Bulletins

      OF CANADA                                             DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

May 21, 2004 823 - 878                                                                        Le 21 mai 2004

CONTENTS                                                     TABLE DES MATIÈRES

L.J.S.

Brigitte Gratl

Gratl Law office

v. (30253)

Kenora-Patricia Child and Family Services (Ont.)

Carolyn Leach

Office of the Children’s Lawyers

FILING DATE: 26.3.2004

Doug Collins

Douglas H. Christie

v. (30259)

Attorney General of British Columbia (B.C.)

Lisa J. Mrozinski

Attorney General of British Columbia

FILING DATE: 2.4.2004

Gary Floyd Guiboche

Evan J. Roitenberg

Gindin, Wolson, Simmonds

v. (30272)

Her Majesty the Queen (Man.)

Don Slough

Attorney General of Manitoba

FILING DATE: 7.4.2004

Équipements Industriels Robert Ltée

Stéphan Charles-Grenon

Charles-Grenon & Dion

c. (30308)

9061-2110 Québec Inc. (Discover Transport) (Qc)

Benoit Côté

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 22.4.2004

Paul Nathan, et autre

Carole St-Jean

Bélisle, Dubé, St-Jean, Guyot

c. (30309)

Syndicat de la copropriété Villas du Castel (Qc)

Dennis Geraghty

Lalonde, Geraghty, Riendeau, Lapierre

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 22.4.2004

Jean Deschênes

Jean Deschênes

c. (30305)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qc)

Annie-Claude Bergeron

Procureur général du Québec 

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 23.4.2004

Agent Daniel Marcoux, et autre

Yves Clermont

Clermont, Canuel & Rousseau

c. (30310)

Paul Monty, ès qualités de Commissaire à la déontologie policière (Qc)

Christiane Mathieu

Mathieu & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 23.4.2004

Antony Tsai

Antony Tsai

v. (30307)

Theodore Pochwalowski (Ont.)

Leo Klug

FILING DATE: 26.4.2004

Kenneth Hugo Wenzel, et al.

Aran Veylan, Q.C.

Cleall, Pahl

v. (30316)

Dreco Energy Services Ltd., et al. (Alta.)

Terry Williams

Fraser, Milner, Casgrain

FILING DATE: 26.4.2004

Monique Boulet

Louis D. Pasquin

c. (30304)

Centre hospitalier Pierre Le Gardeur, et autre (Qc)

Nathalie Lecoq

Blaikie, Heenan

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 26.4.2004

Attorney General of British Columbia

Nancy E. Brown

Attorney General of British Columbia

v. (30317)

Lafarge Canada Inc., et al. (B.C.)

David T. Neave

Blake, Cassels and Graydon

FILING DATE: 27.4.2004

Reymundo Palpal-Latoc

Harris N. Hanson

Hanson Associates

v. (30313)

Pamela Ruth Berstad, et al. (Alta.)

James Doyle

Brownlee, Fryett

FILING DATE: 28.4.2004

C.D.

Patricia Yuzwenko

Youth Criminal Defence Office

v. (30254)

Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

James A. Bowron

Attorney General of Alberta 

FILING DATE: 30.4.2004

C.D.K.

Charles Seto

Youth Criminal Defence Office

v. (30314)

Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

James C. Robb, Q.C.

Attorney General of Alberta 

FILING DATE: 30.4.2004

Banque Nationale du Canada, et autres

Reynald Auger

Langlois, Kronström, Desjardins

c. (30311)

La Procureur générale du Canada, et autres (C.F.)

Patrick Vézina

Procureur général du Canada 

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 3.5.2004

CC Havanos Corporation Ltd

Bruce Taub

v. (30327)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

Jacques Mimar

Attorney General of Canada

FILING DATE: 10.5.2004

Air Canada

Roy L. Heenan

Heenan, Blaikie

v. (30323)

Canadian Human Rights Commission, et al. (F.C.)

Andrew Raven

Raven, Allen, Cameron & Ballantyne & Yazbeck

FILING DATE: 17.5.2004

MAY 17, 2004 / LE 17 MAI 2004

                                                    CORAM:  Chief Justice McLachlin and Major and Fish JJ.

                                                          La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Major et Fish

Francisco Batista Pires

v. (30151)

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

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

Ronaldo Lising

v. (30240)

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

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

J‐Sons Inc., John S. Lamont

v. (30201)

N.M. Paterson & Sons Limited (Man.)

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

                                                                  CORAM:  Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

                                                                       Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et Arbour

Frank Kim

v. (29152)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Whether lower courts erred in disposition of case.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Greater Vancouver Water District

v. (30190)

Graham Industrial Services Ltd. (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial Law - Contracts - Tender - Did the Court of Appeal err by ignoring, misinterpreting or misapplying the express terms and conditions of the tender call? - Did the Court of Appeal err in conducting its own analysis and substituting the Court’s opinion as to the adequacy of the Respondent’s  tender bid for that of the Applicant contrary  to the express terms and conditions in the tender documents and in the absence of any allegation evidence or finding of bad faith? - Did the Court of Appeal err by overriding the owner’s ability to define the terms and conditions of a tender call including discretion and privilege clauses giving the owner the ability to consider what would otherwise be a non-compliant bid? - Did the broadly stated discretion clause and privilege clause in the GVWD tender call make the Respondent’s bid capable of acceptance? - Did the broadly stated discretion clause and privilege clause in the tender call clearly express the intention of the parties for Contract A to arise on the submission and consideration of Respondent’s bid? - Did the Court of Appeal err when in determining whether Contract A arose it looked at the degree of compliance of Respondent’s bid and failed to look at the intention of the parties to create contractual relations as expressly stated in the tender documents? - Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that despite the express terms and conditions of the discretion clause and the privilege clause that the Respondent was at liberty to revoke its bid during the 60 day irrevocability period?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ring Contracting Ltd.

v. (30186)

PCL Constructors Canada Inc. (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Summary judgment - Evidence - Whether on summary trial or motion for summary judgment, a motions court may make critical findings of credibility in the absence of a conventional trial

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                             CORAM:  Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

                                                                  Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

Allan Arthur Dunbar

v. (30156)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non Charter) - Trial - Appeal - Solicitor incompetence - How to resolve factual disputes arising on appeal in affidavits, specifically whether trial counsel ignored instructions to call the accused and others as defence witnesses - Whether Court of Appeal erred by refusing a cross-examination of trial counsel on his affidavit - Whether accused bears an onus to prove trial counsel was unreasonable or caused prejudice - Whether Court of Appeal erred by applying a test of prejudice to determine whether there was a reasonable probability the verdict would have been different had trial counsel followed instructions to call the accused and other witnesses to testify.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Roger Callow

v. (30196)

The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 45 (West Vancouver) and West Vancouver Teacher's Association (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Arbitration - Labour relations - Jurisdiction - Procedural law - Judgments and orders

- Applicant’s action against Respondents for conspiring in terminating his employment and refusing to reinstate him dismissed for want of jurisdiction by the court - Order granted that Applicant not institute any legal proceedings in the Supreme Court of British Columbia without leave of the Court - How does a conspiracy between a union and en employer in the conduct of an employee’s grievance impact on the collective bargaining scheme - Does the Labour Relations Board have exclusive jurisdiction to hear an unfair representation complaint by a union member against a union where the occurrences giving rise to the grievance happened at a time where the relevant category of union members were excluded from the ambit of the Labour Relations Act - In what circumstances can a court of inherent jurisdiction process a union members grievance in the face of a collective bargaining agreement that provides for arbitration to resolve grievances

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Super Kal Construction Inc.

v. (30262)

Her Majesty the Queen (Que.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Judgments and orders - Exception to dismiss the action - Prescriptive period - Code of civil procedure - Whether the Court of Appeal of Quebec did not recognize that when bad faith is alleged in respect to documents containing mentions such as “without prejudice”, the present applicable articles of the Civil Code of Quebec require that such documents be properly scrutinized by the courts - Whether the Court of Appeal of Quebec erred in not allowing one party to reply to the misrepresentations of the other party - Whether the Court of Appeal of Quebec erred in abdicating its power and role of intervention under article 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure by not scrutinizing certain documents.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Alexander Akiwenzie

v. (30174)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Native law - Exemption from taxation for the personal property of an Indian or a band situated on a reserve provided in s. 87 of the Indian Act and s. 81(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act - Applicant lives on reserve - Applicant’s office is off-reserve, but his employment takes him to numerous reserves - Applicant’s employment provides benefit for numerous reserves - Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Applicant’s employment income was not sufficiently connected to a reserve as an economic base - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred correct in interpreting the connecting factors test as it applies to the employment income of the Applicant - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal improperly restricted exemption from taxation pursuant to s. 87 of the Indian Act to property located on one single reserve - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal improperly restricted the nexus implicit in the connecting factors test to property which must be physically situate on reserve - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal improperly restricted the application of the connecting factors test so that property connected to a number of reserves across the country cannot be “situate on reserve” within the meaning of s. 87.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

MAY 20, 2004 / LE 20 MAI 2004

30083                    Terry Lee May v. Warden of Ferndale Institution, Warden of Mission Institution, Deputy Commissioner, Pacific Region, Correctional Service of Canada and the Attorney General of Canada - and between - David Edward Owen v. Warden of Ferndale Institution, Warden of Mission Institution, Deputy Commissioner, Pacific Region, Correctional Service of Canada and the Attorney General of Canada - and between - Maurice Yvon Roy, Gareth Wayne Robinson  and Segen Uther Speer‐Senner v. Warden of Ferndale Institution, Warden of Mission Institution, Deputy Commissioner, Pacific Region, Correctional Service of Canada and the Attorney General of Canada (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

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

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgments of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Numbers CA029077, CA029078, CA029087, CA029088 and CA029089, dated October 8, 2003, is granted without costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel des arrêts de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéros CA029077, CA029078, CA029087, CA029088 et CA029089, datés du 8 octobre 2003, est accordée sans dépens. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Habeas corpus - Judicial review available in Federal Court - Habeas corpus within jurisdiction of provincial Supreme Court -  Criminal law - Prisons - Administration - Transfer of prisoners - Security classification - Procedural fairness - Prisoners transferred from minimum- to medium-security institution after a review of the security classifications of all offenders serving a life sentence in minimum-security institutions who had not completed a violent offender program - Whether a federal prisoner must exhaust all alternative remedies, or adduce evidence to explain why alternative remedies have been sought, as a condition precedent to applying for a remedy in the nature of habeas corpus before a provincial superior court - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to exercise its discretion to determine whether it was within the Respondents’ statutory jurisdiction to deprive a federal prisoner of liberty because of a change in policy and not because of any fault or misconduct on the part of the prisoner - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to exercise its discretion to determine whether the Respondents’ refusal to disclose information to the Applicants was a breach of the principles of fundamental justice.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30136                    Sebastian Peter Cerra v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

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

 The application for an extension of time is granted, the motion to adduce new evidence is dismissed and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number VI03520, dated September 13, 2002, is dismissed

 La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée, la requête pour déposer de nouveaux éléments de preuve est rejetée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro VI03520, daté du 13 septembre 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law - Trial - Does the learned trial judge’s failure to make a preliminary determination as to the admissibility of identification evidence substantiate a wrong decision on questions of law and a miscarriage of justice? - When the disposition of evidence supports that the verdict is unsafe, and supported by the evidence, how is this issue of public importance, how does it affect all Canadians, and should the Supreme Court of Canada review, re-weight the evidence? - How does “evidence of intoxication” affect or substantiate a “conflict of doctrines”? How is intoxication evidence inherent to the doctrine of planning and deliberation, and separate from the issue as a defence murder? Does it establish a heavy obligation on the learned trial judge to include, instruct, and put the jury to decide the doctrines of, “intent, provocation, mental capacity, manslaughter, and reasonable doubt”? - How are the trial proceedings and the verdict affected by the learned trial judge’s failure to ever include, or properly instruct the jury on the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30137                    Attorney General of Canada v. Donald Gladstone and William Gladstone (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 CA030303, dated November 17, 2003, is granted. The order as to costs is reserved until the final disposition of the appeal.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA030303, daté du 17 novembre 2003, est  accordée.  L'ordonnance relative aux dépens  sera prononcée en même temps que la décision définitive concernant l'appel. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes - Interpretation - Fiduciary duty - Proceeds from sale of fish seized under Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-14 deposited into Consolidated Revenue Fund - Whether Crown must pay interest on proceeds held for eight years before returned to Respondents - Whether the Court erred in failing to consider that s. 73.1  of the Fisheries Act,  R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14  providing for the return of the proceeds realized from the disposition of perishables lawfully seized and dealt with under the Act, is a complete statutory code setting out the Crown’s obligations - Whether the Court erred in imposing a fiduciary duty on the Crown on the basis of the Crown’s role under the Financial Administration Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. F-10 , as amended, as administrator of special purpose monies - Whether the Court erred in applying the common law doctrine of fiduciary duty to override a statutory provision.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30159                    Ka‐Fai Samuel Ng v. Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

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

 The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Edmonton), Number 0003‐0373‐A2, dated April 28, 2003, is dismissed.

 La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Alberta (Edmonton), numéro 0003‐0373‐A2, daté du 28 avril 2003, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non-Charter) - Pre-Trial Procedure - Procedural Law - Whether Attorney General of a province may refuse to provide reasons for withholding consent to re-elect mode of trial - Whether Court of Appeal was required by s. 686(4)  of the Criminal Code  to order accused to face a new trial for charges from which he was acquitted  - Whether the absence of a curative proviso in s. 686(4)  of the Criminal Code  despite the presence of such provisos in s. 686(1)(b) raises a question of constitutional validity - Whether Court of Appeal had jurisdiction under s. 686(8)  of the Criminal Code  to restrict a second trial to the lesser included offences for which the accused was convicted.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30180                    Chief Percy Williams, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Kwicksutaineuk/Ah‐Kwa‐Mish Tribes v. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Heritage Salmon Ltd. (F.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

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

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐82‐03, dated December 18, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‐82‐03, daté du 18 décembre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes - Interpretation - Maritime law - Fisheries - Whether the Respondent Minister can licence the destruction of predator seals and sea lions as “fishing” under s. 7  of the Fisheries Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14 , or whether it should be authorized as “by any means other than fishing” under s. 32 of the Act.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30123                    Pierre‐Gilles Tremblay c. Feu André Charest et Micheline Charest (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et Arbour

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la cour d'appel du Québec (Québec), numéro 200‐09‐004521‐032, datée du 5 décembre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Quebec), Numer 200‐09‐004521‐032, dated December 5, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Responsabilité civile - Procédure - Prescription - Responsabilité médicale - Recours intenté plus de neuf ans après l’intervention chirurgicale - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en rejetant l’appel du demandeur au motif que son recours était prescrit?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

30148                    The Ontario Judges' Association, The Ontario Family Law Judges' Association and The Ontario Provincial Court (Civil Division) Judges' Association v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario, as Represented by the Chair of Management Board (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C39422, dated October 29, 2003, is granted with costs to the applicants in any event of the cause.

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C39422, daté du 29 octobre 2003, est accordée avec dépens en faveur des demanderesses quelle que soit l’issue de l’appel.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional law – Judicial independence – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the “simple rationality” standard of review, including whether the simple rationality test requires the government’s reasons for rejection of a judicial remuneration commission’s recommendations be responsive to the rationale a commission gives for its recommendations – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its determination of the proper procedure a government must follow in rejecting a commission’s proposals, in particular, whether a government is entitled to engage in a parallel process – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding affidavit evidence describing such a parallel process and containing new facts and arguments which were never placed before the commission, is admissible to bolster a government’s reasons for rejection .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30261                    Kevin Albert Ducharme v. Her Majesty the Queen (Man.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba, Number AR03‐30‐05513, dated February 26, 2004, is dismissed.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la cour d'appel du Manitoba, numéro AR03‐30‐05513, datée du 26 Février 2004, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non Charter)- Evidence - Confessions - Voluntariness of Statement - Failure to videotape - Did the Court of Appeal err in law in finding that the Crown had provided a sufficient contemporaneous record, absent video-taping, to establish voluntariness of the Applicant’s statements ? - Did the Court of Appeal err in law in finding that the principled approach to hearsay as applied to inconsistent witness statements did not apply to confessions of an accused.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30188                    Pharmascience Inc. et Morris S. Goodman c. Jocelyn Binet et Procureur général du Québec (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

La requête pour ajouter une nouvelle preuve et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐013835‐038, daté du 6 février 2004, sont rejetées avec dépens.

The motion to adduce new evidence and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐013835‐038, dated February 6, 2004, are dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Sursis - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en refusant d’appliquer le test de Manitoba (Procureur général) c. Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd., [1987] 1 R.C.S. 110, et, par conséquent, en refusant le sursis interlocutoire recherché ?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30203                    Titus Nguiagain c. Sa Majesté la Reine (Qc) (Criminelle) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel des arrêts de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Québec), numéro 200‐10‐001570‐030, datée du 12 janvier 2004 et du 26 janvier 2004, est rejetée.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Quebec), Number 200‐10‐001570‐030, dated January 12, 2004 and January 26, 2004, is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Procédure - Motifs de droit - L’application de l’art. 66(2) de Loi sur la Cour suprême serait-elle conditionnelle du fardeau de l’identification d’une quelque «question d’importance majeure_ dont la Cour suprême devrait se saisir ou au fardeau de la preuve de l’existence d’un _doute sur le bien-fondé de l’arrêt _ entrepris contre le tribunal inférieur? - L’art. 236 du Code de procédure civile s’applique-t-il ou devrait-il s’appliquer d’office aux procédures judiciaires en matières criminelle et pénale?  Si oui, l’art. 238 C.p.c. viole-t-il les dispositions impératives des articles 7  et 11d)  de la Charte  canadienne , des articles 1b), 2e) et 2f) de la Déclaration canadienne des droits, ainsi que les articles 1, 4, 23, 24 et 33 de la Charte québécoise? - Les cinq motifs d’appel exposés devant la Cour d’appel du Québec, et en particulier le motif relatif au manquement aux principes de déontologie judiciaire, sont-ils de véritables questions de droit, au sens de l’art. 839(1)  du Code criminel  ou de l’art. 291 du Code de procédure pénale ou encore au sens des articles 40(1), 43(1)a) et 61 de la Loi Cour suprême du Canada?  Si oui, les tribunaux inférieurs auraient-ils transgresser la Charte canadienne  notamment les articles 7 et 11? - Dans le cadre des procédures sommaires, en termes d’exigence dans la norme de contrôle judiciaire des décisions ou en termes de probabilité de succès, quels seraient les avantages comparatifs entre les deux voies d’appel concurrentes, soit le recours en vertu de l’art. 813  du Code criminel  et l’appel selon l’art. 813 du Code?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30224                    Éric Lavoie c. André Perras et la Société Nationale d'Assurance (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐012602‐025, daté du 8 janvier 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐012602‐025, dated January 8, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Responsabilité civile - Négligence - Preuve - Demandeur devenu tétraplégique après s’être fracturé la colonne cervicale en plongeant dans la piscine de l’intimé - La Cour d’appel pouvait-elle retenir les normes du National Spa and Pool Institute (NSPI) comme un outil fiable comparable en matière de sécurité de plongeon en piscine ? - Portée, en Cour d’appel, d’un arrêt américain condamnant le NSPI à payer des dommages à une personne tétraplégique parce qu’il n’a pas modifié ses normes malgré une étude l’avisant des risques reliés à l’installation d’un tremplin sur certains modèles de piscine - L’intimé pouvait-il plaider son absence de responsabilité et tenter de transférer celle-ci à l’entrepreneur qui a installé le tremplin ? - Les tribunaux en l’instance pouvaient-ils refuser de retenir, comme outil fiable comparable, la norme prévue à l’art. 15 du  Règlement sur la sécurité dans les bains publics, R.R.Q., ch. S-3, r. 3 ?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

4.5.2004

Before / Devant : BASTARACHE J.

GRANTED IN PART / ACCORDÉE EN PARTIE

À LA SUITE DES DEMANDES des appelants et des intimés pour une ordonnance leur allouant du temps additionnel de plaidoirie orale lors de l’audition de l’appel;

ET APRÈS AVOIR LU la documentation déposée;

L’ORDONNANCE SUIVANTE EST RENDUE;

L’appelant, Jacques Chaoulli, est alloué 15 minutes additionnelles pour sa plaidoirie orale, pour un total de 45 minutes.

L’appelant, George Zeliotis, est alloué 15 minutes additionnelles pour sa plaidoirie orale, pour un total de 45 minutes.

Les intimés, le Procureur général du Québec et le Procureur général du Canada, sont alloués 15 minutes additionnelles pour leurs plaidoiries orales, pour un total de 1 heure 15 minutes.

10.5.2004

Before / Devant : DESCHAMPS J.

UPON APPLICATIONS by the Attorney General of Alberta and the Public Service Alliance of Canada, for leave to intervene in the above appeal and pursuant to the order of April 13, 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.

10.5.2004

Before / Devant : LEBEL J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    The motion to substitute the factum filed on April 16, 2004 with a revised 20 pages factum filed on May 5, 2004 by the interveners Families for Effective Autism Treatment of Alberta Foundation and Families for Early Autism Treatment of Ontario is granted.

10.5.2004

Before / Devant : LEBEL J.

UPON APPLICATIONS by the Canadian Association for Community Living and the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, the Families for Early Autism Treatment of Ontario, the Families for Effective Autism Treatment of Alberta Foundation, the Autism Society Canada, the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund and the Disabled Women’s Network Canada, Ms. Michelle Dawson and the Friends of Children with Autism for leave to intervene in the above appeal and pursuant to the order of March 17, 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; Families for Early Austism Treatment of Ontario and the Families for Effective Autism Treatment of Alberta Foundation will be allowed to split a 15 minutes period, as they see fit and failing agreement, the period will be equally split.

10.5.2004

Before / Devant : BASTARACHE J.

DISMISSED / REJETÉE 

UPON APPLICATION by the applicant for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal to May 31, 2004;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The application for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal to May 31, 2004, is dismissed.  The motion fails to state any valid ground for an extension of time.

10.5.2004

Before / Devant : BASTARACHE J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the applicant for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The application for an order extending the time to file the application for leave to appeal to February 4, 2004, and to serve the application for leave to appeal to March 26, 2004, is granted.

10.5.2004

Before / Devant : BASTARACHE J.

GRANTED WITH COSTS / ACCORDÉE AVEC DÉPENS

UPON APPLICATION by the respondents for an order striking the affidavit of Ernest Shymka, dated January 29, 2004; 2) striking pages 75 to 156 and 175 to 183 of the applicant’s material; 3) striking the applicant’s memorandum of argument; 4) in the alternative, permitting the respondents to file a transcript of its cross-examination on the affidavit of Ernest Shymka filed February 9, 2004 in the Alberta Court of Appeal, as well as a memorandum of the reasons for decision of Wittmann J.A. pronounced February 12, 2004; 5) extending the time to serve and file a response to the application for leave to appeal; 6) awarding costs of this motion on a solicitor-client basis, payable forthwith;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted with costs.  The evidence that the applicant is seeking to introduce indirectly was the object of a fresh evidence application in the Court of Appeal, but that application was denied.  Since no application to adduce fresh evidence was filed here, only material that is part of the record before the Court of Appeal may be filed and referred to in affidavits in support of the motion for leave to appeal and memorandum of argument.

11.5.2004

Before / Devant : BASTARACHE J.

DISMISSED WITH COSTS / REJETÉE AVEC DÉPENS 

UPON APPLICATION by the applicant for a stay of proceedings and permitting the filing of a lengthy memorandum of argument;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion for a stay of proceedings is dismissed with costs.  The motion permitting the filing  of a lenghty memorandum of argument is granted.

11.5.2004

Before / Devant : BASTARACHE J.

DISMISSED WITH COSTS / REJETÉE AVEC DÉPENS 

À LA SUITE DE LA DEMANDE des demanderesses visant à obtenir un sursis d’exécution;

ET APRÈS AVOIR LU la documentation déposée;

L’ORDONNANCE SUIVANTE EST RENDUE:

La requête est rejetée avec dépens.  Si la demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée après que l’autorisation de procéder à un recours collectif a été autorisée, il sera toujours possible pour les demanderesses de demander la suspension de l’instance en Cour supérieure jusqu’à ce que la Cour suprême du Canada se soit prononcée.  Puisque la Cour suprême du Canada se prononcera nécessairement avant la tenue du recours collectif, il n’y a pas nécessité de passer outre à la décision de refuser le sursis eu égard à la présente requête émise par le juge Hilton.  Les demandes successives pour un sursis ne sont accordées qu’exceptionnellement (Pharmascience Inc. c. Binet [2004] R.C.S. 71).

11.5.2004

Before / Devant : BASTARACHE J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to April 30, 2004.

11.5.2004

Before / Devant : LEBEL J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉES

UPON APPLICATIONS by the interveners, Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association, Judicial Justice of the Peace Association of British Columbia, Ontario Conference of Judges and Association of Justices of the Peace of Ontario, for an order extending the time to serve and file their factum and book of authorities and for an order permitting the said interveners to present oral argument at the hearing of this appeal.

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion of the intervener, Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association, to serve and file its factum and book of authorities to June 25, 2004, is granted.

The motion of the intervener, Judicial Justice of the Peace Association of British Columbia, to serve and file its factum and book of authorities to May 14, 2004, is granted.

The motion of the intervener, Ontario Conference of Judges, to serve and file its factum and book of authorities to June 25, 2004, is granted.

The motion of the intervener, Association of Justices of the Peace of Ontario, to serve and file its factum and book of authorities to May 21, 2004, is granted.

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

12.5.2004

Before / Devant : ARBOUR J.

DISMISSED / REJETÉE 

À LA SUITE D’UNE DEMANDE du demandeur visant la révision de la décision de la registraire en date du 30 avril 2004, rejetant la permission de déposer des documents additionnels;

ET APRÈS AVOIR PRIS CONNAISSANCE de la documentation déposée;

L’ORDONNANCE SUIVANTE EST RENDUE;

La demande visant la révision de la décision de la registraire en date du 30 avril 2004, est rejetée.

13.5.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to April 21, 2004.  The motion to file a lengthy memorandum of argument in the application for leave to appeal and in the supplemental reply, is granted.

13.5.2004

Before / Devant : BASTARACHE J.

GRANTED WITH COSTS / ACCORDÉE AVEC DÉPENS

UPON APPLICATION by the respondents, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada Inc., for an order striking certain documents from the appellant’s record, book of authorities and factum;

AND UPON A CONDITIONAL APPLICATION by the appellant for an order admitting new evidence;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1)         The respondent’s motion to strike portions of the appellant’s record, book of authorities and factum is granted, with costs.  There is no general justification for supplementing the record on the basis that new material is not contentious or simply presented as further background information to support new arguments.  There is also no justification for supplementing the record on the basis that new material is simply in the nature of legislative facts.

2)         The conditional motion to adduce certain material, which has been struck, as fresh evidence is denied.  At this late stage, such motion must establish why the material could not have been produced earlier, why it is necessary to inform the Court fully, and in what way it is required to support the arguments of the party seeking its admission.

IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1)             the documents found at Tabs 3B, 4L, 4M, 4N, 4O, 4P and 4Q of Volume II of the appellant’s record, be struck;

2)             the documents found at Tabs 13, 14 and 17 of the appellant’s book of authorities, be struck;

3)             the alleged facts in the appellant’s factum, at paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18, 51, 58, 99, 105, 106 and 107, relying on the documents referred to in a) and b), together with the citations in support, be struck;

4)             unsupported allegations of fact in the appellant’s factum contained in paragraphs 1, 3 and 28, be struck;

5)             the appellant shall serve and file its factum, record and authorities without the passages and material struck on or before May 28, 2004;

6)             the respondents shall serve and file their factum eight weeks after receipt of the appellant’s amended factum and record.

13.5.2004

Before / Devant : BASTARACHE J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the applicant for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The application for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal is granted to July 8, 2004.

13.5.2004

Before / Devant : BASTARACHE J.

DISMISSED / REJETÉE 

UPON APPLICATION by the applicant for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal to June 30, 2004;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The application for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal to June 30, 2004, is dismissed.  The motion fails to state any valid ground for an extension of time.

13.5.2004

Before / Devant : BASTARACHE J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the applicants for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal to March 8, 2004;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The application for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal to March 8, 2004, is granted.

14.5.2004

Before / Devant : BASTARACHE J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the applicant for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal to March 23, 2004;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The application for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal to March 23, 2004, is granted.

14.5.2004

Before / Devant : BASTARACHE J.

DISMISSED / REJETÉE 

UPON APPLICATION by the applicant for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal to August 30, 2004;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The application for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal to August 30, 2004, is dismissed.  The motion fails to state any valid ground for an extension of time.

13.5.2004

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (30005)

Joshua Bernard (N.B.)

12.5.2004

BY / PAR :             Attorney General of Canada

Attorney General of New Brunswick

IN / DANS :           Christopher Orbanski

  v. (29793)

Her Majesty the Queen (Man.)

12.5.2004

BY / PAR :             Attorney General of Canada

Attorney General of Quebec

Attorney General of New Brunswick

IN / DANS :           Her Majesty the Queen

  v. (29920)

David Jeff Elias (Man.)

13.5.2004

BY / PAR :             Attorney General of British Columbia

Attorney General of Alberta 

IN / DANS :           Christopher Orbanski

  v. (29793)

Her Majesty the Queen (Man.)

13.5.2004

BY / PAR :             Attorney General of British Columbia

Attorney General of Alberta 

IN / DANS :           Her Majesty the Queen

  v. (29920)

David Jeff Elias (Man.)

14.5.2004

BY / PAR :             Attorney General for Saskatchewan

IN / DANS :           Her Majesty the Queen

  v. (29920)

David Jeff Elias (Man.)

14.5.2004

CORAM:               The Chief Justice McLachlin and Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel and Fish JJ.

DISMISSED / REJETÉE 

17.5.2004

CORAM:               The Chief Justice McLachlin and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, Deschamps and Fish JJ.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

18.5.2004

CORAM:               The Chief Justice McLachlin and Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Deschamps and Fish JJ.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

19.5.2004

CORAM:               Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Deschamps and Fish JJ.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

MAY 18, 2004 / LE 18 MAI 2004

29618                    Attorney General of Canada v. Stephen Joseph Harper - and - Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of Manitoba, John Herbert Bryden, Environment Voters, a division of Animal Alliance of Canada, Democracy Watch and the National Anti‐Poverty Organization (Alta.) 2004 SCC 33 / 2004 CSC 33

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish JJ.

The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Number 01‐00389, dated December 16, 2002, heard on February 10, 2004 is allowed with costs throughout, McLachlin C.J. and Major and Binnie JJ. dissenting in part.  The constitutional questions are answered as follows:

1.  Do ss. 323(1) and (3), 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 359, 360 and 362 of the Canada Elections Act , S.C. 2000, c. 9 , infringe s. 2( b )  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

Yes, except s. 351.  The Chief Justice and Major and Binnie JJ. would also answer yes, but find it unnecessary to answer the question with respect to s. 351.

2.  If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

Yes.  The Chief Justice and Major and Binnie JJ. would answer no with respect to s. 350, yes with respect to ss. 323(1) and (3), 352-57, 359-60 and 362, and find it unnecessary to answer this question with respect to s. 351.

3.  Do ss. 323(1) and (3), 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 359, 360 and 362 of the Canada Elections Act , S.C. 2000, c. 9 , infringe s. 3  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

No.

4.  If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

It is not necessary to answer this question.

5.  Do ss. 351, 356, 357(3), 359 and 362 of the Canada Elections Act , S.C. 2000, c. 9 , infringe s. 2( d )  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

No.  The Chief Justice and Major and Binnie JJ. would answer no with respect to ss. 356, 357(3), 359 and 362, and find it unnecessary to answer the question with respect to s. 351.

6. If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

It is not necessary to answer this question.

L’appel interjeté contre l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Alberta (Calgary), numéro 01‐00389, en date du 16 décembre 2002, entendu le 10 février 2004 est accueilli avec dépens devant toutes les cours.  La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Major et Binnie sont dissidents en partie. Les questions constitutionnelles reçoivent les réponses suivantes :

1.  Les paragraphes 323(1) et (3) et les art. 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 359, 360 et 362 de la Loi électorale du Canada , L.C. 2000, ch. 9 , portent-ils atteinte à l’al. 2 b )  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

Oui, à l’exception de l’art. 351.  La Juge en chef et les juges Major et Binnie répondraient également oui mais estiment qu’il n’est pas nécessaire de répondre à la question pour ce qui est de l’art. 351.

2.  Dans l’affirmative, cette atteinte constitue-t-elle une limite raisonnable prescrite par une règle de droit dont la justification peut se démontrer dans le cadre d’une société libre et démocratique en vertu de l’article premier de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

Oui. La Juge en chef et les juges Major et Binnie répondraient non en ce qui concerne l’art. 350; oui en ce qui concerne les par. 323(1) et (3) ainsi que les art. 352-357, 359, 360 et 362, et estiment qu’il n’est pas nécessaire de répondre à la question pour ce qui est de l’art. 351.

3.  Les paragraphes 323(1) et (3) et les art. 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 359, 360 et 362 de la Loi électorale du Canada , L.C. 2000, ch. 9 , portent-ils atteinte à l’art. 3  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

Non.

4. Dans l’affirmative, cette atteinte constitue-t-elle une limite raisonnable prescrite par une règle de droit dont la justification peut se démontrer dans le cadre d’une société libre et démocratique en vertu de l’article premier de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

Il n’est pas nécessaire de répondre à cette question.

5. Les articles 351, 356, 359 et 362 et le par. 357(3) de la Loi électorale du Canada , L.C. 2000, ch. 9 , portent-ils atteinte à l’al. 2 d )  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

Non. La Juge en chef et les juges Major et Binnie répondraient non en ce qui concerne l’art. 356, le par. 357(3) et les art. 359 et 362, et estiment qu’il n’est pas nécessaire de répondre à la question pour ce qui est de l’art. 351.

6. Dans l’affirmative, cette atteinte constitue-t-elle une limite raisonnable prescrite par une règle de droit dont la justification peut se démontrer dans le cadre d’une société libre et démocratique en vertu de l’article premier de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

Il n’est pas nécessaire de répondre à cette question.

MAY 21, 2004 / LE 21 MAI 2004

29437                    Percy Schmeiser and Schmeiser Enterprises Ltd. v. Monsanto Canada Inc. and Monsanto Company - and - Attorney General of Ontario, Canadian Canola Growers Association (CCGA), Ag‐West Biotech Inc., BIOTECanada, Canadian Seed Trade Association, Council of Canadians, Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, Sierra Club of Canada, National Farmers Union, Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, and International Centre for Technology Assessment (F.C.) 2004 SCC 34 / 2004 CSC 34

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish JJ.

The appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐367‐01, dated September 4, 2002, heard on January 20, 2004 is allowed in part, Iacobucci, Bastarache, Arbour and LeBel JJ., dissenting in part.  The award for account of profit is set aside and, in all other respects, the trial judge’s order is confirmed.  Each party is to bear its own costs throughout.

L’appel interjeté contre l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale, numéro A‐367‐01, en date du 4 septembre 2002, entendu le 20 janvier 2004 est accueilli en partie.  Les juges Iacobucci, Bastarache, Arbour et LeBel sont dissidents en partie.  La remise des profits ordonnée est annulée et, à tous autres égards, la validité de l’ordonnance du juge de première instance est confirmée. Chaque partie assumera ses propres dépens dans toutes les cours.

Attorney General of Canada v. Stephen Harper et al. (Alta.) (29618)

Indexed as:  Harper v. Canada (Attorney General) / Répertorié : Harper c. Canada (Procureur général)