Bulletins

      OF CANADA                                             DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

April 23, 2004 646 - 697                                                                       Le 23 avril 2004

CONTENTS                                                     TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Toyota Canada Inc., et autres

Guy Lemay

Lavery, de Billy

c. (30269)

André Harmegnies (Qc)

Daniel Belleau

Belleau, Lapointe

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 8.4.2004

Royal Bank of Canada

Richard Horodyski

Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson

v. (30231)

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (Ont.)

David Zarek

Zarek, Taylor, Grossman, Hanrahan

FILING DATE: 13.4.2004

Joanna Tang

Nina V. Fernandez

c. (30213)

David Tsui, et autre (Qc)

Michael Pandev

Pandev, Longpré

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 13.4.2004

Allen Brian Fehr

Matthew A. Nathanson

Gibbons Fowler, Nathanson

v. (30192)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Clyde R. Bond

Attorney General of Canada

FILING DATE: 13.4.2004

Eugenio Pugliese

Neil L. Cobb

Cobb, St. Pierre

v. (30200)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Clyde R. Bond

Attorney General of Canada

FILING DATE: 13.4.2004

Dwane Park

Denis I. Quon

Quon, Ferguson, Mitchell

v. (30273)

Zealandia B.P.O. Elks Inc., et al. (Sask.)

Gregory Thompson

McKercher, McKercher & Whitmore

FILING DATE: 7.4.2004

Kingsley M. Lughas

Kingsley M. Lughas

v. (30274)

The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation (Man.)

J.R. Shaw

Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation

FILING DATE: 8.4.2004

APRIL 19, 2004 / LE 19 AVRIL 2004

                                                    CORAM:  Chief Justice McLachlin and Major and Fish JJ.

                                                          La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Major et Fish

Ka‐Fai Samuel Ng

v. (30159)

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

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

Terry Lee May

v. (30083)

Warden of Ferndale Institution, Warden of Mission Institution, Deputy Commissioner, Pacific Region, Correctional Service of Canada and Attorney General of Canada

- and between -

David Edward Owen

v. (30083)

Warden of Ferndale Institution, Warden of Matsqui Institution, Deputy Commissioner, Pacific Region, Correctional Service of Canada and Attorney General of Canada

- and between -

Maurice Yvon Roy, Gareth Wayne Robinson and Segen Uther Speer‐Senner

v. (30083)

Warden of Ferndale Institution, Warden of Mission Institution, Deputy Commissioner, Pacific Region, Correctional Service of Canada and Attorney General of Canada (B.C.)

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

                                                                  CORAM:  Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

                                                                       Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et Arbour

Joseph Mansour

v. (30047)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian  Charter  - Criminal law - Section 11(h) - Mistrial - Does a unique fact situation allow the Supreme Court of Canada to develop the issue of double jeopardy in cases necessarily involving lesser-included offences? - Is an individual’s right to protection from double-jeopardy negated or subverted where only one (1) issue exists between an initial trial of acquittals and a final trial of convictions by virtue of the Criminal Code ’s lesser-included offences provisions?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Bridget Young

v. (30175)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Finance (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law – Insurance – Motor vehicle accident outside Canada  – Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario failed to interpret and apply properly the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act (“MVAC Act”), R.S.O. 1990, c. M.41, s. 6 and the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, s. 268, with the effect that Young, who suffered catastrophic injuries that rendered her a quadriplegic, is unable to receive benefits from the Fund established by the MVAC Act, a Fund to which she has contributed? – Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario failed to interpret and apply properly the cardinal rule of construction mandated by the Interpretation Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.11, s. 10? – Whether the Supreme Court of Canada should give guidance concerning how “no fault” insurance legislation, such as in this case, should be interpreted and analysed?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                             CORAM:  Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

                                                                  Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

Sucha Singh Shergill

v. (30177)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Judgments and orders - Prothonotary’s order striking outthe statement of claim - Issue estoppel - Cause of action estoppel - Whether the Federal Court of Canada was justified in not considering the Applicant’s action claiming that sections 3  and 40  of the Old Age Security Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. O-9  are unconstitutional as violating section 15  of the Charter 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Christian Savard, agissant en reprise d'instance pour C. Savard Inc., et Christian Savard

c. (30204)

Ville de Québec autrefois Ville de Vanier

Consultants BPR (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Contrats - Dommages-intérêts  - La preuve documentaire au dossier a-t-elle été bien évaluée et administrée par la Cour supérieure et la Cour d’appel ? - Y avait-il une preuve testimoniale présentée par la demanderesse en Cour d’appel ? - La preuve testimoniale de Christian Savard et de l’expert de la demanderesse pouvait-elle être inférée des documents déposés par eux ? - Le rapport de l’expert de la demanderesse pouvait-il être écarté ? - Le contrat de construction peut-il être compris de façon nuancée sans un examen soutenu, approfondi et objectif de tous les documents qu’il implique ? - Est-il raisonnable d’inférer d’un déficit de la demanderesse en 1993 qu’il s’en suivait des difficultés financières avant le contrat avec la ville intimée ? - Peut-on prétendre qu’il n’y a pas de prépondérance de probabilités entre la faute alléguée et le préjudice lorsque la ville ne paie à la demanderesse qu’une partie de la somme due pour des travaux substantiellement terminés ?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

Marian Hope Marks

v. (30218)

Alexander Tokarewicz (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family law - Divorce - Maintenance - Separation agreement - Spousal release clause - Time-limited support - Former husband a high-income earner - Former wife receiving social assistance - Whether wife entitled to spousal support in the face of separation agreement - Application of principles in Miglin v. Miglin, [2003] SCC 24 - What is the scope of the supervisory discretion afforded to lower courts under s. 15.2(1)  of the Divorce Act  to order support contrary to the provisions of a final agreement? - What approach should lower courts take in deciding whether the parties’ circumstances at the time of application depart significantly from the range of reasonable outcomes anticipated by the parties at the time of the agreement? - What is meant by _a significant change in the parties’ circumstances_ from what could reasonably be anticipated at the time of negotiation of the agreement? - What are the kinds  of circumstances experienced by a party post-separation that would justify or warrant intervention by a lower court to vary provisions of a final separation agreement?  -  Whether Court of Appeal erred in the application of the test set out in Miglin

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

APRIL 19, 2004 / LE 19 AVRIL 2004

(JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 22, 2004 / JUGEMENT RENDU LE 22 AVRIL 2004)

19.4.2004

Coram:    The Chief Justice McLachlin and Major and Fish JJ.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE  

APRIL 22, 2004 / LE 22 AVRIL 2004

29910                    Assessor of Area #11 ‐ Richmond/Delta v. Annacis Auto Terminals (1997) Ltd., (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 CA29279, dated May 29, 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 CA29279, daté du 29 mai 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Jurisdiction - Municipal law - Assessment - Ability of a municipality to appeal an assessment where the assessor  neglects to place a party on the assessment roll - Ability of provincial assessor to assess lands belonging to the Crown in right of Canada that are occupied by a non-Crown agent - If an administrative official’s excess of statutory jurisdiction nullifies his determination, does a superior administrative tribunal have the power to cure the defective determination - Does the “preliminary questions” doctrine remain valid where legislation creates an administrative machinery but no privative clause.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29943                    Scott Edgelow and Topedge Investments Ltd. v. John Hooks, Challenger Global Trading Ltd., 749640 Alberta Ltd. and Phoenix Technology Services Ltd. (Alta.) (Civil) (By Leave)

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

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Number 0201‐0352AC, dated April 1, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Alberta (Calgary), numéro 0201‐0352AC, daté du 1 avril 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Motion for summary judgment - Security for costs - Appeals struck - Commercial law - Breach of agreement - Breach of fiduciary duty - Insider trading breaches - Oppression remedies - Whether a palpable and overriding error denies a person justice - Whether shareholders and investors are ensured of transparency in corporate law - Whether a matrimonial matter denies a person justice in other unrelated matters - Whether a person’s right to justice is denied by access to money, or lack thereof

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29967                    Elliott Neal Pawliuk Brito, and infant by his Guardiam Ad Litem, Rosemary Pawliuk and Rosemary Pawliuk v. Harold Ewart Woolley and Shelley Ross,   (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 CA028957, dated July 3, 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 CA028957, daté du 3 juillet 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence - Physicians and surgeons - Informed consent - Duty to inform - Plaintiff bringing action for damages against doctors, nurses and hospital after second twin suffered brain injury at birth - Appropriate scope of disclosure in the law of informed consent - Whether plaintiff must prove the specific risk arose or merely that the medical procedure would have been avoided had proper disclosure occurred.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29968                    Mark Cole and Alberton Properties Inc. v. The Corporation of the City of Hamilton, Mary Kiss, Marvin Caplan, Robert Morrow, Geraldine Copps, Len King and Peter Lampman (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 C38104, dated July 14, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C38104, daté du 14 juillet 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Summary Judgment - Torts - Damages - Appropriate standard of appellate review applicable to summary judgments - What is the proper scope of the tort of abuse of public office - Did the Court of Appeal err in failing to review the motion judge’s decision in respect of the elements of the tort of conspiracy to a standard of correctness - Appellate court’s failure to overturn motion judge’s decision to exclude various evidence, including expert evidence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29974                    William Patrick Thomson, Allen Scott Hamilton, Elizabeth Ann Craft and Alpha Charlotte Drunken Chief v. Her Majesty the Queen in the name of the Alberta Transportation and Safety Board and Alberta Driver Control Board and Attorney General of Alberta (Alta.) (Civil) (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 judgments of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Edmonton), Numbers CA01‐00348, CA01‐00352 and CA01‐00361, dated September 9, 2003, is dismissed.

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel des arrêts de la Cour d'appel de l’Alberta (Edmonton), numéros CA01‐00348, CA01‐00352 et CA01‐00361, datés du 9 septembre 2003, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional law - Division of powers - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred when it determined that Alberta’s Administrative License Suspension (ALS) scheme was validly enacted provincial legislation and that Alberta’s ALS program was not, in its pith and substance or in its effect, criminal law legislation and therefore not ultra vires - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the ALS program did not infringe on Charter  rights under ss. 7 , 11( d )  and 13 .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29981                    John Jeremiah Sinclair v. The Registrar of the Indian Register, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and The Attorney General of Canada (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 2003 FCA 265, A‐39‐02, dated July 2, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro 2003 FCA 265, A‐39‐02, daté du 2 juillet 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Native law - Indian Register - Deletion of name - At what stage in the process does the deletion have legal effect? - Indian Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. I‐5, ss. 5(3) , 14.2  and 14.3  - Reference to Federal Court - Jurisdiction of Federal Court to entertain reference - Federal Court Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. F‐7, s. 18.3  - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in determining that the Applicant’s entitlement to registration, more particularly the status of his maternal grandmother, Isabelle Courteoreille, is a question of fact rather than a question of law - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred by refusing to address the practice issue raised in question two of the reference, namely the legality of the immediate denial of benefits upon a deletion decision under s. 5  of the Indian Act  - Whether the Respondent Registrar is bound by the decisions of the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29983                    Timothy Victor Waldron 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 CA 028854, dated August 14, 2003, is dismissed.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA 028854, daté du 14 août 2003, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non-Charter) - Evidence - Search and Seizure - Warrants - Whether search warrant ought to have been quashed in order to protect the integrity of the prior authorization process - Whether amplification of record before authorizing judge was available to correct errors in affidavit in support of application for a search warrant.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29988                    NPV Management Limited v. Rex C. Anthony, J. Percy McDonald and Terrence Daley (N.L.) (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 Newfoundland and Labrador, Number 02/09, 2003 NLCA 41, dated August 25, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de Terre‐Neuve et Labrador, numéro 02/09, 2003 NLCA 41, daté du 25 août 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Procedure - Company law - Shareholders - Where facts support an oppression remedy under s. 241 of the Canadian Business Corporation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-44  (“CBCA ”), but the claim is “derivative in nature”, must leave be obtained under s. 239(1) to bring an action in the name of and on behalf of the corporation? - If so, are statutory complainants under s. 238, including the Applicant shareholder, deprived of the right to bring an oppression application under s. 241  of the CBCA ?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29994                    Canada Industrial Relations Board v. Via Rail Canada Inc., George Cairns, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and United Transportation Union (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‐273‐03, dated August 13, 2003, is dismissed with costs to the respondents VIA Rail Canada Inc. and Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers on a party and party basis.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‐273‐03, daté du 13 août 2003, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimés Via Rail Canada Inc. et Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers comme entre parties.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Stay of proceedings - Whether the test to be applied by a court on an application for a stay of proceedings where constitutional and Charter  issues are raised applies equally to a stay application involving a decision of a specialized and expert tribunal responsible for the superintendence of a discreet legislative scheme, where no constitutional or Charter  issues is raised - Whether the pragmatic and functional approach and consideration of the statutory functions of the tribunal sought to be stayed, which characterizes the standard of review jurisprudence applicable to Applications for Judicial Review on the merits of a decision of a specialized and expert administrative tribunal, should guide a reviewing court in deciding whether to grant a stay or proceedings pending such review - How does the presence of broad statutory remedial and review powers bestowed upon a specialized and expert tribunal impact upon the court’s exercise of discretion in granting a stay of that tribunal’s proceedings

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30008                    Norampac Inc. v. Michael Hilton (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 C38326, dated August 22, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C38326, daté du 22 août 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Master and servant - Wrongful dismissal - Commercial law - Contracts - Whether  the appeal court erred in upholding the finding of the trial judge that requesting an employee to be on-call one weekend out of six amounts to constructive dismissal when the only reason of the employee for refusing the request is that he would not find alternate care for his children - Whether the individual preferences for childcare are the concern of an employer.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30026                    A. Melville Hunt and Marion M. Hunt v. T.D. Securities Inc. c.o.b. as TD Evergreen, TD Financial Services and Mark Schram (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 C37797, dated August 26, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C37797, daté du 26 août 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Securities - Stockbrokers - Fiduciary duty - Sale of shares - Whether an independent doctrine of good faith in the performance of a contract arises in a financial advisory relationship as an implied term of the contract or in equity - Whether duty of care in negligence gives rise to an independent doctrine of good faith in a financial advisory relationship   -  Whether judicial recognition should be given to a tort of good faith - Whether the appellate court’s effective closing of a category of fiduciary in the context of a financial advisory relationship nullified this Court’s articulation of the policy considerations that support the imposition of fiduciary obligations and equitable compensation and resulted in persons in such relationships in Ontario being treated differently than in other parts of Canada - Whether  autonomy and integrity of the trial process has been eroded by the appellate court’s intervention in the findings of fact made by the trial court

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30031                    Anne Marie Foreman v. 818329 Ontario Limited, P.H. Suhan Welding Ltd., Cadith Entertainments Limited and Frank DiMaria (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 C37127, dated September 4, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C37127, daté du 4 septembre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law – Labour law - Contracts – Damages  – Employment contract – “Shall not dismiss” clause – Dismissal of employee – Breach of employment contract – Employer and Employees Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.12 – Whether the words “shall not dismiss” have meaning in a contract of employment – Whether there are consequences when an employer contracts and guarantees to refrain from dismissing an employee and breaches such a contract – Whether the appropriate Standard of Review was met by the Court of Appeal – To what extent the Court of Appeal can disregard the facts and inferences from the facts, as found by the trial judge, and substitute its own conclusions.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30032                    Donald Spindler, John Gary Samuels and Donald Auld v. The Warden of Millhaven Institution (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 C39384, dated September 10, 2003, is dismissed.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C39384, daté du 10 septembre 2003, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  –  Administrative law –  Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Remedies –  Criminal law – Prisons – Detention – Habeas corpus – Statutory interpretation – Corrections and Conditional Release Act and Regulations, S.C. 1992, c. 20  – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to follow a decision in R. v. Miller, ©1985a 2 S.C.R. 613, which guarantees to federal inmates the right to have the legality of restrictions on their liberty determined on habeas corpus – Whether the effect of the decision of the Court of Appeal is to restrict the access of federal inmates to the remedy of habeas corpus – Whether the merits of the application of habeas corpus ought to be decided by this Court, pursuant to section 784(3)  of the Criminal Code of Canada,  R.S. 1985, c. C-46  – Whether the applicants are being illegally detained in a maximum-security penitentiary, contrary to the provisions of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and Regulations, supra., and contrary to sections 7  and 9  of the Charter .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30057                    Dennis Reid v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 2503 (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 CA029245, dated February 28, 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 CA029245, daté du 28 février 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property Law - Statutes - Interpretation - Real Property - whether the lower courts’ interpretation of s. 164 of the Strata Property Act is correct with specific reference to the meaning of “significantly unfair” - whether the lower courts erred in giving mere directions to the Strata Council to enforce the Strata Property Act and the bylaws of Terra Vita instead of ordering the Strata Council to enforce the statutory provisions and the bylaws - whether the direction of the British Columbia Court of Appeal that the Strata Council should rectify the misuse of the Common Property renders section 3 and section 164 of the Strata Property Act unenforceable - whether the lower courts erred in failing to consider the common law pertaining to private nuisance

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30064                    Her Majesty the Queen v. Ronald Woodcock (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 C34378, dated August 19, 2003, is dismissed.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C34378, daté du 19 août 2003, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Similar fact evidence - Respondent convicted of murder and other offences relating to two incidents -  First incident involving murder of victim and theft of car  - Second incident involving robbery of handguns from sporting goods store and murder of store owner - Crown tendering similar fact evidence of four robberies subsequently committed in City of London and another robbery committed in St. Thomas, following which Respondent and two co-accused apprehended  - After final robbery, weapons traced back to sporting goods store found in possession of Respondent and one co-accused - Trial judge erred in admitting similar fact evidence in relation to two of five robberies committed after murders - Trial judge erred in evaluating Respondent’s connection to robberies prior to determining whether robberies sufficiently similar to make it more likely that same person committed two murders -Trial judge overlooking dissimilarities with respect to two robberies -  Evidence connecting accused to two robberies insufficient — Evidence inadmissible and new trial required, despite trial judge's instruction to jury on similar fact evidence being overly generous to accused - Whether the factual review engaged in by the Court of Appeal amounted to impermissible re-weighing and ultimately a compartmentalized analysis of the circumstantial body of similar fact evidence presented by the Crown - Alternatively, whether the Court of Appeal effectively treated the admission of the impugned similar fact evidence of the first and fourth London robberies as presumptively fatal error, rather than applying a contextual analysis as required by s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30070                    Siemens Electric Ltd. v. Daishowa‐Marubeni International Ltd. - and between - Toshiba International Corporation v. Daishowa‐Marubeni International Ltd. (Alta.) (Civil) (By Leave)

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

 The applications for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Number 01‐00094, dated September 29, 2003, are dismissed with costs.

 Les demandes d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Alberta (Calgary), numéro 01‐00094, daté du 29 septembre 2003, sont rejetées avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Insurance - Insurable interest - Contractors - Whether the Court of Appeal’s holding that the insurable interest of a contractor or sub‐contractor, which is found to exist at the time of the act or omission that causes a loss, terminates upon the completion of a construction project, such that it does not exist at the time of the discovery of the loss, raises an issue of public importance - Whether the Court of Appeal’s holding that the “date of loss” for the purpose of determining the existence of an insurable interest in property is the date upon which the damage is discovered raises an issue of public importance.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30071                    G.M. and M.D. v. The Canadian Red Cross Society, Dawson, Jones, Singh/Shah and Vos, Yang and Kerekes Families, J.A.M., D.L.M.and Trustee Under the Plan (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 C39401, dated September 23, 2003, is dismissed with costs to the respondents J.A.M., D.L.M. and Yang and Kerekes Families.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C39401, daté du 23 septembre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimés J.A.M., D.L.M. et les familles Yang et Kerekes.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Bankruptcy - Amended Plan of Compromise and Arrangement - Governing law - Members of one class of creditors resident in eight provinces - Limitation period - Whether, in a Canada-wide mass tort resolution under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. C‐36  (“CCAA ”), a court may, retroactive to a date before insolvency, impose the time limitation periods of one provincial jurisdiction on every other jurisdiction in Canada - Whether the principles of the minimal impairment of the rights of creditors and their equality of treatment under CCAA  proceedings are altered in cases resolving Canada-wide mass tort claims - Whether a plan under the CCAA , resolving nation-wide mass torts, must “speak for itself” and be interpreted by giving the words their plain ordinary meaning as read by the creditors who received it and voted upon it, or whether a court may take into consideration policy issues not disclosed to the creditors and not before the court - What is the standard of review for appeals of a final order on questions of errors of law, in Canada-wide mass tort resolutions under the CCAA ?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30078                    Phil Shragge v. Peter Pond Holdings Ltd. (Alta.) (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 Alberta (Edmonton), Number 0203‐0328‐AC, dated October 3, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Alberta (Edmonton), numéro 0203‐0328‐AC, daté du 3 octobre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial Law - Procedural Law - Statutes - Contracts - Securities - Courts - Appeal - Interpretation - What are the rules to be used and applied to delineate the rights and obligations of investors within the context of angel investors and venture capitalists? - How is “one year” defined within the Statue of Frauds in the context of an agreement where the parties have a reference to time beyond one year, but can be determined within one year? - What is the proper role of trial courts as front line adjudicators versus the supervisory role of appellate courts?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30097                    Jonathan Ching Chang v. Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

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

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Number 0203‐0241‐A3, dated October 21, 2003, is dismissed.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Alberta (Calgary), numéro 0203‐0241‐A3, daté du 21 octobre 2003, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal Law - Evidence - Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in exercise of its jurisdiction by allowing a Crown appeal from acquittal on issues of fact and mixed fact and law. - The scope and proper interpretation to be given to the provisions of s. 676  of the Criminal Code  - Given the testimony of the security guard that her intention was to uncover evidence of illegality and see charges laid, are there some circumstances in which a non‐police officer may be found to be an agent of the state and thus subject to the provisions of the Charter , which would not be inconsistent with this Honourable Court’s decision in Buhay.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29964                    Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Montreal Gazette Group Inc. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and Attorney General of Ontario (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

The applications for an extension of time are granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, dated June 5, 2003, related to a sealed file, is dismissed without costs.

Les demandes de prorogation de délai sont accordées et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour supérieure de justice de l’Ontario, daté du 5 juin 2003, relatif à un dossier scellé, est rejetée sans dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes – Interpretation – Criminal Law – Procedural law – Whether the disclosure of a search warrant containing wiretap evidence constitutes an unlawful disclosure of such evidence pursuant to section 193  of the Criminal Code  – If the public is given access to search warrants, whether the media are entitled to publish their contents, whether or not charges have been laid.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30048                    Daniel Lajoie, Suzanne Vincent c. Camping du Lac des Pins Inc. et la Compagnie d'assurance Continental du Canada (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐010855‐013, daté du 19 septembre 2003, est rejetée.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐010855‐013, dated September 19, 2003, is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Responsabilité civile – Les tribunaux inférieurs ont-ils erré en concluant que l’état tétraplégique du demandeur résultait de sa propre négligence et que le camping intimé n’avait pas commis de faute?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

30076                    Cité de Dorval c. Gaz Métropolitain Inc., Société nationale d'assurance Inc., Les Clairvoyants, Compagnie d'assurance générale, Compagnie d'assurance commerce et industrie du Canada, Compagnie d'assurance canadienne générale, Zurich Compagnie d'assurance, Boréal Assurance Inc., Simcoe & Erié, Cie d'assurance générale, Reliance Insurance Company (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐010934‐016, daté du 2 octobre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de l'intimée, Gaz Métropolitain Inc.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐010934‐016, dated October 2, 2003, is dismissed with costs to the Respondent, Gaz Métropolitain Inc. 

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Responsabilité civile - Négligence - Dommages‐intérêts - Évaluation - Les directives de Gaz Métropolitain inc. sont-elles inadéquates et insuffisantes pour assurer la sécurité du public? - Les employés de Gaz Métropolitain inc. ont-ils fait preuve d’insouciance et de grossière négligence? - La Cour supérieure et la Cour d’appel ont-elles omis à tort d’appliquer la théorie du « novus actus interveniens » et du « last responsible agent » à l’égard des fautes commises par les préposés de Gaz Métropolitain inc.? - Gaz Métropolitain peut-elle être tenue responsable si ses préposés ont suivi les directives de l’officier du service des incendies de la Cité de Dorval en charge de la situation d’urgence? - Lorsque deux défendeurs sont tenus responsables d’un manque de communication, le co-défendeur en situation d’autorité devrait-il assumer une plus grande part de responsabilité?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30109                    Darlene Cottrelle, Lynwood Cottrelle, Brenda Cottrelle, William Cottrelle and William George v. Alexander B. Gerrard (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C37533, dated October 31, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C37533, daté du 31 octobre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence - Liability - Damages - Recovery in tort - Causation - Loss of chance - Whether the causation principles enunciated in Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 541, interact with this Court’s decision to preclude recovery in tort for loss of chance in Laferrière v. Lawson, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 458 - Whether this Court’s decision in Laferrière, supra., is applicable to common law provinces - Whether the rule precluding recovery in tort for loss of chance can be reconciled with the principle of concurrent liability of professionals.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30117                    George Ghanotakis c. Pierre Roy et Associés Inc. (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

La requête en sursis d’exécution et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐013852‐033, daté du 14 novembre 2003, sont rejetées.

The motion for a stay of execution and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐013852‐033, dated November 14, 2003, are dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Procédure ‐ Faillite - Créancier et débiteur - Rôle du syndic - Procédure civile - Jugements & ordonnances - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en omettant de considérer le conflit d’intérêt du syndic et de son procureur ainsi que ses nombreuses lacunes à l’encontre de l’article 14.02  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 refusant au demandeur la permission d’en appeler en vertu de l’article 193  de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité  L.R.C., 1985 ch. B-3  ?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

30130                    Transport Robert (1973) Ltée v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

The motion to adduce new evidence is dismissed and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C39530, dated November 14, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

La requête pour ajouter de la nouvelle preuve est rejetée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C39530, daté du 14 novembre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  (non-criminal) - Section 7 - Absolute liability - Regulatory Offences - Whether a statute which creates an absolute liability offence, but which precludes imprisonment as a possible penalty, offends section 7  of the Charter  - Whether a regulatory statute which creates an absolute liability offence, but which precludes imprisonment as a possible penalty, offends section 7  of the Charter  - What is the nature of the stigma which must be attached to a conviction for a regulatory offence for that offence to offend the security of the person guaranteed by s. 7  of the Charter .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30131                    Industries de maintenance Empire Inc. c. Commission de la construction du Québec (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐013604‐038, daté du 14 novembre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de l'intimée, Commission de la construction du Québec.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐013604‐038, dated November 14, 2003, is dismissed with costs to the respondent, Commission de la construction du Québec.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Droit du travail - Contrôle judiciaire - Relations de travail - Législation - Interprétation - Travaux de construction - Exemption - Employeur non professionnel - Les travaux effectués par les employés de la demanderesse constituent-ils des travaux d’entretien et de réparation au sens de la Loi sur les relations du travail dans l’industrie de la construction, L.R.Q. c. R‐20 ?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30133                    Q.S.B. Inc. (Santé Animale Breton) c. Ordre des pharmaciens du Québec (Qc) (Criminelle) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Québec), numéro 200‐10‐001558‐035, daté du 19 novembre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Quebec), Number 200‐10‐001558‐035, dated November 19, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Procédure - Appel - Définition de la notion de vente dans un contexte de droit professionnel - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que l’appel ne soulevait pas une question de droit ?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30138                    La Brasserie Seigneuriale Inc. et la Brasserie Sleeman du Québec, dénomination de The Sleeman Brewing and Malting Co. Ltd. c. La Société des alcools du Québec (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐010483‐006, daté du 17 novembre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐010483‐006, dated November 17, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Contrats - Résiliation - Les juges de la majorité ont-ils erré en déclarant que les deux motifs de résiliation de contrat invoqués par la Société des alcools du Québec étaient bien fondés ? - Est-ce que l’obligation de déchargement des produits à Laval faisait partie du contrat et, dans l’affirmative, cette exigence était-elle déraisonnable ? - Est-ce que l’obligation de Seigneuriale d’exporter de ses produits à l’extérieur de la province de Québec faisait partie du contrat ? - La décision de la Société des alcools du Québec d’annuler le contrat est-elle une mesure protectionniste illégale dictée par un représentant de l’Exécutif et dénaturant les exigences de la loi pour l’exploitation d’un permis de brasseur ?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

13.4.2004

Before / Devant : DESCHAMPS J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉES

UPON APPLICATIONS by the Attorney General of Alberta and the Public Service Alliance of Canada, for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Attorney General of Alberta, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before May 7, 2004.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before May 7, 2004.

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

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

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

13.4.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to March 25, 2004.

13.4.2004

Before / Devant : DESCHAMPS J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to March 1, 2004.

14.4.2004

Before / Devant : DESCHAMPS 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 March 15, 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 15, 2004, is dismissed.  The motion fails to state any valid ground for an extension of time.

15.4.2004

Before / Devant : THE CHIEF JUSTICE

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the appellant for an order adjourning the hearing of the  show cause and the oral hearing on the application for leave to appeal scheduled for Monday, April 19, 2004;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.  The  show cause and the oral hearing on the application for leave to appeal shall be heard on Monday, June 7, 2004.

19.4.2004

Coram:    The Chief Justice McLachlin and Major, Binnie, Arbour and Fish JJ.

DISMISSED / REJETÉE 

15.4.2004

Joanne Leonelli-Contino

v. (30100)

Joseph Contino

21.4.2004

Cecil Decorte

v. (30081)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

16.4.2004

CORAM:               The Chief Justice McLachlin and Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps

and Fish JJ.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

20.4.2004

CORAM:               La Juge en Chef McLachlin et les juges Major, Bastarache, Binnie et LeBel.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

20.4.2004

CORAM:               La Juge en Chef McLachlin et les juges Major, Bastarache, Binnie et LeBel

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

22.4.2004

CORAM:               McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Deschamps JJ.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

APRIL 22, 2004 / LE 22 AVRIL 2004

29052                    Gordon Garland v. Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. previously known as “The Consumers’ Gas Company Limited” - and - Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Toronto-Electric System Limited, Law Foundation of Ontario and Union Gas Limited (Ont.)

2004 SCC 25 / 2004 CSC 25

Coram:                    Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish JJ.

The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C34248, dated December 3, 2001, heard on October 9, 2003 is allowed with costs throughout.  The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and is replaced by an order that the respondent repay the  late payment penalties collected from the appellant in excess of the interest limit stipulated in s. 347  of the Criminal Code  after the action was commenced in 1994 in an amount to be determined by the trial judge.

L’appel interjeté contre l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C34248, en date du 3 décembre 2001, entendu le 9 octobre 2003 est accueilli avec dépens dans toutes les cours.  L’arrêt de la Cour d’appel est annulé et est remplacé par une ordonnance enjoignant à l’intimée de rembourser à l’appelant, selon le montant fixé par le juge de première instance, les sommes qu’il a versées, après l’introduction de l’instance en 1994, pour acquitter les pénalités pour paiement en retard qui représentaient un taux d’intérêt supérieur à la limite prescrite par l’art. 347  du Code criminel .

29472                    Executive Director of the British Columbia Securities Commission v. Robert Arthur Hartvikson and Blayne Barry Johnson - and - Ontario Securities Commission (B.C.)

2004 SCC 26 / 2004 CSC 26

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 for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA027791, CA028660, CA028661, CA028662, dated September 19, 2002, heard on November 7, 2003 is allowed with costs and the British Columbia Securities Commission’s order is reinstated.

L’appel interjeté contre l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA027791, CA028660, CA028661, CA028662, en date du 19 septembre 2002, entendu le 7 novembre 2003 est accueilli avec dépens et l’ordonnance de la British Columbia Securities Commission est rétablie.

29198                    Sa Majesté la Reine c. Jacques Fontaine (Qc) (Crim.) 2004 SCC 27 / 2004 CSC 27

Coram :   La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps et Fish

L’appel interjeté contre l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Québec (Québec), numéro 200‐10‐001004‐006, en date du 4 mars 2002, entendu le 6 novembre 2003 est rejeté. 

The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Quebec), Number 200‐10‐001004‐006, dated March 4, 2002, heard on November 6, 2003 is dismissed.

Gordon Garland v. Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc., et al. (Ont.) (29052)

Indexed as:  Garland v. Consumers’ Gas Co. / Répertorié : Garland c. Consumers’ Gas Co.

Neutral citation:  2004 SCC 25. / Référence neutre : 2004 CSC 25.

Judgment rendered April 22, 2004 / Jugement rendu le 22 avril 2004

Present:  Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish JJ.

Restitution – Unjust enrichment – Late payment penalty – Customers of regulated gas utility claiming restitution for unjust enrichment arising from late payment penalties levied by utility in excess of interest limit prescribed by s. 347  of Criminal Code  – Whether customers have claim for unjust enrichment – Defences that can be mounted by utility to resist claim – Whether other ancillary orders necessary.

The respondent gas utility, whose rates and payment policies are governed by the Ontario Energy Board (“OEB”), bills its customers on a monthly basis, and each bill includes a due date for the payment of current charges.  Customers who do not pay by the due date incur a late payment penalty (“LPP”) calculated at five percent of the unpaid charges for that month.  The LPP is a one-time penalty, and does not compound or increase over time.  The appellant and his wife paid approximately $75 in LPP charges between 1983 and 1995.  The appellant commenced a class action seeking restitution for unjust enrichment of LPP charges received by the respondent in violation of s. 347  of the Criminal Code .  He also sought a preservation order.  In a previous appeal to this Court, it was held that charging the LPPs amounted to charging a criminal rate of interest under s. 347 and the matter was remitted back to the trial court for further consideration.  As the case raised no factual dispute, the parties brought cross-motions for summary judgment.  The motions judge granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the action was a collateral attack on the OEB’s orders.  The Court of Appeal disagreed, but dismissed the appellant’s appeal on the grounds that his unjust enrichment claim could not be made out.

Held:  The appeal should be allowed.  The respondent is ordered to repay LPPs collected from the appellant in excess of the interest limit stipulated in s. 347 of the Code after the action was commenced in 1994 in an amount to be determined by the trial judge.

The test for unjust enrichment has three elements:  (1) an enrichment of the defendant; (2)  a corresponding deprivation of the plaintiff; and (3) an absence of juristic reason for the enrichment.  The proper approach to the juristic reason analysis is in two parts.  The plaintiff must show that no juristic reason from an established category exists to deny recovery.  The established categories include a contract, a disposition of law, a donative intent, and other valid common law, equitable or statutory obligations.  If there is no juristic reason from an established category, then the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case.  The prima facie case is rebuttable, however, where the defendant can show that there is another reason to deny recovery.  Courts should have regard at this point to two factors:  the reasonable expectations of the parties and public policy considerations.

Here, the appellant has a claim for restitution.  The respondent received the monies represented by the LPPs and had that money available for use in the carrying on of its business.  The transfer of those funds constitutes a benefit to the respondent.  The parties are agreed that the second prong of the test has been satisfied.  With respect to the third prong, the only possible juristic reason from an established category that could justify the enrichment in this case is the existence of the OEB orders creating the LPPs under the “disposition of law” category.  The OEB orders, however, do not constitute a juristic reason for the enrichment because they are inoperative to the extent of their conflict with s. 347  of the Criminal Code .  The appellant has thus made out a prima facie case for unjust enrichment.

The respondent’s reliance on the orders is relevant when determining the reasonable expectations of the parties at the rebuttal stage of the juristic reason analysis even though it would not provide a defence if the respondent was charged under s. 347 of the Code.  However, the overriding public policy consideration in this case is the fact that the LPPs were collected in contravention of the Criminal Code .  As a matter of public policy, criminals should not be permitted to keep the proceeds of their crime. In weighing these considerations, the respondent’s reliance on the inoperative OEB orders from 1981-1994, prior to the commencement of this action, provides a juristic reason for the enrichment.  After the action was commenced and the respondent was put on notice that there was a serious possibility its LPPs violated the Criminal Code , it was no longer reasonable to rely on the OEB rate orders to authorize the LPPs.  Given that conclusion, it is only necessary to consider the respondent’s defences for the period after 1994.

The respondent cannot avail itself of any defence.  The change of position defence is not available to a defendant who is a wrongdoer.  Since the respondent in this case was enriched by its own criminal misconduct, it should not be permitted to avail itself of the defence. Section 18 (now s. 25) of the Ontario Energy Board Act should be read down so as to exclude protection from civil liability damage arising out of Criminal Code  violations.  As a result, the defence does not apply in this case and  it is not necessary to consider the constitutionality of the section.

This action does not constitute an impermissible collateral attack on the OEB’s orders.  The OEB does not have exclusive jurisdiction over this dispute, which is a private law matter under the competence of civil courts, nor does it have jurisdiction to order the remedy sought by the appellant.  Moreover, the specific object of the action is not to invalidate or render inoperable the OEB’s orders, but rather to recover money that was illegally collected by the respondent as a result of OEB orders.  In order for the regulated industries defence to be available to the respondent, Parliament needed to have indicated, either expressly or by necessary implication, that s. 347 of the Code granted leeway to those acting pursuant to a valid provincial regulatory scheme.  Section 347 does not contain any such indication.

The de facto doctrine does not apply in this case because it only attaches to government and its officials in order to protect and maintain the rule of law and the authority of government.  An extension of the doctrine to a private corporation regulated by a government authority is not supported by the case law and does not further the doctrine’s underlying purpose.

A preservation order is not appropriate in this case.  The respondent has ceased to collect the LPPs at a criminal rate, so there would be no future LPPs to which a preservation order could attach.  Even with respect to the LPPs paid between 1994 and the present, a preservation order should not be granted because it would serve no practical purpose, because the appellant has not satisfied the criteria in the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, and because Amax can be distinguished from this case.  A declaration that the LPPs need not be paid would similarly serve no practical purpose and should not be made.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (2001), 57 O.R. (3d) 127, 208 D.L.R. (4^th) 494, 152 O.A.C. 244, 19 B.L.R. (3d) 10, [2001] O.J. No. 4651 (QL), affirming a decision of the Superior Court of Justice (2000), 185 D.L.R. (4^th) 536, [2000] O.J. No. 1354 (QL).  Appeal allowed.