define “common law spouse”; “wife and husband”; or “spouse” variously and include, “a person of the opposite sex” - Whether this unequal treatment breaches ss. 7  or 15  of the Charter  - Whether restricting the interpretation of cohabitation to “common law” relationships is appropriate - Whether the lower courts applied the correct test on summary judgment of a case involving a constitutional issue.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30426                    Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v. J.F. Raymond Chouinard, Chouinard & Company and Harper Grey Easton, Amin Hosseini‑Nejad (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA029771, dated April 28, 2004, is dismissed with costs to the respondents J.F. Raymond Chouinard, Chouinard & Company and Harper Grey Easton.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie‑Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA029771, daté du 28 avril 2004, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimés J.F. Raymond Chouinard, Chouinard & Company et Harper Grey Easton.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Barristers and solicitors - Solicitor’s lien - Whether a solicitor’s lien can attach to a reduction of indebtedness - Whether a solicitor’s lien can attach to property belonging to an adverse party - whether solicitor’s liens are enforceable to the prejudice of an adverse party’s right of set-off.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30512                     B.V.N. v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA031717, dated May 6, 2004, is granted.

This case will be heard with Her Majesty the Queen v. B.W.P. (30514).

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie‑Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA031717, daté du 6 mai 2004, est accordée.

Cet appel sera entendu avec Sa Majesté la Reine c. B.W.P. (30514).

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sentencing - Principles of sentencing under Youth Criminal Justice Act,  S.C. 2002, c. 1  - Is general deterrence a principle to be considered in imposing a sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act ?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30514                     Her Majesty the Queen v. B.W.P. (Man.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba, Numbers AY03‑30‑05680 and AY03‑30‑05687, dated July 7, 2004, is granted.

This case will be heard with B.V.N. v. Her Majesty the Queen (30512).

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Manitoba, numéros AY03‑30‑05680 et AY03‑30‑05687, daté du 7 juillet 2004, est accordée.

Cet appel sera entendu avec B.V.N. c. Sa Majesté la Reine (30512).

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sentencing - Principles of sentencing under Youth Criminal Justice Act,  S.C. 2002, c. 1  - Is general deterrence a principle to be considered in imposing a sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act ? - Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that deterrence may not be considered in sentencing under the Youth Criminal Justice Act  - Whether Court of Appeal erred in principle in its interpretation of Section 42(2) (o) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30411                    Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia AND BETWEEN Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited v. Attorney General of British Columbia AND BETWEEN Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia AND BETWEEN Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Attorney General of British Columbia AND BETWEEN JTI‑Macdonald Corp. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia AND BETWEEN JTI‑Macdonald Corp. v. Attorney General of British Columbia AND BETWEEN Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia AND BETWEEN British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia AND BETWEEN Philip Morris Incorporated, Philip Morris International Inc. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

 The applications for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Numbers CA030975, CA030976, CA030977 and CA030978, dated May 20, 2004, are granted with costs to the applicants in any event of the cause.

 Les demandes d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie‑Britannique (Vancouver), numéros CA030975, CA030976, CA030977 et CA030978, daté du 20 mai 2004, sont accordées avec dépens en faveur des demanderesses quelle que soit l’issue de l’appel.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional law – Statutes – Tobacco legislation – Provincial jurisdiction (s. 92(13)) – Property and civil rights in the province – British Columbia enacting legislation to recover from tobacco industry health care costs paid in respect of persons suffering from tobacco related disease – Whether B.C. Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act unconstitutional as ultra vires competence of British Columbia legislature, because in pith and substance is extraterritorial in  purpose and effect – Whether Act unconstitutional as violation of rule of law because of retroactivity – Whether Act unconstitutional as violation of judicial independence – Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, S.B.C. 2000 c. 30.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30555                     Edna Jane Visneskie v. Ronald Brian Visneskie (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C40000, dated August 23, 2004, is dismissed with costs in the fixed amount of $2,917.09.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C40000, daté du 23 août 2004, est rejetée avec dépens au montant de 2, 917, 09 $.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family law - Custody - Access - Maintenance - Costs - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider whether the trial judge erred in failing to hear a contempt motion brought at the outset of trial - Whether the trial judge erred in failing to appreciate the significance of a violation of an order prohibiting smoking indoors in the presence of the children - Whether the lower courts erred in failing to provide spousal support - Whether the lower courts erred in awarding significant costs in that it may impact the best interests of the children

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30374                    Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. City of Vancouver (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Numbers CA30277 and CA30357, dated April 7, 2004, is granted.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie‑Britannique (Vancouver), numéros CA30277 et CA30357, daté du 7 avril 2004, est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes - Interpretation - Municipal law - Bylaws - Jurisdiction to pass bylaws - Municipal bylaw freezing or sterilizing redevelopment on private lands for indefinite period - Can a municipality designate private land  solely for public use, eliminating all economic use of it, without purchase or expropriation, in the absence of clear and unambiguous language - Was the Court of Appeal correct in finding that the statute does not require a public hearing as prerequisite to the exercise of the power - Was the Court of Appeal correct that a lesser procedural standard applies in this situation.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30424                     André Tremblay c. Sa Majesté la Reine (CF) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale, numéro A‑490‑03, daté du 30 avril 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‑490‑03, dated April 30, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure – Droit administratif – Actions – Contrôle judiciaire – Action intentée par le demandeur mis à la retraite obligatoire en vertu de la législation fédérale – Réintégration dans l’emploi et dommages-intérêts demandés par action – Validité constitutionnelle de la législation fédérale contestée par action – La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle erré en jugeant que le demandeur devait procéder par contrôle judiciaire en vertu de l’art. 18 de la Loi sur les cours fédérales, L.R.C. (1985), ch. F-5, et non par voie d’action en vertu de l’art. 17 de la même loi?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30384                     Sa Majesté la Reine c. Jean‑Paul Larche ET ENTRE Sa Majesté la Reine c. L’honorable Robert Sansfaçon, ès qualités de juge de la Cour du Québec, Jean‑Paul Larche (Qc) (Criminelle) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Québec (Montréal), numéros 500‑10‑002523‑031 et 500‑10‑002643‑037, daté du 29 mars 2004, est accordée sans dépens.  La demande d’autorisation d’appel incident est accordée avec dépens en faveur de Jean-Paul Larche quelle que soit l’issue de l’appel.

The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Numbers 500‑10‑002523‑031 and 500‑10‑002643‑037, dated March 29, 2004, is granted without costs.  The application for leave to cross-appeal is granted with costs to Jean-Paul Larche in any event of the cause.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Détermination de la peine - Faits liés à l’infraction - Courtoisie internationale - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré dans son interprétation de l’alinéa 725(1) c) du Code criminel  en concluant que les faits pris en compte par le premier juge constituaient des faits liés à la perpétration de l’infraction au sens de cette disposition? - Vu les circonstances particulières de la présente affaire, la Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en appliquant l’alinéa 725(1) c) du Code criminel ? - Existe-t-il un lien réel et important (« real and substantial link ») entre la possession de 110 005 $ aux États-Unis et les autres infractions dont Jean-Paul Larche avait été formellement accusé?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30417                    Attorney General of Canada v. H.J. Heinz Company of Canada Ltd. (FC) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‑161‑03, dated April 30, 2004, is granted with costs to the applicant in any event of the cause.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale, numéro A‑161‑03, daté du 30 avril 2004, est accordée avec dépens en faveur du demandeur quelle que soit l’issue de l’appel.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative Law - Judicial review - Access to information - Whether the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal expands the rights of third parties to invoke exemptions to disclosure beyond s. 20  of the Access to Information Act  - Whether the judgment below creates a two-tier access to information regime - Whether the judgment below creates confusion in the law in that it is inconsistent with an earlier decision by another panel of the Federal Court of Appeal - Access to Information Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1, ss. 20 , 44 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30517                     K.B. v. Her Majesty the Queen (Man.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba, Number AY03‑30‑05658, dated June 24, 2004, is dismissed.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Manitoba, numéro AY03‑30‑05658, daté du 24 juin 2004, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Exclusion of evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in the interpretation of R. v. Stillman, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; in treating the knife as non-conscriptive evidence, and in concluding its admission had no impact on the fairness of the Applicant’s trial - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Charter  violations were relatively benign and justifiable because of the “good faith” intentions of the investigating officers - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the administration of justice was best served by the admission rather than the exclusion of the evidence

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30391                     Industrial Wood & Allied Workers of Canada, Local 700 v. GMAC Commercial Credit Corporation of Canada, T.C.T. Logistics Inc., T.C.T. Warehousing Logistics Inc., KPMG Inc., the Interim Receiver and Trustee in Bankruptcy of T.C.T. Logistics Inc. and T.C.T. Warehousing Logistics Inc. (and the Companies listed on Schedule “A” hereto) (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

The application for leave to cross-appeal is granted without costs and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C39988, dated October 14, 2004, is granted with costs to the applicant in any event of the cause.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel incident est accordée sans dépens et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C39988, daté du 14 octobre 2004, est accordée avec dépens en faveur du demandeur quelle que soit l’issue de l’appel.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law – Bankruptcy - Receivership - Labour law - Collective agreement - Successor employer - Interim receivership order containing standard form clause protecting receiver from status of successor employer under collective agreement - Order also containing standard form clause preventing anyone from bringing action or proceeding against receiver without leave of court - Whether Court of Appeal changed established test for leave to commence proceedings against trustee in bankruptcy or receiver and thereby enhanced bankruptcy judge’s power and discretion to deny leave - Whether Court of Appeal raised bar so high as to effectively immunize trustees and receivers from almost all legal action from employees and unions - Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 , ss.. 47, 215.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30444                     Dynatec Corporation, Brian Hagan, William Shaver, Edward Okell and David Chapman v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ontario Ministry of Labour) (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C41292, dated May 7, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C41292, daté du 7 mai 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Civil - Civil rights - Remedies - Costs - Labour law - Health and safety - Administrative law - Judicial review - Standard of review - Evidence - Disclosure - Law of professions - Solicitor-client privilege - Whether trial judge has discretion to grant costs against Crown under s. 24  of the Charter  - Standard of review to be followed on judicial review of a decision under the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 40 - Whether, on a disclosure motion, a trial judge has jurisdiction to order production of documents in Crown’s possession and that evidence be adduced by affidavit in relation to that order - Whether solicitor-client privilege or “near privilege” can be abridged if it is being used to shield abuse of process by a public official.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30505                     Jean Gélinas c. Gilbert Normand (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

La demande de prorogation de délai pour déposer et signifier la réplique est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‑09‑014401‑046, daté du 14 juin 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

The application for an extension of time to file and serve the reply is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‑09‑014401‑046, dated June 14, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Procédure civile - Appel - Rejet d’appel - La Cour d’appel du Québec, saisie d’une requête pour rejet d’appel fondée sur l’art. 501 par. 4.1 du Code de procédure civile, L.R.Q., ch. C-25, peut-elle déclarer qu’un appel de plein droit ne présente aucune chance raisonnable de succès et rejeter tel appel sans motiver sa décision?  Dans la négative, quels sont les critères devant guider la Cour d’appel dans la détermination de ce qui constitue ou non une chance raisonnable de succès?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30451                     Lynn Sherwood c. Jean St‑Jacques (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‑09‑012471‑025, daté du 6 mai 2004, est rejetée.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‑09‑012471‑025, dated May 6, 2004, is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit des biens – Hypothèques – Prêt hypothécaire – Second prêt signé par l’héritière du prêteur hypothécaire – Billet promissoire en faveur de l’héritière du prêteur hypothécaire – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que le billet promissoire ne constituait pas un amendement à l’acte de prêt hypothécaire?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

3.12.2004

Before / Devant:   CHARRON J.

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the notice of appeal

Sa Majesté la Reine

c. (30588)

James Kouri (Qc)(Crim.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de l’avis d’appel

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Délai prorogé au 3 novembre 2004.

6.12.2004

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

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

Sameer Mapara

v. (29750)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti à l’intimée pour signifier et déposer son recueil de sources

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to November 30, 2004.

7.12.2004

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Further order on motions for leave to intervene

BY / PAR:              Attorney General of Canada

Attorney General of Ontario

IN / DANS:            Sameer Mapara

v. (29750)

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

Autre ordonnance relative aux requêtes en autorisation d’intervention

UPON APPLICATIONS by the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of Ontario for leave to intervene in the above appeal and pursuant to the order of November 3, 2004;

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

7.12.2004

Before / Devant:   CHARRON J.

Motion for an order to seal documents

Canada Post Corporation

v. (30599)

Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada (FC)

Requête visant la mise sous scellés de documents

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by counsel on behalf of the applicant for an order sealing documents filed in this Court related to the material sought to be released by the respondents, pursuant to the  Access to Information Act ;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1)         The motion is granted.  The affidavits of William R. Price and Richard Sharp and the cross examination transcript of Christine Ouimet are sealed.

2)         The sealed documents will only be made available to counsel for the applicant, counsel for the respondent, Ottawa agents, members of this Court, Court staff and other persons as the parties may, in writing, agree or as this Court may further order.

8.12.2004

Before / Devant:   ABELLA J.

Further order on motion for leave to intervene

BY / PAR:              Attorney General of Ontario

IN / DANS:            Christiano Daniel Justin Paice

v. (30045)

Her Majesty the Queen

 (Sask.)(Crim.)

Autre ordonnance relative à  une requête en autorisation d’intervention

UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General of Ontario for leave to intervene in the above appeal and pursuant to the order of October 5, 2004;

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said intervener is granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding fifteen (15) minutes at the hearing of the appeal.

8.12.2004

Before / Devant:   CHARRON J.

Motion to strike

Allan Wayne Lohrer

v. (30160)

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

Requête en radiation

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the respondent for an order striking portions of the appellant’s factum, namely page 10, paragraphs 34(iv) and 34(vi) and Appendix 1;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion is dismissed.

10.12.2004

Before / Devant:   CHARRON J.

Motion to file lengthy factum by the respondent

Kirkbi AG, et al.

v. (29956)

Ritvik Holdings Inc./Gestions Ritvik Inc. (now operating as Mega Bloks Inc.) (FC)

Requête de l’intimée en vue de déposer un  mémoire comportant plus de pages que ne le prévoient les règles

DISMISSED WITH COSTS / REJETÉE AVEC DÉPENS

UPON APPLICATION by the respondent for an order permitting the filing of a 60 page factum, or in the alternative, to file a 20 page sur-reply factum;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion is dismissed with costs.

10.12.2004

Before / Devant:   CHARRON J.

Motion to strike

UL Canada Inc.

c. (30065)

Procureur général du Québec, et autre (Qc)

Requête en radiation

GRANTED IN PART WITH COSTS / ACCORDÉE EN PARTIE AVEC DÉPENS

À LA SUITE D’UNE DEMANDE de l’intimé, le procureur général du Québec, visant à obtenir la radiation de parties du dossier et du mémoire de l’appelante;

ET APRÈS EXAMEN des documents déposés;

IL EST PAR LA PRÉSENTE ORDONNÉ CE QUI SUIT:

L’intimé, le procureur général du Québec, demande la radiation de parties du dossier et du mémoire de l’appelante pour motif qu’il s’agit d’une preuve nouvelle qui n’a pas été soumise aux instances inférieures.  Les documents en question ont été soumis à la Cour dans le cadre de la demande d’autorisation d’appel.  L’appelante soutient donc que cette preuve fait partie du dossier.

Les prétentions de l’appelante ne sont pas bien fondées.  Ces documents ne peuvent être considérés comme de la preuve au sens de la règle 38(1)d) des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada, du seul fait qu’ils ont été soumis dans le cadre de la demande d’autorisation d’appel et leur production contrevient à l’article 62 de la Loi sur la Cour suprême : voir Public School Boards’ Association of Alberta c. Alberta (Procureur général), [1999] 3 R.C.S. 845, par. 6.

L’appelante demande subsidiairement l’autorisation de produire ces documents comme preuve nouvelle en vertu de l’article 62(3) de la Loi sur la Cour suprême.  Elle prétend que ces documents sont pertinents et qu’ils sont recevables en tant que fait législatif.

Cette prétention ne peut pas être acceptée.  L’affidavit en question et les documents à l’appui ne peuvent être qualifiés de fait législatif et, en tout état de cause, les faits législatifs sont également assujettis aux conditions de recevabilité d’une preuve nouvelle : voir Public School Boards’ Association of Alberta c. Alberta (Procureur général), [2000] 1 R.C.S., p. 44, par. 6.  Comme l’a souligné la Cour, les critères d’admissibilité d’une nouvelle preuve sont la diligence raisonnable, la pertinence, la crédibilité et le caractère décisif de la preuve proposée.  À mon avis, la preuve ne répond pas à ces critères.  Il n’y a rien qui indique que l’appelante n’aurait pu présenter cette preuve au procès de sorte que le critère de la diligence raisonnable n’est pas rempli en l’espèce.  De plus, les documents en question soulèvent plusieurs questions controversées et ainsi ne devraient pas être reçus en preuve à ce stade des procédures.  Finalement, la nouvelle preuve invoquée par l’appelante n’a pas un caractère concluant compte tenu des questions en litige.

Ces documents doivent donc être retirés du dossier et toute référence aux documents radiée du mémoire de l’appelante.

L’intimé, le procureur général du Québec, demande également une ordonnance radiant toute référence dans le mémoire de l’appelante à l’article 121  de La Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 .  L’intimé prétend que l’argument de l’appelante selon lequel la réglementation contestée serait contraire à l’article 121 soulève une nouvelle question constitutionnelle qui n’est pas incluse dans l’ordonnance prononcée par la Juge en chef de la Cour le 12 août 2004.

À mon avis, cet argument est pertinent aux questions constitutionnelles et il relèvera du tribunal de décider du bien-fondé de cet argument.  Cette deuxième partie de la requête est donc rejetée.

La requête est accordée, en partie, avec dépens.

UPON APPLICATION by the respondent Attorney General of Quebec for an order striking out portions of the appellant’s record and factum;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

The respondent Attorney General of Quebec asks that portions of the applicant’s record and factum be struck out on the ground that they constitute fresh evidence that was not before the courts below.  The material in question was filed with the Court in the context of the application for leave to appeal.  The appellant accordingly submits that this evidence is part of the record.

The appellant’s submissions are not valid.  The material in question cannot be regarded as evidence within the meaning of R. 38(1)(d) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada merely because it was filed in the context of the application for leave to appeal, and the filing thereof contravenes s. 62 of the Supreme Court Act: see Public School Boards’ Association of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 845, at para. 6.

In the alternative, the appellant seeks leave to file this material as fresh evidence pursuant to s. 62(3) of the Supreme Court Act.  It submits that this material is relevant and is admissible as a legislative fact.

This submission cannot be accepted.  The affidavit in question and the supporting material cannot be characterized as a legislative fact and, in any event, legislative facts are also subject to the conditions for admission of fresh evidence: see Public School Boards’ Association of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 44, at para. 6.  As mentioned by the Court, the tests for admission of fresh evidence are due diligence, relevance, credibility and decisiveness of the proposed evidence.  In my view, the evidence does not meet these tests.  There is no indication that the appellant could not have adduced this evidence at trial, so the due diligence test is not met in the case at bar.  Also, the material in question raises a number of controversial questions and accordingly should not be admitted in evidence at this stage of the proceedings.  Finally, the appellant’s fresh evidence is not determinative as regards the issues before the Court.

This material must therefore be struck from the record and any reference to it struck from the appellant’s factum.