Bulletins

      OF CANADA                                             DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

October 8, 2004 1468 - 1507                                                               le 8 octobre 2004

CONTENTS                                                     TABLE DES MATIÈRES

James P. Turner

James P. Turner

v. (30479)

The Attorney General of Canada (FC)

Margaret E. T. Clare

Attorney General of Canada

and between

Jagroop S. Gill

Jagroop S. Gill

v. (30479)

The Attorney General of Canada (FC)

Margaret E. T. Clare

Attorney General of Canada

FILING DATE: 28.6.2004

Bayer AG, et al.

Neil R. Belmore

Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson

v. (30535)

Apotex Inc., et al. (FC)

Harry Radomski

Goodmans

FILING DATE: 22.9.2004

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario

Sarah Blake

Attorney General of Ontario

v. (30521)

Granite Power Corporation (Ont.)

K. Scott McLean

Fraser Milner Casgrain

FILING DATE: 23.9.2004

Houshang Bouzari, et al.

Mark H. Arnold

Gardiner Miller Arnold

v. (30523)

Attorney General of Canada (Ont.)

Peter Southey

Attorney General of Canada

FILING DATE: 24.9.2004

Marc Gauthier, et al.

Timothy S. B. Danson

Danson, Recht, Voudouris

v. (30525)

Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd., et al. (Ont.)

Alison B. Woodbury

Blake, Cassels & Graydon

FILING DATE: 24.9.2004

Bank of Montreal

William M. Everett, Q.C.

Lawson Lundell

v. (30527)

Deborah Jean Collum (B.C.)

William E. J. Skelly

Heenan Blaikie

FILING DATE: 27.9.2004

Bendy Jean Gilles

Daniel Royer

Labelle, Boudrault, Côté & Associés

c. (30539)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qc)

Sylvie Girard

Procureur général du Québec

DATE DE PRODUCTION: 28.9.2004

Michael Abraham, et al.

Messod Boussidan

Levine, Sherkin, Boussidan

v. (30526)

United Laboratories, Inc. (Ont.)

Blair W. M. Bowen

Baker & McKenzie

FILING DATE: 28.9.2004

Her Majesty the Queen

William B. Richards

Attorney General of New Brunswick

v. (30533)

Dale Sappier, et al. (N.B.)

Richard Hatchett

Saint John River Tribal Council

FILING DATE: 28.9.2004

Her Majesty the Queen

William B. Richards

Attorney General of New Brunswick

v. (30531)

Darrell Joseph Gray (N.B.)

Terrance P. Lenihan

Byrne, Lenihan & Associates

FILING DATE: 28.9.2004

Red Carpet Inns Limited

Joseph J. Hoffer

Cohen Highley

v. (30530)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, et al. (Ont.)

Sara Blake

Attorney General of Ontario

FILING DATE: 28.9.2004

Rou Lan Xie

David Matas

v. (30550)

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Man.)

Sharlene Telles-Langdon

Attorney General of Canada

FILING DATE: 28.9.2004

Wilfred Shaw, et al.

John W. McDonald

McDonald, Ross

v. (30544)

BCE Inc., et al. (Ont.)

Dana M. Peebles

McCarthy Tétrault

FILING DATE: 29.9.2004

Pro Swing Inc.

Raymond F. Leach

Siskind, Cromarty, Ivey & Dowler

v. (30529)

Elta Golf Inc. (Ont.)

F. Scott Turton

FILING DATE: 28.9.2004

Corporation Sun Media

Michel Sylvestre

Ogilvy Renault

c. (30532)

Société de transport de Montréal (Qc)

Réal Forest

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin

DATE DE PRODUCTION: 29.9.2004

410727 B.C. Ltd., et al.

Eric A. Dolden

Dolden Wallace Folick

v. (30543)

Dayhu Investments Ltd., et al. (B.C.)

Jim A. Doyle

Skorah Doyle

FILING DATE: 29.9.2004

Andrew Kieran

Brian A. Grosman, Q.C.

Grosman, Grosman & Gale

v. (30538)

Ingram Micro Inc. (Ont.)

Michael Donsky

Fogler Rubinoff

FILING DATE: 29.9.2004

Jeremy Seth Gurofsky

Raj Anand

WeirFoulds

v. (30541)

Ontario Human Rights Commission, et al. (Ont.)

Ontario Human Rights Commission

FILING DATE: 29.9.2004

Ross Joseph Gardypie

E. F. Anthony Merchant, Q.C.

Merchant Law Group

v. (30540)

Attorney General of Canada (Sask.)

NormaGunningham-Kapphahn

Attorney General for Saskatchewan

FILING DATE: 29.9.2004

Jeremy Seth Gurofsky

Raj Anand

WeirFuolds

v. (30536)

Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology, et al. (Ont.)

Robert J. Atkinson

Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie

FILING DATE: 29.9.2004

Halton Condominium Corporation No. 242

Blaine Fedson

Deacon Spears Fedson & Montizambert

v. (30537)

Law Development Group (Georgetown) Limited (Ont.)

Ronald G. Slaght, Q.C.

Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin

FILING DATE: 29.9.2004

Bonnie Mooney, et al.

Henry C. Wood

Epstein Wood

v. (30546)

Attorney General of Canada, et al. (B.C.)

George C. Carruthers

Attorney General of Canada

FILING DATE: 29.9.2004

Nanaimo Immigrant Settlement Society, et al.

Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C.

Arvay Finlay

v. (30542)

Her Majesty the Queen in right of the province of British Columbia (B.C.)

Edward C. Chiasson

Borden Ladner Gervais

FILING DATE: 29.9.2004

Amherst Crane Rentals Limited

Angela Assuras

Angela Assuras Professional Corporation

v. (30507)

Arlene Clare Perring, personally and as Trustee of the estate of Ashley Perring, Deceased (Ont.)

Mark Rodenburg

Smith Valeriote

FILING DATE: 30.9.2004

Assunda Mellichio Baldino, et autre

Rosa Riolo Vaccaro

c. (30549)

Hammadi Sabar, et autre (Qc)

Nathalie Croteau

DATE DE PRODUCTION: 1.10.2004

OCTOBER 4, 2004 / LE 4 OCTOBRE 2004

                               CORAM:  Chief Justice McLachlin and Binnie and Charron JJ.

La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Binnie et Charron

Richard Wayne Gillingham

v. (29065)

The United States of America

AND BETWEEN:

Richard Wayne Gillingham

v.

Canada (Minister of Justice) (B.C.) (Crim.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian charter  ‑ Criminal - Extradition - Jurisdiction ‑ Appeal from Committal Order - Administrative Law -  Judicial Review of Surrender Order - Applicant pleads guilty to offences in the State of Montana - Applicant receives consecutive sentences totalling fifty years imprisonment - Sentences suspended and fifty years probation ordered - Applicant deported to Canada - Whether  deportation nullified foreign claim to extraterritorial jurisdiction over the applicant for breach of probation - Whether the United States can control or supervise the conduct of a Canadian citizen in Canada after deportation from the United States - Whether the extradition of the applicant would amount to an abuse of process.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Attorney General of British Columbia

v. (30317)

Lafarge Canada Inc., Vancouver Port Authority, Burrardview Neighbourhood Association, City of Vancouver (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional law - Division of powers - Public property - Administrative law - Which level of government has the constitutional jurisdiction to legislate land use in relation to lands not owned by the federal Crown or its agents, where the federal Crown exercises some degree of control over the land-owner - What is the test for determining whether property held by an entity other than the federal Crown is “public property” for the purposes of s. 91(1A) of the Constitution Act, 1867  - Can property owned by a federal Crown corporation, in circumstances where such corporation is not holding such property as an agent of the federal Crown, be deemed to be “public property” pursuant to s. 91(1A) of the Constitution Act, 1867  - Whether there is interjurisdictional immunity from the operation of a municipal by-law where there is no infringement on an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction, namely navigation and shipping.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Florence Plotnikoff

v. (30429)

The Government of Saskatchewan

AND BETWEEN:

Bernice Yahyahkeekoot

v.

The Government of Saskatchewan (Sask.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural Law - Limitation of actions - Whether  the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal erred in determining that the Public Officers’ Protection Act applied to all civil servants - Whether  the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal recognized, and, if so, ascribed weight to the differentiation between this action against the Government of Saskatchewan as opposed to an action against individuals unknown and unascertainable employed by the Government of Saskatchewan - Whether the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal erred in hearing the issue of the limitation period in the Public Officers’ Protection Act when it was not before the learned chambers judge - Whether the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal erred in creating the precedent that an issue un-argued at the trial level and handled almost en passant on appeal may become the definitive issue in an appellate court - Public Officers’ Protection Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. P-40, s. 2(1)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:  Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

Les juges Major, Fish et Abella

Robert Nadir

v. (30442)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non Charter) - Pre-trial procedure - Limitation of actions - Whether s. 786(2) of the Criminal Code  requires that an Information alleging a summary conviction offence be confined to the six month period prior to the date that the Information was sworn.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CC Havanos Corporation Ltd.

v. (30327)

Her Majesty the Queen (FC)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law – Statutes – Interpretation – Subsection 116(2)  of the Excise Act , R.S.C. (1985), c. E-14  – Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred by finding that the trial judge had no discretion in ordering the remittal of part of the forfeited material – Whether the trial judge was bound by the decision of this Court in the case of The King v. Krakowec et al., [1931] S.C.R. 134.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Shaw Communications Inc.

v. (30421)

Don Lum (N.B.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour Law - Employment Law - Reasonable Notice - Dismissal without just cause - Whether the statutory severance or termination pay received by an employee upon termination must be deducted from any wrongful dismissal damages - Whether mitigation earnings received by a former employee must be deducted from any wrongful dismissal damages - The objective of statutory severance and termination pay - Whether a court can refuse to deduct termination and severance pay in order to compensate an employee for accepting a position with lesser salary and benefits following a termination - Whether a court can refuse to deduct mitigation earnings in order to compensate an employee for accepting a position with lesser salary and benefits - Whether there is conflicting appellate authority on the issue of the deductibility of  statutory termination and severance pay.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:  Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

Robert Wade Noftall

v. (30416)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non Charter) - Evidence - Trial - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that a trial judge has the discretion to permit the videotaped testimony of a complainant to become a numbered exhibit which would go into the jury room for deliberation - Whether the Court fo appeal erred in concluding that such discretion can be exercised without providing the jury with transcripts of the relevant cross-examination or other contextual evidence so that undue emphasis is not given to the testimony of the complainant - Criminal Code  R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34 , s. 715.1

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Pham The Trinh

c. (30419)

Hydro‑Québec (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure – Procédure civile – Chose jugée – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en rejetant l’action du demandeur?– La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que le demandeur cherchait à formuler, de façon déguisée, un appel de la décision du commissaire du travail rendue contre lui? – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que la réclamation du demandeur était indissociable de celle présentée au commissaire du travail et qu’il paraissait abusif de la reprendre?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

Norman Walker

v. (30410)

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Sale - Suretyship - Loan - Torts - Negligence - What is the duty of a private mortgagee to protect institutional mortgagees with subservient interests? - What is the duty of a subservient institutional mortgagee to act in good faith and take positive steps to protect its security? - Where does the onus lie in an allegation of improvident sale as against a mortgagee who has exercised a power of sale by a subservient mortgagee and what factors must be considered by a court in determining "market value" in an allegation of improvident sale?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

OCTOBER 7, 2004 / LE 7 OCTOBRE 2004

29827                    Richard Willis v. Her Majesty the Queen (Man.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Major and Fish JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba, Number AR 02‑30‑05152, dated April 16, 2003, is dismissed.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Manitoba, numéro AR 02‑30‑05152, daté du 16 avril 2003, est rejetée. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal Law -  Detention - Search - Articulable cause - Where investigatory detentions are conducted on “articulable cause”, what are the minimum requirements necessary in order to ensure that such detentions are not arbitrary and in violation of s. 9  of the Charter ? - What obligations do police officers have to ensure compliance with s. 10  of the Charter ? - What, if any, is the scope of police powers to conduct searches incident to detentions for “articulable cause”, having regard to s. 8  of the Charter ?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30247                    Alberta Energy and Utilities Board v. Atco Gas and Pipelines Ltd. AND BETWEEN The City of Calgary v. Atco Gas and Pipelines Ltd. and Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.) (Civil) (By Leave)

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

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Edmonton), Number 0201‑0116‑AC, dated January 27, 2004, brought by the City of Calgary is granted with costs to the City of Calgary in any event of the cause. The application for leave to cross‑appeal is granted.  Pursuant to Rule 22(2)(c)(ii) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board may participate as an intervener and present arguments limited to the issue of its jurisdiction. Should the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board wish to pursue its application for leave to appeal it will advise the Registrar accordingly within 10 days and an oral hearing will be ordered to address the question of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board's standing to bring an application for leave to appeal.  In the event the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board does not so advise, its leave application will be dismissed with no order as to costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel que la Ville de Calgary a présentée contre l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Alberta (Edmonton), numéro 0201‑0116‑AC, daté du 27 janvier 2004, est accordée avec dépens en faveur de la Ville de Calgary quelle que soit l'issue de l'appel.  La demande d'autorisation d'appel incident est accordée.  Conformément au sous‑al. 22(2)c)(ii) des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada, l'Alberta Energy and Utilities Board pourra participer à titre d'intervenante et présenter des arguments limités à la question de sa compétence. Si elle souhaite maintenir sa demande d'autorisation d'appel, l'Alberta Energy and Utilities Board en avisera la Registraire dans les 10 jours et la tenue d'une audience sera ordonnée afin d'examiner la question de la qualité de l'Alberta Energy and Utilities Board pour présenter une demande d'autorisation d'appel.  Si l'Alberta Energy and Utilities Board ne donne pas cet avis, sa demande d'autorisation d'appel sera rejetée sans ordonnance quant aux dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes - Interpretation - Administrative law - Judicial review - Whether the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board had the power to apportion the proceeds from the sale of a public utility’s assets as between the public utility and its customers - Whether the Board exercised its discretion to apportion the proceeds of sale of a utility asset in a manner which justified judicial intervention - Whether the appellate court failed to properly apply the regulatory compact by misapplying US case law - Extent of discretion of Board to fulfil its mandate to set just and reasonable rates.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30158                    Luis Cornejo v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Binnie and Fish JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C37199, dated November 27, 2003, is dismissed.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C37199, daté du 27 novembre 2003, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non charter) - Defence - Sexual assault - Defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent - Air of Reality test for defence -  Whether two occasions of the complainant’s movement of her pelvis constituted some evidence to support the air of reality test - Whether the only evidence that the trial judge relied upon in his determination of the air of reality test was the complainant’s movement of the pelvis - Whether as a condition precedent for the air of reality test, there must be some evidence to support the all of the elements of the defence of consent, including a reasonableness requirement with respect to reasonable steps to ascertain consent - Whether accused  took no reasonable steps to determine consent -  Whether jury could have decided matter on  issues of credibility and consent - Whether the question of public importance is germane to the disposition of the case.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30176                    Frederick Leroy Barney v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and The United Church of Canada AND BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development v. R.A.F, R.J.J. and M.L.J, M.W. (2) and The United Church of Canada AND BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development v. Frederick Leroy Barney and The United Church of Canada AND BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development v. Patrick Dennis Stewart and The United Church of Canada AND BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development v. The United Church of Canada AND BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development v. The United Church of Canada AND BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development v. R.A.F, R.J.J. and M.L.J and The United Church of Canada AND BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development v. Frederick Leroy Barney and The United Church of Canada AND BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development v. Patrick Dennis Stewart and The United Church of Canada AND BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development v. The United Church of Canada AND BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development v. Frederick Leroy Barney and The United Church of Canada AND BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development v. Patrick Dennis Stewart and The United Church of Canada AND BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development v. R.A.F, R.J.J. and M.L.J and The United Church of Canada (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Binnie and Fish JJ.

 The applications for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Numbers CA024796, CA028840, CA028841, CA028844, CA028845, CA028846, CA028847, CA028848 and CA028853, dated December 10, 2003, are granted with costs in any event of the cause to the applicant, Frederick Leroy Barney on the first application and with costs in any event of the cause to the respondents Frederick Leroy Barney, M.W. (2) and Patrick Dennis Stewart on the second application.

 Les demandes d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‑Britannique (Vancouver), numéros CA024796, CA028840, CA028841, CA028844, CA028845, CA028846, CA028847, CA028848 et CA028853, daté du 10 décembre 2003, sont accordées avec dépens quelle que soit l'issue de l'appel en faveur du demandeur, Frederick Leroy Barney, sur la première demande d'autorisation d'appel et avec dépens quelle que soit l'issue de l'appel en faveur des intimés Frederick Leroy Barney, M.W. (2) et Patrick Dennis Stewart sur la deuxième demande d'autorisation d'appel.

NATURE OF THE CASE (First Application)

Torts - Intentional torts - Damages - Vicarious liability - Negligence - Sexual assault - Indian Residential Schools - Calculation of damages where tortfeasor commits a series of torts, all contributing to the damages suffered by the plaintiff when some of the torts are statute barred - Whether tortfeasor may rely on earlier physical and emotional abuse of the plaintiff to reduce damages - Whether court erred in taking into account background factors where there is no evidence that such factors created a risk that the child would have sustained damage from those factors - Whether physical and emotional abuse and forced loss of culture and language which occur as part of the environment where sexual abuse takes place  constitute aggravating factors in the calculation of damages - Where physical and emotional abuse and forced loss of culture and language which occur as part of the environment where sexual abuse takes place are not separable from those arising from the sexual abuse alone, whether tortfeasor is liable for all the damages arising from a combination of these factors - Whether Court of Appeal erred in  upholding the trial judgment on the test to establish negligence  that the Defendants knew or ought to have known that the children were being sexually abused at the residential school, rather than the Defendants knew or ought to have known that there was a reasonable risk that the children could be sexually abused while in their care at the residential school- Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial judge on the issue of whether the applicable standard for foreseeability of risk of harm is that of any reasonable person rather than that of a reasonable person in the position of Defendants - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying an arbitrary award of damages for loss of future earning capacity rather than assessing those damages in light of the evidence of the employment history of the Applicant - Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding the judgment Critchley that a fiduciary must personally take advantage of a relationship of trust or confidence for his or her own direct or indirect personal advantage before recovery for breach of fiduciary duty is possible - Whether Court of Appeal erred in not assessing punitive damages against Canada

NATURE OF THE CASE (Second Application)

Torts - Intentional torts - Damages - Vicarious liability - Negligence - Sexual assault - Indian Residential Schools - Whether there should be a class or status based exemption from vicarious liability for non-profit organizations in cases where the government is liable and in which the Church or non-profit charitable organization is not at fault - Whether a non-delegable duty may apply concurrently with vicarious liability, or are the two constructs mutually exclusive Whether a non-delegable duty apply at all in an employer-employee relationship - Whether, in the context of no-fault liability, can apportionment be anything other than 50-50 - Whether the Court of Appeal had any basis in law to intervene in the findings of fact and inferences of fact made by the trial judge in the absence of a palpable and overriding error

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30199                    Philip Neil Wiles v. Her Majesty the Queen (N.S.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Binnie and Fish JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, Number CAC 200952/200951, dated January 8, 2004, is granted.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Nouvelle‑Écosse, numéro CAC 200952/200951, daté du 8 janvier 2004, est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal  Law ‑ Mandatory firearms prohibition - Whether mandatory requirement pursuant to s. 109(1) (c) of the Criminal Code  to impose a firearms prohibition for a breach of s. 7(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act violates s. 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30211                    Shane Tyrone Ferras v. United States of America, Her Majesty the Queen and Martin Cauchon, Minister of Justice (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Binnie and Fish JJ.

 The application for extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Numbers C38969 and C39662, dated March 16, 2004, is granted. This case will be heard with Leroy Latty and Lynval Wright v. United States of America,  Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (30295).

 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 C38969 et C39662, daté du 16 mars 2004, est accordée. Cet appel sera entendu avec Leroy Latty et Lynval Wright c. États‑Unis d'Amérique,  Ministre de la Justice et Procureur géneral du Canada (30295).

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal - Criminal Law - Extradition -  Whether ss. 32(1)(a) and 33 of the Extradition Act , S.C. 1999, c. 18 , constituted reasonable limits on the right under s. 6 of the Charter of a Canadian citizen to remain in Canada - Whether ss. 32(1)(a) and 33 of the Extradition Act   violate s. 7  of the Charter  by permitting extradition of a Canadian citizen on the basis of otherwise inadmissible evidence while precluding any assessment of the reliability of the evidence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30254                    C.D. v. Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Binnie and Fish JJ.

 The application for an extension of time to file a reply is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Edmonton), Number 0303‑0238‑A3, dated March 2, 2004, is granted. This case will be heard with C.D.K. v. Her Majesty the Queen (30314).

 La demande de prorogation de délai pour déposer une réplique est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Alberta (Edmonton), numéro 0303‑0238‑A3, daté du 2 mars 2004, est accordée. Cet appel sera entendu avec C.D.K. c. Sa  Majesté la Reine (30314).

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law - (Non Charter) - Sentencing - Young Offenders - Youth Criminal Justice Act  - Whether courts erred in interpretation of “violent offence” in section 39(1) (a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act  or in interpretation of the sentencing guidelines in the Youth Criminal Justice Act  - Whether accused’s sentence was erroneously based on facts neither proven nor admitted.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30295                    Leroy Latty and Lynval Wright v. United States of America, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Binnie and Fish JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Numbers C39032 and C39799, dated March 16, 2004, is granted. This case is to be heard with Shane Tyrone Ferras v. United States of America, Her Majesty the Queen and Martin Cauchon, Minister of Justice (30211).

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéros C39032 et C39799, daté du 16 mars 2004, est  accordée. Cet appel sera entendu avec Shane Tyrone Ferras c. États‑Unis d'Amérique, Sa Majesté la Reine et Martin Cauchon, ministre de la Justice (30211).

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal - Criminal Law - Extradition - Whether ss. 32 and 33 of the Extradition Act , S.C. 1999, c. 18  violate s. 7  of the Charter  - Whether Minister of Justice properly exercised his discretion in ordering surrender to United States of America.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30302                    R.W.C., a young person within the meaning of the Youth Criminal Justice Act  v. Her Majesty the Queen (N.S.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Binnie and Fish JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, Number CAC 203401, dated February 17, 2004, is granted.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Nouvelle‑Écosse, numéro CAC 203401, daté du 17 février 2004, est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Young offenders - Primary designated offence - Mandatory DNA sample - Exception - Conviction entered on charge assault causing - Whether Court of Appeal erred in its application of section 487.051(2)  of the Criminal Code  of Canada  in allowing the appeal and issuing a DNA order - Whether Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the law as to whether ruling that the “principles and purposes of the Youth Criminal Justice Act , S.C. 2002, c. 1  inform or otherwise modify the application of section 487.051(1)(a) and (2) as between adult and young offender”.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30314                    C.D.K. v. Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Binnie and Fish JJ.

 The application for an extension of time to file a reply is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Edmonton), Number 0303‑0395‑A, dated March 10, 2004, is granted. This case will be heard with C.D. v. Her Majesty the Queen (30254).

 La demande de prorogation de délai pour déposer une réplique est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Alberta (Edmonton), numéro 0303‑0395‑A, daté du 10 mars 2004, est accordée. Cet appel sera entendu avec C.D. c. Sa Majesté la Reine (30254).

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law - (Non Charter) - Sentencing - Young Offenders - Youth Criminal Justice Act  - Whether courts erred in interpretation of “violent offence” in section 39(1) (a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act  or in interpretation of the sentencing guidelines in the Youth Criminal Justice Act  - Whether accused’s sentence was erroneously based on facts neither proven nor admitted.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30395                    Her Majesty the Queen v. John Charles Woods (Man.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Binnie and Fish JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba, Number AR 03‑30‑05528, dated April 19, 2004, is granted.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Manitoba, numéro  AR 03‑30‑05528, daté du 19 avril 2004, est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non Charter) - Offences - Interpretation - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in concluding that the administration of the alcohol screening device test to the Respondent did not meet the “forthwith” requirement of section 254(2)  of the Criminal Code .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29948                    Martin Tremblay c. Groupe Québécor Inc. (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel incident est rejetée. La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Québec), numéro 200‑09‑003932‑024, daté du 15 août 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

 The application for leave to cross‑appeal is dismissed.  The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Quebec), Number 200‑09‑003932‑024, dated August 15, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Responsabilité civile - Libelle et diffamation - Dommages-intérêts - Articles de journal - Défense de l’immunité - Loi sur la presse -  La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit et a-t-elle violé l’article 10 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne du Québec en réduisant le montant des dommages moraux auxquels avait droit le demandeur en raison de la profession qu’il exerce, à savoir celle d’avocat criminaliste ? -  La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en ne retenant pas qu’un journal qui diffuse délibérément des informations dévastatrices pour la réputation d’un tiers dans le but évident de faire mousser son tirage par la publication d’une exclusivité, commet une atteinte illicite et intentionnelle à la réputation d’autrui au sens de l’article 49 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne du Québec ? - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en renversant le jugement de première instance qui concluait que l’attitude de l’intimée lors de l’interview avec le journaliste avait convaincu le demandeur que ce dernier n’avait aucune objection à la publication de la nouvelle.

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30231                    Michael Ian Beardall Alexander v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (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 C39204, dated January 15, 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 de l'Ontario, numéro C39204, daté du 15 janvier 2004, est accordée avec dépens en faveur du demandeur quelle que soit l'issue de l'appel. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Insurance - Contracts - Property law - Mortgages - When a mortgagee takes possession of a vacant property from a defaulting mortgagor and an insurable loss ensues, can the mortgagee claim the protection of the standard mortgage clause, and with it, the policy, or can the insurer void the policy under statutory condition 4 on the basis that mortgagee’s possession gives him “knowledge” and “control” over the material change in risk.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30237                    Ernst & Young, Nicolas Beaudin, Alain Roberge, Richard Epstein, Daniel Garant, Jean‑Pierre Huard and Patrice Beaudin v. Fraser Milner Casgrain, s.e.n.c. and Fraser Milner Casgrain, LLP (Que.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Quebec), Number 500‑09‑014170‑047, dated February 16, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Québec), numéro 500‑09‑014170‑047, daté du 16 février 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law – Pre-trial procedure – Examination on discovery – Implied undertaking – Whether the Superior Court erred in determining that the respondents did not breach their implied undertaking of confidentiality – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the judgment appealed from did not fulfil the criteria set out by art. 29 and 511 C.C.P.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30256                    Sa Majesté la Reine c. Éric Boucher (Qc) (Criminelle) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‑10‑002226‑015, daté du 2 février 2004, est accordée.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‑10‑002226‑015, dated February 2, 2004, is granted.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Preuve - Preuve contraire - Témoignage de l’accusé - Témoin-expert - Doute raisonnable - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en droit, en statuant que l’opinion d’un témoin-expert, qui ne repose sur aucune preuve admissible soutenant une preuve contraire, peut être pris en compte aux fins de soulever un doute raisonnable permettant de contrer la présomption légale de l’article 258(1) c) du Code criminel ? - Le témoignage d’un défendeur, dont la version des faits fut rejetée en bloc par un tribunal de première instance, doit-il tout de même être pris en considération, en conjonction avec le témoignage d’un témoin-expert, afin d’évaluer une preuve contraire présentée afin de contrer la présomption prévue à l’art. 258(1) c) du Code criminel ? - Est-il erroné pour un tribunal, dans son évaluation de la preuve contraire, de retenir l’opinion d’un témoin-expert qui ne s’appuierait dès lors que sur des faits hypothétiques ou sur des conjectures? - Un tribunal peut-il considérer une absence de symptômes manifestes d’ébriété chez un défendeur, et ce sans qu’aucune expertise ne soit venue établir le degré de tolérance à l’alcool de ce défendeur? 

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30264                    Hélèna Clément et Murray Jean c. Sa Majesté la Reine (Qc) (Criminelle) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour supérieure du Québec, numéro 105‑26‑000423‑030, daté du 10 février 2004, est rejetée.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court of Quebec, Number 105‑26‑000423‑030, dated February 10, 2004, is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Preuve - Ordonnance de blocage - Révision - Compétence de la Cour supérieure - Loi sur l’accise , L.R. (1985) ch. E-14  - Loi sur les Indiens, L.R.C, (1985) ch. I-6  - Le juge de première instance a-t-il erré en droit en acceptant d’entendre la demande d’ordonnance de blocage? - Le juge de première instance a-t-il erré en droit en rejetant l’application de la Loi sur les indiens? - Le juge de première instance a-t-il erré en droit lorsqu’il renvoie au stade de la révision de l’article 462.34  du Code criminel du Canada  la possibilité pour les personnes concernées de demander la restitution des biens bloqués par l’ordonnance de blocage? - Le juge de première instance a-t-il erré en droit et en faits en ne considérant pas l’ensemble de la preuve qui lui était soumise?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30275                    Royal Bank of Canada v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (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 C39205, dated January 15, 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 de l'Ontario, numéro C39205, daté du 15 janvier 2004, est accordée avec dépens en faveur de la demanderesse quelle que soit l'issue de l'appel.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Insurance - Contracts - Property law - Mortgages - Does Statutory Condition 4 conflict with the Mortgage Clause such that the Mortgage Clause supercedes it resulting in higher premiums only but not a voidance of the policy - If Statutory Condition 4 does not conflict with the Mortgage Clause does voiding the policy under it lead to a result that is inconsistent with the application and interpretation of the Mortgage Clause - Did Royal Bank breach Statutory Condition 4.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30279                    Pêcheries Nicol Desbois Inc. c. Lloyd's of London, Simon Philip Cooper Syndicat 590, Harold Cotton, Ministère de l'agriculture, des pêches et de l'alimentation du Québec et Caisse populaire Desjardins de Sainte‑Thérèse de Gaspé (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Québec), numéro 200‑09‑003939‑029, daté du 10 février 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Quebec), Number 200‑09‑003939‑029, dated February 10, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit maritime - Assurance maritime - Vente - Portée du droit provincial - Naufrage d’un bateau - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en s’appuyant sur la notion de propriétaire au sens du Code civil du Québec, L.Q. 1991, ch. 64, dans un contexte d’assurances maritimes de juridiction fédérale, alors qu’une définition de propriétaire est déjà prévue dans le contrat d’assurance et dans la Loi sur la marine marchande du Canada , L.R.C. (1985), ch. S-9 ? - La Cour d’appel a-telle erré en référant à la notion de vente au sens du Code civil alors que la demanderesse possédait toujours un intérêt d’assurance au sens du contrat d’assurance, de la Loi sur l’assurance maritime , L.C. 1993, ch. 22 , et des principes dégagés dans l’arrêt Kosmopoulos c. Constitution Insurance Co. [1987] 1 R.C.S. 2?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30304                    Monique Boulet c. Centre hospitalier Pierre Le Gardeur et Marie‑Josée Marceau (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‑09‑013917‑034, daté du 14 novembre 2003, est rejetée.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‑09‑013917‑034, dated November 14, 2003, is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Législation – Interprétation – Aptitude à consentir aux soins requis par l’état de santé d’un majeur – Refus – Les tribunaux inférieurs ont-ils erré en jugeant que la demanderesse n’était pas apte à donner son consentement à l’égard des soins d’hébergement requis par son état de santé?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30322                    Balvir Singh Multani and Balvir Singh Multani, in his capacity of tutor to his minor son Gurbaj Singh Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys and Attorney General of Québec (Que.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgments of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Numbers 500‑09‑012386‑025 and 500‑09‑012387‑023, dated March 4, 2004, is granted without costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel des arrêts de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéros 500‑09‑012386‑025 et 500‑09‑012387‑023, datés du 4 mars 2004, est accordée sans dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  – Civil – Civil rights – Freedom of religion – Duty to accommodate – Whether the prohibition of the Kirpan in school violates the Quebec and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ? – Whether the accommodation should have been maintained? – Whether the rules of administrative law also favour Applicant’s position?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30349                    Her Majesty the Queen v. Thomas Turcotte (B.C.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA028858, dated March 25, 2004, is granted.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‑Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA028858, daté du 25 mars 2004, est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Right to silence - Post-offence conduct - Cross-examination - Jury instruction - Does the right to silence extend to a situation when a person who is not detained or under investigation voluntarily elects to seek out and speak to police with respect to crimes of which the police have no knowledge? - Does the right to silence preclude the Crown from asking the trier of fact to draw inferences from what was knowingly omitted or not said by this person about these crimes prior to his detention?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30375                    Ville de Fermont et Lombard Canada Ltée c. Kevin Pelletier, Gervais Pelletier et Jocelyne Morin Pelletier (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Québec), numéro 200‑09‑004316‑037, daté du 13 avril 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Quebec), Number 200‑09‑004316‑037, dated April 13, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure – Responsabilité civile – Appel – Faute – Lien de causalité – Dommages-intérêts – Dépens – Intérêts – La Cour d’appel était-elle justifiée d’intervenir  et de renverser le jugement de première instance? – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en condamnant les demanderesses à payer des intérêts sur un montant qui incluait déjà un intérêt calculé?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30477                    Procureur général du Québec et ministre de la Justice du Québec c. Conférence des juges du Québec et autres ET ENTRE Procureur général du Québec et ministre de la Justice du Québec c. Morton S. Minc, Denis Boisvert, Antonio Discepola, Yves Fournier, Gilles Gaumond, Louise Baribeau, Jean‑Pierre Bessette, Pierre D. Denault, René Déry, Gérard Duguay, Pierre Fontaine, Pierre Gaston, Denis Laliberté, Louis‑Jacques Léger, Jean Massé, Evasio Massignani, Ronald Schachter, Bernard Caron, Jean Charbonneau et Raymonde Verreault ET ENTRE Conférence des juges municipaux du Québec c. Conférence des juges du Québec et autres et Procureur général du Québec (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

 Les demandes d'autorisation d'appel à l'encontre des arrêts de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéros 500‑09‑013406‑038, 500‑09‑013412‑036 et 500‑09‑013420‑039, datés du 31 mai 2004 et rectifiés le 7 juillet 2004, sont accordées sans dépens. Il n'est pas nécessaire de statuer sur la requête de la Conférence des juges municipaux du Québec pour être ajoutée comme partie.  Cet appel sera entendu les 9 et 10 novembre 2004 et l'échéancier pour le dépôt et la signification des documents sera fixé par la registraire.

 The applications for leave to appeal from the judgments of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Numbers 500‑09‑013406‑038, 500‑09‑013412‑036 and  500‑09‑013420‑039, dated May 31, 2004, and rectified on July 7, 2004, are granted without costs.  It is not necessary to dispose of the motion of the Conférence des juges municipaux du Québec to be added as a party.  This appeal is scheduled to be heard on November 9 and 10, 2004, and the schedule for filing  and serving material shall be set by the Registrar.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit constitutionnel – Indépendance judiciaire – Contrôle judiciaire – Rémunération des juges – Rejet, par le gouvernement du Québec, de recommandations du comité O’Donnell formé pour examiner le traitement des juges de nomination provinciale – Test de la « simple rationalité » – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en appliquant la norme de contrôle constitutionnel de la « simple rationalité » à la réponse du gouvernement au rapport du comité O’Donnell? – La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en confirmant la décision du premier juge de rejeter la preuve présentée lors de l’enquête? – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que le comité n’avait pas la compétence de recommander de mettre fin à la parité de traitement existant entre les juges de la Cour du Québec et les juges des cours municipales? – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que le comité ne s’était pas prononcé de manière objective sur l’abolition de la parité? – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en rejetant l’intervention de la Conférence des juges municipaux au motif que l’intervention irait à l’encontre des processus constitutionnel et législatif?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

Recours des juges de la Cour du Québec

23.9.2004

Before / Devant: DESCHAMPS J.

GRANTED IN PART / ACCORDÉE EN PARTIE

À LA SUITE D’UNE DEMANDE des intimés visant à obtenir la permission de signifier et de déposer un mémoire en réplique aux mémoires des intervenants et visant à obtenir une exemption des frais de production de la présente requête;

ET APRÈS AVOIR PRIS CONNAISSANCE de la documentation déposée;

IL EST PAR LA PRÉSENTE ORDONNÉ CE QUI SUIT:

1)             La requête est accueillie en partie;

2)             Les intimés sont accordé le droit de signifier et de déposer un mémoire en réplique d'au plus de 20 pages au plus tard 20 jours de la signification des mémoires des intervenants;

3)             La demande pour être exempté des frais de production de la présente requête est refusée; et

4)             Le tout sans frais.

28.9.2004

Before / Devant: THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Miscellaneous motion

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) (Can.)

Autre requête

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the Honourable Anne Cools, Member of the Senate, and Roger Gallaway, Member of the House of Commons, for directions, a declaration and to appoint an amicus curiae;

AND HAVING READ the materials presented in support thereof;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion is dismissed.

30.9.2004

Before / Devant: BASTARACHE J.

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

Francisco Batista Pires

v. (30151)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer l'avis d'appel

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to August 26, 2004.

30.9.2004

Before / Devant: LEBEL J.

Further motion for leave to intervene

BY / PAR:              Attorney General of Ontario

IN / DANS:            Daryl Milland Clark

v. (29976)

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

Autre 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 August 4, 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.

30.9.2004

Before / Devant: DESCHAMPS J.

Further order on motions for leave to intervene

BY / PAR:              Attorney General of Canada

Attorney General of British Columbia

IN / DANS:            E.B.

v. (29890)

Order of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate in the Province of British Columbia (B.C.)

Autre requêtes en autorisation d'intervention

UPON APPLICATIONS by the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of British Columbia for leave to intervene in the above appeal and pursuant to the orders of July 8 and August 5, 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.

1.10.2004

Before / Devant: DESCHAMPS J.

Motion to strike

Le ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration

c. (30025)

Léon Mugesera, et autres (CF)

Requête en radiation

GRANTED IN PART / ACCORDÉE EN PARTIE

À LA SUITE D’UNE DEMANDE de l’appelant visant à obtenir le retranchement de certains documents du dossier des intimés et le dépôt et la signification par les intimés d’un dossier amendé et d’un mémoire amendé;

ET APRÈS AVOIR PRIS CONNAISSANCE de la documentation déposée;

IL EST PAR LA PRÉSENTE ORDONNÉ CE QUI SUIT:

Les intimés ont inclus à leur mémoire des documents que l’appelant prétend devoir être exclus. De plus, selon l’appelant, l’argument écrit des intimés contient des passages qui devraient être radiés. Les documents contestés sont les mémoires des instances inférieures, des directives de la Cour d’appel fédérale, une requête pour dépôt de preuve nouvelle, la plaidoirie écrite concernant les dépens en Cour d’appel, la correspondance échangée entre les parties relativement à la constitution du dossier devant notre Cour et une table de concordance.

L’alinéa 39(1) b) des Règles de la Cour suprême prévoit que la partie II du dossier d’un intimé inclut, entre autres, les «actes de procédures» et «ordonnances». Dans la version anglaise, les expressions utilisées sont «pleadings» et «orders».  Ces expressions sont suffisamment générales pour inclure les mémoires des instances inférieures, les directives de la Cour d’appel, la requête pour dépôt d’une preuve nouvelle et la plaidoirie concernant les dépens.  La Cour a, d’ailleurs, dans Pu. Sch. Bds’ Assn c. Alberta (PG), [1999] 3 R.C.S. 845, établi que les mémoires des instances inférieures faisaient partie du dossier auquel les parties peuvent faire référence.

La correspondance et la table de concordance sont incorporés par les intimés aux parties III et IV de leur dossier. Les alinéas c) et d) du paragraphe 39(1) des Règles de la Cour suprême prévoient que sont inclus à ces parties:

c)             partie III : la preuve, y compris les transcriptions et les affidavits;

d)            partie IV : les pièces, selon l’ordre de leur dépôt en première instance.

La correspondance et la table de concordance ne sont ni de la preuve ni des pièces faisant partie du dossier de première instance.  Ces documents ne pourraient, par ailleurs, pas non plus être inclus à la partie II du dossier des intimés.

Ce sont des éléments nouveaux. Ils doivent être considérés comme retranchés. De même, les passages du mémoire s’y reportant doivent être considérés comme non écrits.

Plutôt que d’ordonner la production d’un nouveau mémoire et d’un nouveau dossier, j’ordonne aux parties de ne pas se reporter à ces documents et passages du mémoire dans leurs plaidoiries orales.

Pour ces motifs la requête est accordée en partie et sans frais vu son sort mitigé. La correspondance et la table de concordance doivent être tenues pour retranchées et ordre est fait aux intimés de ne pas s’y reporter.

5.10.2004

Jason Beazley, et al.

v. (30484)

Natalia Spehar, an infant by her Guardian Ad Litem, Ann Spehar (B.C.)

(Leave)

7.10.2004

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.

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^th, 2003 (Can.) (29866)

Peter W. Hogg, Q.C and Michael H. Morris for the Attorney General of Canada.

Cynthia Petersen, Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C, Vanessa Payne, and Kathleen A. Lahey for the interveners Egale Canada Inc., Dawn Barbeau, et al. (Egale couples) & (B.C couples).

Martha A. McCarthy and Joanna L. Radbord for the interveners Hedy Halpern, et al. and Joyce Barnet, et al.

(Ontario couples & Quebec couples).

Leslie A. Reaume for the intervener Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Catherine Pike and Amyn Hadibhai for the intervener Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Aaron L. Berg for the intervener Manitoba Human Rights Commission.

Ed Morgan and Lawrence Thacker for the intervener

Canadian Coalition of Liberal Rabbis for same sex marriage, et al.

John O’Sullivan for the intervener The United Church of Canada.

Kenneth W. Smith and Robert J. Hughes for the intervener Canadian Unitarian Council.

R. Douglas Elliott, Trent Morris and Jason J. Tan for the intervener Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto.

James L. Lebo, Q.C. for the Intervener Canadian Bar Association.

Andrew K. Lokan and Odette Soriano for the intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Elliott M. Myers, Q.C. and Rebecca Smyth for the intervener British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

Linda M. Plumpton and Kathleen Riggs for the intervener Foundation for Equal Families.

Noël Saint-Pierre pour l’intervenante Coalition pour le marriage civil des couples de même sexe.

D. Geoffrey G. Cowper, Q.C. for the intervener Working Group on Civil Unions.

Luc Alarie pour l’intervenant Mouvement laïque québécois.

Alain Gingras pour l’intervenant Procureur général du Québec.

Robert W. Leurer, Q.C., Margaret Unsworth and Christy J. Stockdale for the intervener Attorney General of Alberta.

David M. Brown for the interveners Focus on Family (Canada) Assoc., et al.

Peter R. Jervis and Bradley W. Miller for the interveners Islamic Society of North America, et al. (Interfaith Coalition)

W.J. Sammon, Kellie Siegner and Peter D. Lauwers for the interveners Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops & Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Mark R. Frederick and Peter D. Lauwers for the intervener The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Barry W. Bussey for the intervener Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Canada.

Personne ne comparait pour l’intervenant Martin Dion

Gerald D. Chippeur, Dale William Fedorchuk and Ivan Bernardo for the interveners The Honorable Anne Cools, et al.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

By Order in Council P.C. 2003-1055, dated the 16^th of July 2003, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, pursuant to section 53 of the Supreme Court Act, refers to the Supreme Court of Canada for hearing and consideration the following questions:

Nature de la cause:

Par le décret C.P. 2003-1055 en date du 16 juillet 2003, sur recommandation du ministre de la Justice et en vertu de l’article 53 de la Loi sur la Cour suprême, Son Excellence la Gouverneure générale en conseil soumet au jugement de la Cour suprême du Canada les questions suivantes :

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?

On January 28, 2004, the Governor in Council filed a Notice of Amended Reference amending this Reference by asking a fourth question.

4.             Is the opposite-sex requirement for marriage for civil purposes, as established by the common law and set out for Québec in s. 5 of the Federal Law-Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?  If not, in what particular or particulars and to what extent?

1.             La Proposition de loi concernant certaines conditions de fond du marriage 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?

Par l’Avis de renvoi modifié déposé le 28 janvier 2004, le Gouverneur en conseil a modifié ce renvoi par l’ajout d’une quatrième question.

4.             L’exigence, sur le plan civil, selon laquelle seules deux personnes de sexe opposé peuvent se marier, prévue par la common law et, pour le Québec, à l’article 5 de la Loi d’harmonisaion no 1 du droit fédéral avec le droit civil, est-elle conforme à la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?  Dans la négative, à quel égard et dans quelle mesure?