Bulletins

      OF CANADA                                             DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

June 30, 2004 1015 - 1121                                                                    le 30 juin 2004

CONTENTS                                                     TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Northwest Communications Ltd. dba Northwest Imaging & Fx

Katherine E. Ducey

Campbell, Froh, May & Rice

v. (30344)

Minds Eye Entertainment Ltd. and its Subsidiaries, et al. (Alta.)

L.D. Andrychuk

MacPherson, Leslie & Tyerman

FILING DATE: 21.5.2004

Pascal Conway

Daniel Royer

Labelle, Boudrault, Côté & Associés

c. (30357)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qc)

Jean-Marie Tanguay

Procureur général du Québec 

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 28.5.2004

The Industrial Wood & Allied Workers of Canada, Local 700

Stephen Wahl

Koskie, Minsky

v. (30391)

GMAC Commercial Credit Corporation of Canada, et al. (Ont.)

Orestes Pasparakis

Ogilvy, Renault

FILING DATE: 1.6.2004

John Susin, et al.

John Susin

v. (30366)

Howard Swartz (Ont.)

Sandra L. Secord

Torkin, Manes, Cohen, Arbus

FILING DATE: 3.6.2004

Ville de Fermont, et autre

Marc Lemaire

Tremblay, Bois, Mignault & Lemay

c. (30375)

Kevin Pelletier, et autres (Qc)

Pierre Goudreau

Carter, Goudreau

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 7.6.2004

Ville de Lévis

Martin Bouffard

Pothier, Delisle

c. (30381)

2629-4470 Québec Inc. (Qc)

Hélène Maillette

St-Pierre, Maillette

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 11.6.2004

Her Majesty the Queen

Heather Leonoff, Q.C.

Attorney General of Manitoba

v. (30394)

Ernest Nicholas Dolynchuk (Man.)

Irwin Z. Isenstein

FILING DATE: 11.6.2004

Francis Mazhero

Francis Mazhero

v. (30392)

Canada Industrial Relations Board, et al. (F.C.)

Marie-Claude Grignon

Canada Industrial Relations Board

FILING DATE: 9.6.2004

Maçonnerie Demers Inc.

Richard Lavoie

c. (30386)

Agence métropolitaine de transport (Qc)

Éric Ouimet

Brouillette, Charpentier, Fortin

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 15.6.2004

Arthur Smolensky

Howard Shapray, Q.C.

Shapray, Cramer & Associates

v. (30306)

The British Columbia Securities Commission, et al. (B.C.)

Joseph A. Bernardo

British Columbia Securities Commission

FILING DATE: 20.4.2004

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Alberta (Alta.)

David William Kinloch

Attorney General of Alberta 

v. (30383)

Shirley Adrian, et al. (Alta.)

Kenneth Kolthammer

Kolthammer, Batchelor and Laidlaw

FILING DATE: 10.6.2004

- and between -

The Attorney General of Canada as represented by the Minister of Health for Canada

Kirk N. Lambrecht, Q.C.

Attorney General of Canada

v. (30383)

Shirley Adrian, et al. (Alta.)

C. Kenneth W. Kolthammer

Kolthammer, Batchelor & LaidLaw

FILING DATE: 11.6.2004

Star Choice Television Network Incorporated

Dennis Wyslobicky

v. (30389)

The Commissioner of Customs and Revenue (F.C.)

Derek Rasmussen

Attorney General of Canada

FILING DATE: 11.6.2004

Lawrence David Luftspring

Grant W. Gold

Goodman and Carr

v. (30402)

Marilyn Elizabeth Luftspring (Ont.)

Harold R. Berry, Q.C.

Aird & Berlis

FILING DATE: 15.6.2004

Jonathan H. Marler

Eric R. Murray, Q.C.

Genest, Murray

v. (30405)

Andre Boudreau (Ont.)

Guy A. Wainwright

FILING DATE: 16.6.2004

Bruce Morris

Bruce Morris

v. (30393)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

Patricia A. Babcock

Attorney General of Canada

FILING DATE: 16.6.2004

Her Majesty the Queen

Ami Kotler

Attorney General of Manitoba

v. (30395)

John Charles Woods (Man.)

Joe Aiello

Phillips, Aiello, Boni

FILING DATE: 17.6.2004

Nicole Desjardins, et autre

Nicole Desjardins

c. (30396)

Centre d’achats St-Jérôme Inc. (Qc)

Annie Francoeur

Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 17.6.2004

Jonathan H. Marler

Gary R. Will

Will, Barristers

v. (30404)

Robert Platt (Ont.)

Robert Isles

FILING DATE: 17.6.2004

- and between -

798839 Ontario Ltd.

V. Ross Morrison

Morrison, Brown, Sosnovitch

v. (30404)

Robert Platt, et al. (Ont.)

Robert Isles

FILING DATE: 18.6.2004

Trojan Technologies Inc.

Henry S. Brown, Q.C.

Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson

v. (30235)

Suntec Environmental Inc. (F.C.)

Robert H.C. MacFarlane

Bereskin & Parr

FILING DATE: 18.6.2004

Christian Vincent

Christian Vincent

c. (30400)

Moulage d’aluminium Howmet Ltée, et al. (Qc)

Stephen G. Schenke

McCarthy, Tétrault

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 18.6.2004

Gregory Scott Hennick

Gregory Scott Hennick

v. (30371)

Children’s Aid Society of Cape Breton Victoria (N.S.)

Matthew Williams

Huestis Ritch

FILING DATE: 27.5.2004

Projets Lauphi Inc.

Lazar Sarna

Sarna Neudorfer

c. (30397)

Procureur général du Québec (Qc)

Jocelyne Provost

Bernard Roy & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 18.6.2004

Norman Walker

Chris McCarthy

D. John Kirby

v. (30410)

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (Ont.)

Sheldon L. Schwartz

Raphael Partners

FILING DATE: 2.6.2004

JUNE 21, 2004 / LE 21 JUIN 2004

                                                                        CORAM:  Major, Binnie and Fish JJ.

                                                                              Les juge Major, Binnie et Fish

Ruben Jimmie

v. (30248)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sentencing - Dangerous offender - Accused sentenced to indeterminate incarceration as a dangerous offender while at the same time receiving a life sentence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against sentence in respect of the trial judge’s declaration that the Applicant is a dangerous offender and the imposition of an indeterminate period of incarceration - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s. 753.1(4)  of the Criminal Code  in holding that the long-term offender provisions are not applicable to a person who is serving a life sentence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding on the record before it that the result would have been the same notwithstanding the fundamental error in law by the trial judge.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Stephen Fazekas

v. (30121)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter   - Criminal Law - Offences - Trial - Evidence - Defence - Sentencing - Whether the trial judge erred in his determination of the appropriate sentence?  - Whether the trial judge failed to apply the correct test for the mens rea for uttering a threat set out in R. v. Clemente [1994] 2 S.C.R. 758? - Whether the trial judge erred in his conviction for causing a disturbance in light of R. v. Lohnes [1992]1 S.C.R. 167? - Whether evidence of prior convictions violates the Charter ? - Whether the trial judge erred in sentencing by failing to properly credit “dead time”?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Stephen Fazekas

v. (30122)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal Law - Trial - Evidence - Defence - Sentencing - Right to fair and full defence - Right to fair trial - Whether the Applicant was prejudiced and denied the right to a fair and full defence due to the limited time available at trial? - Whether the trial judge erred in drawing inferences in her reasons for judgment and sentencing? - Whether the trial judge erred in her determination of the appropriate sentence? - Whether evidence of prior convictions violates Charter  rights? - Whether verdict was reasonable? - Whether trial judge should credit pre-sentence custody in sentence? - Whether Crown violated publication ban by giving media details of Applicant’s prior criminal record - Whether Crown gave full disclosure?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Kingsley M. Lughas

v. (30274)

The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation (Man.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Judgments and orders - Application for judicial review - Whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the Applicant’s application for judicial review.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

R. Kent Remington, a.k.a. B. Kent Remington, a.k.a. Barry Kent Remington

v. (30207)

Robert G. Peter (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Bankruptcy - Whether a claim of contribution by a co-surety survives the bankruptcy of the other co-surety - Effect of the disallowance of a co-surety’s proof of claim on the basis that it offended the rule against double proofs.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:  Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

                                                                  Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

Paramjit Singh Sodhi

v. (30154)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal - Right to counsel - Right to silence - Accused advised of rights under s. 10(b)  of the Charter  upon arrest and initial detention - Eight days later while in custody of officers en route to courthouse to be remanded and later en route to and from police station officers engage accused in conversations to elicit statements - Police do not give applicant a second s. 10(b) warning - Whether police undermined accused’s right to counsel and right to remain silent.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Hélèna Clément et Murray Jean

c. (30264)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.) (Qc)

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

Issam Al Yamani

v. (30184)

The Minister of Citizenship & Immigration (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Immigration law - Abuse of process - Issue estoppel - Statutory interpretation - Where the Minister has unsuccessfully engaged a permanent resident in removal proceedings for more than eight years, whether it is an abuse of process for the Minister to commence new removal proceedings on a ground which was available to the Minister throughout the eight years - Where a court has concluded that it would be a violation of freedom of association to deport a Palestinian on the basis of membership in a PLO faction, whether issue estoppel applies to prevent the Minister from commencing a new removal proceeding on the basis of membership in the same organization, but under a different provisions of the legislation - Whether a ground which did not exist to bar a permanent resident’s admission as the time of landing can be used to deport a permanent resident from Canada.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Régent Millette

c. (30263)

Frank (Francesco) Rodi et Adeline Leduc (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Procédure civile  - Droit commercial - Faillite - Libération des faillis - Droit d’interroger les faillis en vertu de l’art.178  de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité , L.R.C. (1985), ch. B-3  - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en accueillant la requête en rejet d’appel des intimés et rejetant l’appel du demandeur?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

Timothy Seiler, Sylvia Seiler

v. (30183)

Brouwer Claims Canada & Company Ltd., Martin V. Clingwall, Cromwell Restoration Ltd. (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence - Causation - Whether lower courts erred in holding that establishing a breach of a standard of care of anyone engaged in their occupation is a matter on which expert evidence is required - Is expert evidence necessary to establish causation in a negligence action? - Is the evidence of an expert necessary to determine a standard of care? - Did trial judge err by confusing, or alternatively merging, the scientific test for causation with the legal one - Whether trial judge erred in confusing or failing to distinguish the legal test for a no evidence motion and the legal test for a motion of insufficient evidence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

JUNE 28, 2004 / LE 28 JUIN 2004

                                                                        CORAM:  Major, Binnie and Fish JJ.

                                                                              Les juge Major, Binnie et Fish

Philip Neil Wiles

v. ( 30199)

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

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

Luis Cornejo

v. (30158)

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

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

Frederick Leroy Barney

v. (30176)

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 (B.C.)

AND BETWEEN:

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

v.

William Richard Blackwater, R.A.F., M.L.J., M.W. 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.

F.L.B. 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 Dennys 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.

Patrick Dennys 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.

W.C.A., C.H.B.,The Estate of S.S.D.,by his personal representative, L.W., R.A.F.,

Colbert Melvin Good, S.G.G., R.G., G.J., R.J.J., R.V.J., A.J.J., M.L.J., R.H.J.,

E.B.M., L.G.P. 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.

F.L.B. 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 Dennys Stewart and the United Church of Canada

v.

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.

F.L.B. 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 Dennys 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.

W.C.A., C.H.B.,The Estate of S.S.D.,by his personal representative, L.W., R.A.F.,

Colbert Melvin Good, S.G.G., R.G., G.J., R.J.J., R.V.J., A.J.J., M.L.J., R.H.J., E.B.M., L.G.P.,

Daniel Watts, D.W., M.W., M.B.W., M.W. and A.W. and the United Church of Canada

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

Janssen‑Ortho Inc.

v. (30202)

Minister of Health and The Attorney General of Canada (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Property law - Patents - Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR 193-133, as amended by SOR/98-66 - Patent register - Decision of Minister to delist Duragesic fentanyl patches -Whether  patch should be listed on the patent register and given the same patent protection as other patented drug products

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Yvonne Montague, Asquitte Montague, Andrea Montague, Yvette Montague,

Bruce Montague, Jahvon Schurton, by his Litigation Guardian Andrea Montague,

and Tiana Schurton, by her Litigation Guardian Andrea Montague

v. (30191)

Bank of Nova Scotia (Ont.)

AND BETWEEN:

Bank of Nova Scotia

v.

Yvonne Montague, Asquitte Montague, Andrea Montague, Yvette Montague,

Bruce Montague, Jahvon Schurton, By his Litigation Guardian Andrea Montague

and Tiana Schurton, by her Litigation Guardian Andrea Montague

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law – Judgments and orders – Wrongful dismissal – Pay in lieu of notice – Employee wrongfully dismissed following workplace-related injuries and disability – Trial judge increasing award from 12 months pay in lieu of notice to 16 months following disclosure of employer’s pre-trial offer of settlement made pursuant to Rule 49 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure – Whether 16 months pay in lieu of notice reasonable – Whether Court of Appeal erred in interpreting caselaw as giving trial judge broad discretion to change her decision after considering offer to settle – Whether Court of Appeal decision in conflict with British Columbia Court of Appeal’s treatment of a similar case – Whether decision of Court of Appeal will undermine confidence and trust in judges and bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Alberta Energy and Utilities Board

v. (30247)

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. (Alta.)

AND BETWEEN:

The City of Calgary

v.

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. and Alberta Energy and Utilities Board

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

March 21^st, 2002

Alberta Energy and Utilities Board

(McManus, McGee and Miller, Members)

Respondent ATCO’s application for approval of the sale of AGS properties, allowed; allocation to customers of some of the proceeds of the sale of assets formerly used for utility purposes

January 27, 2004

Court of Appeal of Alberta

(Côté [no part in the decision], Wittmann and LoVecchio JJ.A.)

Respondent ATCO’s appeal allowed; Board’s decision vacated; matters referred back to the Board

March 29, 2004

Supreme Court of Canada

First application for leave to appeal filed

March 29, 2004

Supreme Court of Canada

Second application for leave to appeal filed

Faidy Fouad Naguib

v. (30252)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Statutes - Interpretation -Did the Respondent have the onus of establishing the facts justifying a reassessment made outside the “normal reassessment period”, even though neither party raised the “normal reassessment period” issue at Tax Court- Did the lower courts err in concluding, for the purposes of section 163(2) penalties under the Income Tax Act , R.S.C. 1985, (5 ^th  Supp.), c. 1 , as amended, that the Applicant had “failed to report his income” - Did the learned Tax Court Judge reverse the onus with respect to proof relating to section 163(2) penalties? - Appellate court review.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Kevin James Millership

v. (30197)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Attorney General of Canada,

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian charter - Civil rights - Whether s.523(3) of the Local Government Act R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 323, unlawfully and unconstitutionally subjects people in British Columbia to the medical treatment of public water fluoridation - Whether public water fluoridation under s. 523(2) unlawfully and unconstitutionally subjects people in British Columbia to state interference with their bodily integrity, poisons people in British Columbia and Canada with fluoride;  subjects them to cruel and unusual treatment; and discriminates against those who (a) already ingest “optimal” daily amounts of fluoride (b) are formula-fed infants; ©) drink more than average amounts of water; (d) have kidney disorders and (e) have immediate side-effects to fluoridated water - Whether Court of Appeal failed to see that the “mainstream view” of public water fluoridation’s safety and effectiveness means little to nothing

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                             CORAM:  Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

                                                                  Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

Mohammad Qureshi

v. (29938)

Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (Qc)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non Charter) - Appeal - Evidence - Trial - Curative Proviso - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the curative proviso pursuant to s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code R.S.C. c. C-46?- Whether irreparable damage was caused to the Applicant when the wrong criminal record was presented at his trial? - Whether the trial judge erred in allowing pending charges from a separate incident to be admitted as evidence for motive? - Whether the trial judge erred in his charge to the jury?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Gary Floyd Guiboche

v. (30272)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal  Law ‑ Statutes - Interpretation - Private dwelling place - Reasonable expectation of privacy - Third party dwelling places.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mankeshwar Kurichh

v. (28863)

Financial Services Commission of Ontario and Allstate Insurance Company of Canada (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Judgments and orders - Appeals - Motions for reconsideration - Whether the lower courts erred in refusing to review the Applicant’s case in light of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Smith v. Co-operators General Insurance Co., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 129.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Association des professionnels et professionnelles de la vidéo du Québec

c. (30257)

Productions du Petit Bonhomme Inc., Les productions Bibi et Zoé Inc. et

Procureur général du Canada (C.F.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail - Droit administratif - Assurance-chômage - Procédure - Révision judiciaire - Employeur et employé - Contrat de louage de services ou contrat d’entreprise? - Requête en intervention de la part d’un tiers qui n’était pas partie aux instances inférieures  -   La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit et exercé de façon arbitraire sa discrétion en refusant la permission d’intervenir à l’association professionnelle représentant légalement les personnes impliquées au motif qu’elle « n’apporterait pas de contribution utile au débat »?  -  La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle fait une erreur de droit en interprétant et en appliquant les lois sur le statut de l’artiste de manière à conclure que les artistes et autres techniciens « pigistes »  de la télévision étaient tous des « entrepreneurs indépendants » et non des « salariés »?  -  La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en confondant l’entente collective, négociée sous l’égide de la Loi sur le statut professionnel et les conditions d’engagement des artistes de la scène, du disque et du cinéma et du Code civil, avec les contrats individuels, pour conclure qu’on se trouvait en présence d’une « situation contractuelle hybride », inexistante en droit, entre le contrat d’entreprise et le contrat de travail?  -  Principalement, la Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en adoptant une approche globalisante pour étudier la nature du métier ou de la fonction, au lieu des relations contractuelles individuelles entre les artistes et autres techniciens « pigistes » et le producteur, aux fins de la production d’émissions de télévision, pour conclure, dans tous les cas, qu’il ne s’agissait pas de contrats de travail ni d’« emplois assurables »?  -  La Cour d’appel fédérale du Canada aurait-elle dû accueillir la requête du demandeur en révision judiciaire de la décision rendue par la Cour canadienne de l’impôt?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

Placements Mane Ltée

c. (30288)

Ville de Beaupré (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Droit municipal - Appel - Critères pour se voir accorder la permission d’en appeler hors délai - Impossibilité d’agir - Évaluation - Vente d’immeubles pour taxes - Art. 3036 du Code civil du Québec, L.Q., 1991, c. 64 - Art. 513 et 517 de la Loi sur les cités et villes, L.R.Q. c. C-19 - Art. 130 et 134.1 de la Loi sur la fiscalité municipale, L.R.Q., c. F-2.1 - Y a-t-il une erreur de droit et une erreur mixte de droit et de faits commandant l’application des articles 40(1) , 43(1) a) et (1.1)  de la Loi sur la Cour suprême du Canada ? - La Cour supérieure a-t-elle fait erreur quant à l’exercice de sa juridiction de surveillance sur les tribunaux inférieurs quant aux jugements sur des questions procédurales et non aux jugements définitifs, tel que définis à l’article 2(1)  de la Loi sur la Cour suprême  du Canada et en droit civil?- Y a-t-il eu erreur de droit eu égard aux obligations légales et aux obligations contractuelles d’une municipalité, qui commande la définition de la compétence d’un Tribunal administratif en droit civil? - Y a-t-il eu erreur de droit eu égard à l’application du principe de la chose jugée à des questions procédurales, par opposition à des questions d’obligations légales et d’obligations contractuelles? - Y a-t-il eu erreur de droit eu égard à la preuve au dossier de la Cour supérieure, ce qui commanderait l’intervention de la Cour d’appel en regard des déterminations de fait du juge de première instance? - Les tribunaux inférieurs ont-il commis une erreur de droit en écartant l’aveu de l’intimée de son erreur (démontrant l’illégalité de la vente pour taxes) soumis en preuve, de façon à commander l’intervention d’une seconde cour d’appel en regard de l’article 2850 du Code civil du Québec? - Y a-t-il eu erreur mixte de droit et de faits par les tribunaux inférieurs dans l’application du droit civil quant aux obligations légales et aux obligations contractuelles d’une municipalité? - Les tribunaux inférieurs ont-il commis une erreur de droit en écartant les illégalités commises par l’intimée lors de la vente pour taxes, de façon à commander l’application stricte des prévisions de la perception de taxes et des procédures à suivre de la Loi sur les cités et villes ainsi que de la Loi sur la fiscalité municipale? - La demanderesse s’est-elle trouvée dans l’impossibilité relative de déposer son inscription en appel de plein droit à la Cour d’appel du Québec, dans le délai de trente jours du jugement de première instance? - La déontologie professionnelle exige-t-elle du procureur, gardien des droits de son client en toute circonstance, d’inscrire l’appel lorsqu’il n’arrive pas à contacter son client, par simple courtoise celui-ci afin de conserver ses droits et de lui permettre de se désister, s’il y a lieu? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré dans son application du principe de la sauvegarde des droits des parties, en faisant fi des préjudices et conséquences de la forclusion pour la demanderesse ainsi que de l’absence de préjudices aux autres parties?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

Pêcheries Nicol Desbois Inc.

c. (30279)

Lloyd's of London, Simon Philip Cooper Syndicat 590, Harold Cotton,

Ministère de l'agriculture, des pêches et de l'alimentation du Québec,

Caisse populaire Desjardins de Sainte‑Thérèse de Gaspé (Qc)

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

AVI Financial Corporation (1985) Inc.

v. (30242)

Norvegaz Inc. (Qc)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural Law - Taxation - Actions - Costs - Assessment - Bill of Costs - Value in dispute - Tariff of Judicial fees of advocates, R.S.Q., 1981, c. B-1, r.13 - What is the effect of the unilateral declaration of nullity? - What is the effect of a court declaring a contract valid?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION / DEMANDE DE RÉEXAMEN

                                                             CORAM:  Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

                                                                  Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

Mankeshwar Kurichh v. Financial Services Commission of Ontario and Allstate Insurance Company of Canada (Ont.)  (Civil) (By Leave) (28863)

JUNE 24, 2004 / LE 24 JUIN 2004

28658                    Joyce Johansson, Patricia Johansson, Sami A. Youssef, Donna N. Tatryn, Larry P. Coughlin, Jorge Schwarz, Raquel Del Carpio, Ronald Friedman v. Comité administratif de l'Ordre des comptables agréés and Le bureau de l'Ordre des comptables agréés du Québec (Que.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ.

 The motion for reconsideration of the application for leave to appeal dismissed January 17, 2002, was this day dismissed with costs.

 La demande de réexamen de la demande d'autorisation d'appel rejetée le 17 janvier 2002, a aujourd'hui été rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts ‑ Damages – Embezzlement of funds by chartered accountant ‑ Professional liability – By unduly restricting the definition and scope of what constitutes the practice of accountancy for the purpose of applying the Professional Code and Regulations to the Applicants’ claims to the Indemnification Fund of the Order, did the Court of Appeal deprive the public in general, and Applicants in particular of the protection intended by the legislature? – By concluding that the applicable standard of review with respect to a decision of the Order in such a context is “reasonableness” rather than “correctness” decision, did the Court of Appeal exclude the constitutionally guaranteed superintending powers of the Superior Court in a matter where the public in general and Applicants in particular are entitled to a review by an independent judiciary, where there is no justification for any judicial deference to be given to the inferior decision making body? – Does the integrity of the administration of justice depend on the intervention of the Superior Court where there is an appearance of a conflict of interest when deciding a lis inter partes which had direct pecuniary consequences for the decision makers of the Respondents and the members of the Order alike?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

June 18, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

30118                    David Stuart Tedham v. Jacqueline Margaret Tedham (B.C.) (Civil) (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 for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA030339, dated November 7, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‑Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA030339, daté du 7 novembre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family law - Division of property - Reapportionment - Standard of review - Whether provincial statutes give judges discretion to order an unequal division of matrimonial assets upon demonstration that equal division would be unfair or unconscionable - Whether one of the enumerated factors in s. 65(1) have more weight than another or do all of the enumerated factors have the same weight - Whether the exercise of discretion is intended to be a mathematical exercise - To what extent, under what circumstances, and on what bases, is the discretionary power of trial judges to proceed to an unequal division of matrimonial assets subject to appellate review - Whether trial judges must provide reasoned decisions so that the parties are not left in doubt as to their rights/obligations - Whether trial judges have to explicitly refer to every consideration taken into account in order to arrive at a particular conclusion - Whether the extent of the obligation to give reasons is exactly the same in all contexts, whether it be criminal or civil -  Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 128, s. 65(1)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30144                    Shane Lanham v. Edward Robert Larwill (B.C.) (Civil) (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 for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA029219, dated November 20, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‑Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA029219, daté du 20 novembre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence - Whether lower courts erred in the application of Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458, and the legal principles of causation.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30149                    Cosmas Rowel v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union, Local 206, Manitoba Labour Board and Union Centre Inc. (Man.) (Civil) (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 AI‑03‑30‑05613, dated December 23, 2003, is dismissed.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Manitoba, numéro AI‑03‑30‑05613, daté du 23 décembre 2003, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law -Labour law -  Judicial review - Standard of review - Procedural fairness -Natural justice -  Unfair representation -Where a Canadian citizen has a civil claim for unfair representation against his bargaining agent who, contrary to his wishes, had refused to pursue a grievance for unjust dismissal, is the citizen entitled to a hearing where he will have the opportunity of presenting evidence and argument in support of his claim and is entitled to cross-examine any witnesses who give evidence disputing his claim?- In considering a claim by a member of a trade union against his bargaining agent for unfair representation, is a labour board a specialized tribunal and is it entitled to judicial deference for decisions which it makes in rejecting the claim? - Where judicial review is, by statute, conditional upon the person seeking review requesting a reconsideration of the original decision, is this requisition a means of elevating what would have been a null and void decision, to a decision which will preclude judicial review?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30151                    Francisco Batista Pires v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Criminal) (As of Right / By Leave)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Major, Binnie, LeBel and Fish JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA028748, dated January 22, 2004, is granted.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‑Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA028748, daté du 22 janvier 2004, est accordée. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter-Criminal - Criminal law - Narcotics - Wiretap - R. v.Garofoli, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421 - Whether the standard of showing “a basis” for the cross-examination of an affiant, as set down in Garofoli, needs to be clarified so that the rights of Canadians under sections 7  and 8  of the Charter  are properly protected - Whether the standard of showing “a basis” for the cross-examination of an affiant, as articulated by this Honourable Court in Garofoli, supra,, is satisfied when the defence can show that the affiant misrepresented a material fact in the affidavit to support a wiretap authorization - Should the test of whether the defence has satisfied its burden of showing “a basis” for the cross-examination of the affiant be modified where the Crown has proceeded by direct indictment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30161                    Jody James Gunning v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (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 for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA029053, dated September 9, 2003, is granted.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‑Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA029053, daté du 9 septembre 2003, est accordée. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non Charter) - Trial - Defence - Findings of fact - Jury Charge - Defence of house or property - Assault by trespasser - Provocation - Accused fatally shoots victim who entered his home uninvited during a party and refused to leave - Accused intoxicated - Whether trial judge was entitled to make a finding of fact that the use of a gun was careless - Whether trial judge erred by refusing to instruct jury regarding defence of house or property or assault by trespasser - Whether trial judge erred by stating  in jury charge that a verdict of not guilty would be perverse - Whether jury should have been instructed regarding ss. 41(1)  and (2)  of the Criminal Code  with respect to defence of provocation under s. 232 - Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 41(1) , 41(2) , 232 .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30167                    Gou Din Ho v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (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 for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA029850, dated December 2, 2003, is dismissed.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‑Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA029850, daté du 2 décembre 2003, est rejetée. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal Law - Criminal Law (Non Charter) - Right to counsel - Proceedings against applicant stayed because agreement could not be reached with applicant’s choice of counsel regarding legal aid rates to be paid to counsel - No evidence led that applicant sought to be represented by other counsel - Whether a stay of proceedings should have been directed in the absence of evidence that no counsel was available at the Legal Aid tariff rate.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30189                    Shawna Prebushewski v. Dodge City Auto (1984) Ltd. and Chrysler Canada Ltd. (Sask.) (Civil) (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 for Saskatchewan, Number 451, dated December 29, 2003, 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 la Saskatchewan, numéro 451, daté du 29 décembre 2003, est accordée avec dépens en faveur de la demanderesse quelle que soit l'issue de l'appel. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes - Procedural Law - Interpretation - Costs - Under consumer protection legislation, what obligations does a manufacturer owe to a consumer once it has discovered a defect in this product and once contacted by same in respect to a defect in a product it has sold? - What type of conduct on the part of the manufacturer will attract exemplary damages? - When should costs be awarded against a consumer who brings an action under The Consumer Protection Act, S.S. 1996, c. C-30?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30201                    J‑Sons Inc. and John S. Lamont v. N.M. Paterson & Sons Limited (Man.) (Civil) (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 AI‑03‑30‑05625, dated December 22, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Manitoba, numéro AI‑03‑30‑05625, daté du 22 décembre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Costs - Judgments and orders - Disclosure - Whether a Court of Appeal has an obligation to the general public to consider a party’s grounds of appeal, legal arguments and authorities - Application of R. v. Sheppard, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the order requiring the Applicants to pay Respondent’s counsel his costs on a solicitor-client basis in a show cause motion that was not proceeded with and in holding that the Applicant company had no right of appeal from the decision of the motion court judge as it had not obtained leave from the said judge.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30205                    Executive Director of the British Columbia Securities Commission v. Carl Glen Anderson and Douglas Victor Montaldi (B.C.) (Civil) (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 for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA030661, dated January 9, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‑Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA030661, daté du 9 janvier 2004, est rejetée avec dépens. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Tribunals - Securities Commission -  Standard of review - Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to apply the pragmatic and functional test to determine the appropriate standard of review for the decision of the Securities Commission - Commercial law - Securities - Fraud - Failure to inform investors of true state of affairs of company invested in - Whether Respondents perpetrated a fraud on investors - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of section 57 of the Securities Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.418.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30221                    Paul W. Cummings v. Ruta Cummings individually and as Executrix and Trustee of the Estate of Bruce Norman Cummings, deceased (Ont.) (Civil) (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 for Ontario, Number C40304, dated January 15, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C40304, daté du 15 janvier 2004, est rejetée avec dépens. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Wills and Estates - Dependant’s relief - Testator leaving most of estate to his surviving spouse -  Testator also creating trust for the support of two adult dependant children - One child suffering from degenerative disease - Adequacy of provision - Whether Court should establish criteria to address the claim of dependants suffering from a serious illness disability in the face of competing claims of surviving spouse - Whether Court of Appeal erred in considering that deceased had legal obligations toward his surviving spouse which would have mandated an equalization of net family properties - Whether Court of Appeal should have considered the means of the surviving spouse - Whether Court of Appeal’s approach suggests that spousal status  is a determinant of significant entitlement, without reference to demonstrable need and- Meaning to be accorded  a “first charge” for support obligations against a deceased’s estate, as provided for in a domestic contract - Whether appellate court has the power and duty to review the circumstances and reach its own conclusions in dependants’ relief case - Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 26

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30229                    John Kavaratzis v. The United States of America (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

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

 The applications for an oral hearing and deferring consideration of the application are dismissed.  The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C38996, dated January 21, 2004, is dismissed.

 Les demandes pour une audience orale et pour remettre la considération de l'application sont rejetées.  La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C38996, daté du 21 janvier 2004, est rejetée. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Extradition - Narcotics - Applicant sought for prosecution by United States -  Applicant’s alleged conduct occurred in Canada - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s. 29(1) (a) of the Extradition Act , S.C. 1999, c. 18 , to purely domestic conduct - Whether the evidence relied upon in support of the extradition request was legally capable of supporting committal on the offences described in the authority to proceed.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30240                    Ronaldo Lising v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Criminal) (As of Right / By Leave)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Major, Binnie, LeBel and Fish JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA028747, dated January 22, 2004, is granted.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‑Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA028747, daté du 22 janvier 2004, est  accordée. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter-Criminal - Criminal law - Narcotics - Wiretap - R. v.Garofoli, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421 -  What is the nature of the burden that rests upon an accused who applies to cross-examine the deponent of an affidavit in order to challenge the admissibility of wiretap evidence? - How may an accused satisfy that burden?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30241                    Lawrence Cecil Robbins v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (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 for Ontario, Number C40498, dated January 27, 2004, is dismissed.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C40498, daté du 27 janvier 2004, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Offences - Applicant convicted of mischief for tying up his MPP’s facsimile machine - Whether Criminal Code offense of mischief to property applies to a citizen exercising his or her fundamental right to communicate with his or her elected representative in the legislative assembly of the province - Whether conviction of Applicant violated his rights under ss. 1 , 2(b) , 7  and 15(1)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY