This Bulletin is published at the direction of the Registrar and is for general information only. It is not to be used as evidence of its content, which, if required, should be proved by Certificate of the Registrar under the Seal of the Court. While every effort is made to ensure accuracy, no responsibility is assumed for errors or omissions. |
|
Ce Bulletin, publié sous l'autorité de la registraire, ne vise qu'à fournir des renseignements d'ordre général. Il ne peut servir de preuve de son contenu. Celle‐ci s'établit par un certificat du registraire donné sous le sceau de la Cour. Rien n'est négligé pour assurer l'exactitude du contenu, mais la Cour décline toute responsabilité pour les erreurs ou omissions. |
|
|
|
Subscriptions may be had at $200 per year, payable in advance, in accordance with the Court tariff. During Court sessions it is usually issued weekly. |
|
Le prix de l'abonnement, fixé dans le tarif de la Cour, est de 200 $ l'an, payable d'avance. Le Bulletin paraît en principe toutes les semaines pendant les sessions de la Cour. |
|
|
|
The Bulletin, being a factual report of recorded proceedings, is produced in the language of record. Where a judgment has been rendered, requests for copies should be made to the Registrar, with a remittance of $10 for each set of reasons. All remittances should be made payable to the Receiver General for Canada. |
|
Le Bulletin rassemble les procédures devant la Cour dans la langue du dossier. Quand un arrêt est rendu, on peut se procurer les motifs de jugement en adressant sa demande au registraire, accompagnée de 10 $ par exemplaire. Le paiement doit être fait à l'ordre du Receveur général du Canada. |
|
|
|
CONTENTS TABLE DES MATIÈRES
Applications for leave to appeal filed
Applications for leave submitted to Court since last issue
Oral hearing ordered
Oral hearing on applications for leave
Judgments on applications for leave
Judgment on motion
Motions
Notice of reference
Notices of appeal filed since last issue
Notices of intervention filed since last issue
Notices of discontinuance filed since last issue
Appeals heard since last issue and disposition
Pronouncements of appeals reserved
Rehearing
Headnotes of recent judgments
Agenda
Summaries of the cases
Notices to the Profession and Press Release
Deadlines: Appeals
Judgments reported in S.C.R. |
433-434
435-443
-
444
445-446
-
447-454
-
455
456
-
457-458
-
-
-
-
-
-
459
- |
Demandes d'autorisation d'appel déposées
Demandes soumises à la Cour depuis la dernière parution
Audience ordonnée
Audience sur les demandes d'autorisation
Jugements rendus sur les demandes d'autorisation
Jugement sur requête
Requêtes
Avis de renvoi
Avis d'appel déposés depuis la dernière parution
Avis d'intervention déposés depuis la dernière parution
Avis de désistement déposés depuis la dernière parution
Appels entendus depuis la dernière parution et résultat
Jugements rendus sur les appels en délibéré
Nouvelle audition
Sommaires des arrêts récents
Calendrier
Résumés des affaires
Avis aux avocats et communiqué de presse
Délais: Appels
Jugements publiés au R.C.S. |
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FILED |
|
DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION D'APPEL DÉPOSÉES |
Stephen Fazekas
Stephen Fazekas
v. (30122)
Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
John Norris
Attorney General of Ontario
FILING DATE: 4.12.2003
J-Sons Inc., et al.
Charles J. Pelhan Q.C.
Monk, Goodwin
v. (30201)
N.M. Paterson & Sons Limited (Man.)
David M. Skwark
Fillmore & Riley
FILING DATE: 8.3.2004
Roger Callow
Roger Callow
v. (30196)
The Board of School Trustees of School district No. 45 (West Vancouver), et al. (B.C.)
Geoffrey J. Litherland
Harris & Company
FILING DATE: 5.3.2004
Maria Sokolowska
Maria Sokolowska
v. (30198)
Ottawa Police Service (Ont.)
Jeremy Wright
City of Ottawa
FILING DATE: 5.3.2004
Philip Neil Wiles
Philip J. Star, Q.C.
Pink, Nickerson, Star
v. (30199)
Her Majesty the Queen (N.S.)
Stanley W. MacDonald
Attorney General of Canada
FILING DATE: 8.3.2004
Oswald Duncan MacLeod Agent for Paul Joseph O’Leary and Duncan Ross Moodie
Oswald, Duncan, MacLeod
v. (30052)
Catherine Josephine MacLeod, et al. (Alta.)
Jocelyn Hill
Family Law Office
FILING DATE: 8.3.2004
Yvonne Montague, et al.
Yvonne Montague
v. (30191)
The Bank of Nova Scotia (Ont.)
David E. Leonard
McCarthy, Tétrault
FILING DATE: 2.3.2004
Bank of Nova Scotia
David E. Leonard
McCarthy, Tétrault
v. (30191)
Yvonne Montague, et al. (Ont.)
Yvonne Montague
FILING DATE: 8.3.2004
Apotex Inc.
Harry B. Radomski
Goodmans
v. (30193)
Merck & Co. Inc. (F.C.)
Judith Robinson
Ogilvy, Renaut
FILING DATE: 1.3.2004
Executive Director of the British Columbia Securities Commission
James A. Angus
British Columbia Securities Commission
v. (30205)
Carl Glen Anderson, et al. (B.C.)
Robert W. Taylor
Taylor, Veinotte, Sullivan
FILING DATE: 8.3.2004
Esa Holdings Ltd.
Tom F. Mayson
Fraser, Milner, Casgrain
v. (30157)
Caleron Properties Ltd., et al. (Alta.)
Jeff W. Moroz
Shea, Nerland, Calnan
FILING DATE: 2.3.2004
Richard Thibault
Richard Thibault
c. (30195)
Sa Majesté la Reine (Ont.)
Jennifer E. Briscoe
Attorney General of Canada
DATE DE PRODUCTION : 10.2.2004
Christian Savard, agissant en reprise d’instance pour C. Savard inc., et autre
Christian Savard
c. (30204)
Ville de Québec, autrefois Ville de Vanier (Qc)
Roger D. Pothier
Pothier, Delisle
DATE DE PRODUCTION : 9.3.2004
Titus Nguiagain
Titus Nguiagain
c. (30203)
Sa Majesté la Reine (Qc)
Jean-Philippe Robitaille
Procureur général du Québec
DATE DE PRODUCTION : 12.3.2004
R. Kent Remington, a.k.a. B. Kent Remington, a.k.a. Bary Kent Remington
Michael J. McCabe, Q.C.
Reynolds, Mirth, Richards & Farmer
v. (30207)
Robert G. Peters (Alta.)
Ariel Z. Breitman
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt
FILING DATE: 12.3.2004
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE
|
|
DEMANDES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
MARCH 15, 2004 / LE 15 MARS 2004
CORAM: Chief Justice McLachlin and Major and Fish JJ.
La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Major et Fish
NPV Management Limited
v. (29988)
Rex C. Anthony, J. Percy McDonald and Terrence Daley (N.L.)
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
October 16, 2002 Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Trial Division) (Thompson J.) |
|
Respondents’ application to strike out Statement of Claim dismissed |
|
|
|
August 25, 2003 Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Court of Appeal) (Welsh, Cameron and Roberts JJ.A.) |
|
Respondents’ appeal allowed: Statement of Claim struck out |
|
|
|
October 8, 2003 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
William Patrick Thomson, Allen Scott Hamilton, Elizabeth Ann Craft and Alpha Charolotte Drunken Chief
v. (29974)
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.)
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
September 6, 2001 Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Slatter J.) |
|
Applicants’ application to have the administrative licence suspension program under the Traffic Safety Act declared invalid dismissed |
|
|
|
September 9, 2003 Court of Appeal of Alberta (Fraser, Picard and Paperny JJ.A.)
|
|
Applicants’ application to have the Court of Appeal reconsider its decision in R. v. Neale (1986), 28 C.C.C. (3d) 345 and Yehia v. Alberta (Solicitor General) (1992), 40 M.V.R. (2d) 57, holding that driving a motor vehicle is not a liberty interest as defined under s. 7 of the Charter dismissed; Applicants’ appeals dismissed |
|
|
|
October 23, 2003 Court of Appeal of Alberta (Wittmann J.A.) |
|
Applicants’ application for a stay of proceedings pursuant to s. 65.1(1) of the Supreme Court Act, pending the determination of the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, granted |
|
|
|
November 25, 2003 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal and for an extension of time filed |
|
|
|
Dennis Reid
v. (30057)
The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 2503 (B.C.)
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
November 14, 2001 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Prowse J.) |
|
Applicant’s petition for an order declaring that the Respondent’s Resolution be revoked pursuant to s. 164 of the Strata Property Act, dismissed |
|
|
|
February 28, 2003 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Southin, Ryan and Levine JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
November 20, 2003 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for extension of time and leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Nicolaas Koks and Koks Euromotors Ltd.
v. (29929)
HIVO Enterprises Ltd., Harry Griffin and Wilhelmina Griffin and Margret Testroete (Alta.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial Law - Company Law - Shareholders’ Agreements - Whether the “shareholder oppression” remedy provisions in s. 242 and other provisions of the Alberta Business Corporations Act are, in effect, a “Charter of Rights” for shareholders and should be interpreted with that principle in mind - Whether, on the facts of this case, the Court of Appeal erred in not upholding the Applicant’s rights as a shareholder in light of the principle described in paragraph (a) above - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not correcting the trial judge’s non‐consideration of the Respondents’ breach of a court order and subsequent interference with valuation evidence - Whether, in any event, the errors of the Court of Appeal are of such magnitude as to merit the consideration of this Court.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
March 13, 2001 Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Acton J.) |
|
Applicants’ action for breach of contract dismissed. |
|
|
|
September 3, 2003 Court of Appeal of Alberta (Fraser, Fruman and Paperny JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed. |
|
|
|
November 5, 2003 Supreme Court of Canada (Major J.) |
|
Application to extend time to file application for leave to appeal granted |
|
|
|
November 12, 2003 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
CORAM: Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.
Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et Arbour
Kirkbi AG and Lego Canada Inc.
v. (29956)
Ritvik Holdings Inc./Gestions Ritvik Inc. (now operating as Mega Bloks Inc.) (F.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Property law - Trade marks - Functional trade marks - Passing off - Whether the owner of a trade-mark which meets the statutory definition of “trade-mark” and which has been found to have acquired secondary meaning should be disentitled to relief from passing off on the grounds that the claimed mark is primarily functional - Whether the holder of an unregistered trade-mark has exclusive rights in the trade-mark - Whether the Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, s. 7(b) protects a right of property in goodwill from misrepresentation - Whether the principle behind statutory passing off under s. 7(b) is different from the principle behind common law passing off - Whether passing off in the Federal Court differs from passing off in the provincial courts - What is the significance of prior patents in determining whether a mark is a trade‐mark - Whether the elements of passing off had been proven.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 24, 2002 Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (Gibson J.) |
|
Applicants’ trade-mark infringement action dismissed; counterclaim dismissed |
|
|
|
July 14, 2003 Federal Court of Appeal (Rothstein, Sexton and Pelletier JJ.A.) |
|
Applicants’ appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
September 24, 2003 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Réserve de la Petite Nation Inc.
c. (30145)
Serge Bruneau, John Marshall, Éric Therrien, Éric Charbonneau, Gérard Sévigny, Guy Caubel, Alexandre Alarie, Ryan Ward, Paul Savard, Francis Alarie, Martin Beaucage, Gilles Caubel, le Procureur général du Québec et la Société de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec (Qc)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Procédure - Jugements et ordonnances - Procédure civile - Procédure préalable au procès - Opposabilité d’un jugement - Requête en intervention - Autorité de la chose jugée - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en refusant la permission d’appeler du jugement de première instance, lequel permet que soit attaqué indirectement le jugement rendu en 1938 sur lequel la demanderesse fonde son droit de propriété ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en considérant que la permission d’appeler ne pouvait être accordée du fait que le litige nécessitait l’examen d’une preuve au fond pour décider du sens et de la portée du jugement rendu en 1938 ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en considérant que l’intérêt de la justice ne justifiait pas que la permission d’appeler soit accordée du fait qu’il serait toujours loisible à la demanderesse de faire valoir, lors du procès au fond, les arguments de droit quant à l’effet du jugement rendu en 1938 ? - Est-ce que le principe de l’autorité de la chose jugée soulève une question d’intérêt national ? - Est-ce que la présente demande d’autorisation d’appel doit être accordée, bine que le jugement en cause soit de nature interlocutoire ? - Cette Cour possède-t-elle la compétence pour instruire tant le pourvoi contre la décision de la Cour d’appel de ne pas accorder l’appel que celui contre le jugement de la Cour supérieure de rejeter les requêtes en irrecevabilité de la demanderesse ?
HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES
Le 12 septembre 2003 Cour supérieure du Québec (La juge Trudel) |
|
Requête en irrecevabilité de l’intervention de l’intimé Procureur général du Québec, rejetée; Requête en irrecevabilité du plaidoyer et de la demande reconventionnelle des intimés, rejetée. |
|
|
|
Le 19 novembre 2003 Cour d’appel du Québec (La juge Morissette) |
|
Requête amendée de la demanderesse pour permission d’appeler, rejetée; requête en irrecevabilité du plaidoyer et de la demande reconventionnelle des intimés Serge Bruneau, John Marshall, Éric Therrien, Éric Charbonneau, Gérard Sévigny, Guy Caubel, Alexandre Alarie, Ryan Ward, Paul Savard, Francis Alarie, Martin Beaucage, Gilles Caubel, rejetées |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Le 19 janvier 2004 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée
|
|
|
|
Arthur Webster
v. (30095)
Attorney General of Canada (F.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Taxation - Assessment - Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Statutes - Interpretation - Did the Federal Court of Appeal err in its interpretation of s. 18.5 of the Federal Courts Act thereby insulating the Minister from any review or censure of process? - Does the Federal Courts Act as interpreted by the Federal Court of Appeal abrogate, abridge or infringe the rights or freedoms guaranteed in the Canadian Bill of Rights rendering the Federal Courts Act inoperative or invalid?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 10, 2003 Federal Court of Canada (Rouleau J.) |
|
Applicant’s motion for an extension of time for an application for judicial review allowed |
|
|
|
October 21, 2003 Federal Court of Appeal (Desjardins, Décary and Sharlow JJ.A.) |
|
Respondent’s appeal allowed: motion for extension of time dismissed and application for judicial review quashed |
|
|
|
December 19, 2003 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Her Majesty the Queen
v. (30005)
Joshua Bernard (N.B.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Constitutional law -Native law - Indians - Treaty rights - Aboriginal land title -Whether the Respondent has a treaty right to harvest and sell logs from Crown lands - Whether the treaty right can be exercised by individuals without community authority - Whether the Respondent exceeded the inherent limitation of the treaty in respect of an individual’s right to harvest resources in order to earn a moderate livelihood - Whether the treaty right was extinguished by pre‐confederation legislation in the Province of New Brunswick - Whether infringement of the treaty right by s. 67(1)(c) of the Crown Lands and Forest Act, S.N.B. 1980, c. C‐38.1, was justified - Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010 - R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456, R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 533, R. v. Sundown, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 393, Mitchell v. M.N.R., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 13, 2000Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Lordon J.) |
|
Respondent convicted of unlawfully possessing timber from Crown lands |
|
|
|
June 27, 2001 Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick (Savoie J.) |
|
Respondent’s appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
August 28, 2003 Court of Appeal of New Brunswick (Daigle, Deschênes _dissenting_ and Robertson JJ.A.) |
|
Respondent’s appeal allowed; conviction set aside and acquittal entered; a stay suspending the effect of judgement for one year is granted |
|
|
|
October 24, 2003 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
CORAM: Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.
Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps
Q.S.B. Inc. (Santé Animale Breton)
c. (30133)
Ordre des pharmaciens du Québec (Crim.) (Qc)
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
Le 8 janvier 2002 Cour du Québec, Chambre criminelle et pénale (Le juge Couture) |
|
Demanderesse déclarée coupable en vertu des art. 35 et 36 de la Loi sur la pharmacie d’avoir illégalement vendu un médicament pour soigner des animaux; demanderesse condamnée à une amende de 67 200$ et 200$ de frais |
|
|
|
Le 29 septembre 2003 Cour supérieure du Québec (Le juge Godbout) |
|
Appel rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 19 novembre 2003 Cour d’appel du Québec (La juge Rousseau‐Houle) |
|
Requête pour permission d'appeler rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 14 janvier 2004 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée
|
|
|
|
George Ghanotakis
c. (30117)
Pierre Roy et Associés Inc. (Qc)
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
Le 17 octobre 2003 Cour supérieure du Québec (Hallée j.c.s.) |
|
Requête du demandeur pour être déclaré créancier dans la faillite d’Entreprise Internationales Learned Canada Inc., rejetée; appel d’offre du syndic déclaré valide; requête du demandeur de substituer le syndic intimé, rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 27 octobre 2003 Cour d’appel du Québec (Proulx j.c.a.) |
|
Requête du demandeur pour permission d’en appeler, rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 14 novembre 2003 Cour d’appel du Québec (Rayle j.c.a.) |
|
Requête du demandeur pour suspendre l’exécution du jugement, rejetée
|
|
|
|
Le 29 décembre 2003 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demandes d'autorisation d'appel et en sursis d’exécution déposées
|
|
|
|
La Brasserie Seigneuriale Inc. et La Brasserie Sleeman du Québec, dénomination de The Sleeman Brewing and Malting Co. Ltd.
c. (30138)
La Société des alcools du Québec (Qc)
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
Le 30 novembre 2000 Cour supérieure du Québec (Le juge Viau) |
|
Action en injonction permanente des demanderesses rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 17 novembre 2003 Cour d’appel du Québec (Les juges Beauregard [dissident], Rousseau-Houle et Pelletier) |
|
Appel rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 16 janvier 2004 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée
|
|
|
|
U L Canada Inc.
v. (30065)
Attorney General of Quebec and Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec (Qc)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter - Constitutional law - International law - Statutes - Interpretation - Civil rights - Freedom of expression - Division of powers - Provincial power to maker regulations to protect the dairy industry against competitors - Obligation to exercise delegated powers in accordance with international and interprovincial agreements - Whether s. 40(1)(c) of the Regulation respecting dairy products and substitutes, R.R.Q. 1981, c. P-30, r. 15, by imposing restrictions on the colour of margarine exposed, sold and distributed in the Province of Quebec, is ultra vires the powers of the Government of Quebec in light of the North American free trade Agreement, the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization and the Agreement on internal trade - Whether the impugned Regulation violates the guarantee of freedom of expression - Whether the Superior Courts have jurisdiction to declare legislation invalid due to unreasonableness - Whether the lower courts erred in finding that the impugned Regulation had incidental effects on international and internal trade.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 26, 1999 Superior Court of Quebec (Guthrie J.) |
|
Applicant’s application for declaratory judgment and mandamus seeking to have section 40(1)(c) of the Regulation Respecting Dairy Products Substitutes declared invalid, dismissed; Applicant’s application to quash the seizure of containers of margarine by the Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation, granted |
|
|
|
October 1, 2003 Court of Appeal of Quebec (Mailhot, Brossard and Nuss JJ.C.A.) |
|
Applicant’s appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
November 27, 2003 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION / DEMANDE DE RÉEXAMEN
CORAM: Chief Justice McLachlin and Major and Fish JJ. /
La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Major et Fish
Sameer Mapara v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Crim.) (By Leave) (29750)
MARCH 16, 2004 / LE 16 MARS 2004
CORAM: Chief Justice McLachlin and Major and Fish JJ.
La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Major et Fish
Stewart Roy Smith
v. (30049)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (Alta.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter - Criminal - Criminal Law (Non Charter) - Appeals - Procedural Law - Whether a Court of Appeal must acceded to a request for further argument by a judge who is a member of the appellate panel - Whether the verdict of guilty was unreasonable or unsupported by evidence or based on a misapprehension of the evidence - Whether denying further argument before the Court of Appeal breached s. 7 of the Charter or the rules of natural justice.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 26, 2002 Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Hembroff J.) |
|
Applicant convicted of sexual assault contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code |
|
|
|
October 28, 2003 Court of Appeal of Alberta (Côté, Berger [dissenting] and Ritter JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
November 14, 2003 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Notice of appeal as of right filed |
|
|
|
December 29, 2003 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
March1, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada (McLachlin C.J.) |
|
Motion to state a constitutional question dismissed |
|
|
|
March 8, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada (McLachlin C.J.) |
|
Show cause requested by the Court |
|
|
|
ORAL HEARING ON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE |
|
AUDIENCE SUR LES DEMANDES D’AUTORISATION |
|
|
|
MARCH 16, 2004/ LE 16 MARS 2004
CORAM: Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel J.
Christian Vincent
c. (29634)
Sa Majesté la Reine (Qc.) (Crim.)
Richard Gaudreau pour l’appelant.
Hélène Boucher et Pierre Lévesque pour l’intimée
DISMISSED / REJETÉE
Ayant entendu les parties sur la demande d’autorisation d’appel le 15 mars 2004, la demande d’autorisation de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐10‐002081‐014, daté du 4 février 2003, est rejetée. |
|
After hearing the parties on the leave application on March 15, 2004, the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐10‐002081‐014, dated February 4, 2003, is dismissed. |
|
|
|
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit criminel - Preuve - Procès - Directives au jury - Le juge de première instance a‐t‐il erré en droit en n’interrompant pas l’accusé systématiquement lorsqu’il plaidait hors la preuve? - Le juge de première instance a‐t‐il erré en droit en n’énumérant pas, lors de ses directives au jury, tous les faits que l’accusé avait plaidé hors la preuve, et en omettant d’instruire le jury de ces faits non prouvés? - Si le juge de première instance n’a pas ou a erré, quel sont les sources de compréhension ou de latitude qui doivent être appliquées dans le cas ou un accusé doit se défendre seul, n’ayant aucune expérience juridique et qui n’a pas les moyens d’avoir un avocat pour le représenter? Comment devant la Justice peut‐il être certain d’avoir eu un procès ou des motifs équitables? - Que dit la Charte des droits et libertés?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 8 février 2001 Cour supérieure du Québec (Paul j.c.s.) |
|
Demandeur acquitté de six chefs d’accusation d’avoir reçu ou exigé des commissions secrètes des fournisseurs de son employeur contrairement à l’art. 426(1)a)ii) du Code criminel |
|
|
|
Le 4 février 2003 Cour d'appel du Québec (Gendreau, Dalphond et Biron [ad hoc] jj.c.a.) |
|
Appel accueilli; tenue d’un nouveau procès ordonnée |
|
|
|
Le 26 février 2003 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d'autorisation d'appel et requête pour assistance d’un procureur et\ou exemption de suivre les règles déposées |
|
|
|
JUDGMENTS ON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE |
|
JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION |
MARCH 18, 2004 / LE 18 MARS 2004
29917 Caroline Martin v. Alberta Mental Health Board (Alta.) (Civil) (By Leave)
Coram: Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Number 0103‐0211‐AC, dated June 9, 2003, is dismissed.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Alberta (Calgary), numéro 0103‐0211‐AC, daté du 9 juin 2003, est rejetée.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 1, 2000 Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (Colley-Urquhart, Panel Chair) |
|
Applicant’s complaint allowed; Applicant’s request for review of discontinuance filed within the time limits proscribed by the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act |
|
|
|
April 3, 2001 Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Dea J.) |
|
Respondent’s appeal granted; Human Rights Panel’s decision quashed for lack of jurisdiction; Applicant’s complaint discontinued |
|
|
|
June 9, 2003 Court of Appeal of Alberta (Côté, Wittmann _dissenting_ and Ritter JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed
|
|
|
|
October 29, 2003 Supreme Court of Canada (Fish J.) |
|
Motion to extend time to file and/or serve leave application, granted |
|
|
|
January 8, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
30082 Jean Chalifoux c. Centre communautaire juridique de Montréal (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 (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐011170‐016, daté du 7 octobre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐011170‐016, dated October 7, 2003, is dismissed with costs.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit administratif - Révision judiciaire - Norme de contrôle applicable - Le jugement de la Cour d’appel du Québec est-il manifestement déraisonnable dans sa qualification de la norme de contrôle appropriée? - La décision de l’arbitre est-elle injuste? - L’arbitre a-t-il dérogé au décret, au règlement et à l’Entente entre le ministre de la Justice du Québec et le Barreau du Québec intervenue le 6 juin 1990 en vertu de la Loi sur l’aide juridique, L.R.Q., c. A-14 ? - La décision de l’arbitre est-elle illogique et irrationnelle, démontrant un non-respect de l’usage interprétatif de la preuve?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 1er mai 2000 Cour du Québec (De Michele j.c.q.) |
|
Réclamation du demandeur pour plein paiement des honoraires réclamés, rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 15 juin 2001 Cour supérieure du Québec (Cohen, j.c.s.) |
|
Requête du demandeur en révision judiciaire, accueillie; intimé ordonné de payer pour les services professionnels dispensés |
|
|
|
Le 7 octobre 2003 Cour d’appel du Québec (Mailhot, Proulx [dissident] et Rayle jj.ca.) |
|
Appel accueilli |
|
|
|
Le 8 décembre 2003 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée
|
|
|
|
30105 Robert Armstrong v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave)
Coram: Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C36973, dated September 17, 2003, is dismissed without costs.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C36973, daté du 17 septembre 2003, est rejetée sans dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal Law - Interpretation - Whether section 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code can ever apply in criminal cases to save convictions where a mandatory unsavoury witness warning is not given and Crown’s case is not overwhelming - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario, erred in applying the proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code in the circumstances of this case where it was found that a mandatory Vetrovec warning was not given and the Crown’s case against the accused was not overwhelming.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 28, 2001 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Whalen J.) |
|
Applicant convicted by jury of first degree murder and second degree murder contrary to s.235(1) of the Criminal Code; Applicant sentenced on both counts to life in prison without possibility of parole until he has served 25 years |
|
|
|
September 17, 2003 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Rosenberg and Simmons JJ.A., and Langdon J. [ad hoc]) |
|
Appeal against conviction and sentence, dismissed |
|
|
|
December 23, 2003 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for extension of time and leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
January 5, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada (Iacobucci J.) |
|
Motion for extension of time granted |
|
|
|
MOTIONS |
|
REQUÊTES
|
8.3.2004
Before / Devant : THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Motion to state a constitutional question
David Brock Henry
v. (29952)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (B.C.)
- and between -
Barry Wayne Riley
v. (29953)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (B.C.) |
|
Requête pour formulation d’une question constitutionnelle |
|
|
|
DISMISSED / REJETÉE
UPON APPLICATION by the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada, for an order stating a constitutional question in the above appeals;
AND HAVING READ the material filed;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The application to state a constitutional question is dismissed.
8.3.2004
Before / Devant : ARBOUR J.
Motions for leave to intervene
BY / PAR : Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund Canadian Association for Community Living, the Canadian Hearing Society and the Council of Canadians with Disabilities Hospital Employees’ Union, the British Columbia Government and Service Employees’ Union and the Health Sciences Association Canadian Labour Congress
IN / DANS : Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public and Private Employees
v. (29597)
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Newfoundland as represented by Treasury Board and the Minister of Justice (N.L.) |
|
Requêtes en autorisation d’intervention
|
|
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉES
UPON APPLICATIONS by the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, the Canadian Association for Community Living, the Canadian Hearing Society and the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, the Hospital Employees’ Union, the British Columbia Government and Service Employees’ Union and the Health Sciences Association, and the Canadian Labour Congress, 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 Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.
The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, Canadian Association for Community Living, the Canadian Hearing Society and the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length .
The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Hospital Employees’ Union, the British Columbia Government and Services Employees’ Union and the Health Sciences Association, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.
The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Canadian Labour Congress, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.
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.
9.3.2004
Before / Devant : ARBOUR J.
Motion for extension of time and leave to intervene
BY / PAR : Freehold Petroleum & Natural Gas Owners Association
IN / DANS : Carl Anderson, et al.
v. (29370)
Amoco Canada Oil and Gas, Amoco Canada Resources Ltd., Amoco Canada Energy Ltd., 3061434 Canada Ltd., et al. (Alta.) |
|
Requête visant à obtenir une prorogation de délai et l’autorisation d'intervenir |
|
|
|
GRANTED IN PART / ACCORDÉE EN PARTIE
UPON APPLICATION by the Freehold Petroleum & Natural Gas Owners Association for an extension of time to apply for leave to intervene and for leave to intervene in the above appeal;
AND UPON APPLICATION by the respondents PanCanadian, Gulf and Amoco for an order granting leave to cross-examine the applicant’s deponent, Else Pedersen on her affidavit, in the event leave to intervene is granted;
HAVING READ the material filed;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The motion for an extension of time to apply for leave to intervene is granted.
The motion for leave to intervene is granted. The intervener, the Freehold Petroleum & Natural Gas Owners Association, shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before April 1, 2004.
The request to present oral argument is deferred to a date following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the intervener.
Pursuant to Rule 59 (1)(a) the intervener shall pay to the appellants and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellants and respondents by the intervention.
The motions for leave to cross-examine Else Pedersen are dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:
The intervener shall not be entitled to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties. In its material the intervener indicates that it intends to make submissions respecting the potential consequences this Court’s decision will have on an issue which is not otherwise going to be addressed by the appellants or respondents: the ownership of coal bed methane. The role of an intervener does not generally involve or contemplate new issues being introduced or new evidence being adduced. Accordingly, as the ownership of coal bed methane is not an issue properly before this Court on this appeal, the intervener should not address this issue in its submissions. Similarly, the intervener should not make reference to the testimony provided by Mr. James Lewis at the trial level in the case of Borys v. C.P.R.,
[1951] 2 W.W.R. (NS) 145 (Alta S.C.); rev’d in part, [1952] 4 W.W.R. (NS) 481 (Applicant. Div.), aff’d, [1953] 7 W.W.R. (NS) 546 (P.C.), since this evidence was not adduced at trial and does not form part of the record on this appeal.
9.3.2004
Before / Devant : ARBOUR J.
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the application for leave
Issam Al Yamani
v. (30184)
The Minister of Citizenship & Immigration (F.C.) |
|
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la demande d'autorisation |
|
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
UPON APPLICATION by the applicant for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal to February 20, 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 February 20, 2004, is granted.
9.3.2004
Before / Devant : LEBEL J.
Motions for leave to intervene
BY / PAR : Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association Conférence des juges du Québec Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges Ontario Conference of Judges Judicial Justice of the Peace Association of British Columbia Association of Justices of the Peace of Ontario
IN / DANS : Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta, et al.
v. (29525)
Chereda Bodner, Robert Philp, Timothy Stonehouse, William Martin, Waldo B. Ranson, Glenn Morrison, Q.C., Johnathan H.B. Moss, David M. Duggan, Mark W. Gruman, Patrick McIlhargy, John R. Shaw and Gregory Francis (Alta.) |
|
|
|
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉES
UPON APPLICATIONS by the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association, la Conférence des juges du Québec, the Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges, the Ontario Conference of Judges, the Judicial Justice of the Peace Association of British Columbia and the Association of Justices of the Peace of Ontario, 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 Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.
The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, la Conférence des juges du Québec, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length .
The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.
The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Ontario Conference of Judges, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.
The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Judicial Justice of the Peace Association of British Columbia, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.
The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Association of Justices of the Peace of Ontario, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.
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 respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondents by their intervention.
La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par l’Association canadienne des juges des cours supérieures est accordée; la requérante aura le droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire de 20 pages.
La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par la Conférence des juges du Québec est accordée; la requérante aura le droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire de 20 pages.
La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par l’Association canadienne des juges des cours provinciales est accordée; la requérante aura le droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire de 20 pages.
La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par la Conférence des juges de l’Ontario est accordée; la requérante aura le droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire de 20 pages
La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par Judicial Justices of the Peace Association of British Columbia est accordée; la requérante aura le droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire de 20 pages.
La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par l’Association des juges de paix de l’Ontario est accordée; la requérante aura le droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire de 20 pages.
Les demandes visant à présenter une plaidoirie seront examinées après la réception et l’examen de l’argumentation écrite des parties et des intervenants.
Les intervenants n’auront pas le droit de produire d’autres éléments de preuve ni d’ajouter quoi que ce soit au dossier des parties.
Conformément au par. 59(1)(a) des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada, les intervenants paieront à l’appelant et aux intimés tous débours supplémentaires résultant de leur intervention.
9.3.2004
Before / Devant : IACOBUCCI J.
Motion to adjourn the hearing of the appeal
Georges Reid
c. (29394)
Épiciers Unis Métro-Richelieu Inc., Division “Éconogros” (Qc) |
|
Requête pour ajourner l'audition de l'appel |
|
|
|
À LA SUITE DE LA DEMANDE de l’appelant visant à obtenir l’ajournement de l’audition de l’appel susmentionné prévue pour le 16 mars 2004;
ET APRÈS AVOIR LU la documentation déposée;
L’ORDONNANCE SUIVANTE EST RENDUE:
L’appel prévu pour le 16 mars 2004 est ajourné à la session du printemps 2004 et sera entendu le 17 juin 2004.
10.3.2004
Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondent’s record, factum and book of authorities
Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, et al.
c. (29480)
Nutribec Ltée, et al. (Qc) |
|
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les dossier, mémoire et recueil de sources et de doctrine de l’intimée |
|
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Délai prorogé au 19 mars 2004.
10.3.2004
Before / Devant : ARBOUR J.
Motion for leave to intervene
BY / PAR : Attorney General for Saskatchewan
IN / DANS : H. L.
v. (29949)
Attorney General of Canada (Sask.) |
|
Requête en autorisation d'intervention |
|
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General for Saskatchewan 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 for Saskatchewan, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before April 8, 2004.
The request to present oral argument are deferred to a date following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the intervener.
The intervener 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 intervener shall pay to the appellant and respondent any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondent by their intervention.
11.3.2004
Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the applicant's reply to February 27, 2004
Kirk Morgan Pynn
v. (30129)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (N.L.) |
|
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la réplique du demandeur au 27 février 2004 |
|
|
|
DISMISSED / REJETÉE
12.3.2004
Before / Devant : LEBEL J.
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the application for leave
Greater Vancouver Water District
v. (30190)
Graham Industrial Services Ltd. (B.C.) |
|
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la demande d'autorisation |
|
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
UPON APPLICATION by the applicant for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal to February 27, 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 February 27, 2004, is granted.
NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
|
AVIS D’APPEL DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
15.3.2004
Her Majesty the Queen
v. (29965)
Lynn Fice (Ont.)
5.3.2004
Her Majesty the Queen
v. (30079)
Marvin Sazant (Ont.)
1.3.2004
E.B.
v. (29890)
Order of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate in the Province of British Columbia (B.C.)
5.3.2004
Cabot Insurance Company Limited, et al.
v. (29849)
Peter Ryan (N.L.)
NOTICES OF INTERVENTION FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
|
AVIS D’INTERVENTION DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
27.2.2004
BY / PAR : Attorney General of Alberta
IN / DANS : Provincial Court Judges’ Association of New Brunswick, et al.
v. (30006)
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of New Brunswick as represented by the Minister of Justice (N.B.)
5.3.2004
BY / PAR : Procureur général du Canada
Procureur général de la Nouvelle-Écosse
IN / DANS : André Pelland
c. (29805)
Fédération des producteurs de volailles du Québec, et autre (Qc)
11.3.2004
BY / PAR : Procureur général du Québec
IN / DANS : Normand Martineau
c. (29794)
Le Ministre du Revenu National (C.F.)
APPEALS HEARD SINCE LAST ISSUE AND DISPOSITION |
|
APPELS ENTENDUS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION ET RÉSULTAT
|
17.3.2004
Coram: Iacobucci, Major, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish JJ.
Mireille Boisvert
c. (29544)
La Régie de l’assurance-maladie du Québec, et al. (Qc) |
|
Mireille Boisvert pour elle-même.
Eva Petras et Marie-Hélène Dubé Amicus Curiae
Louis Masson, Nathalie Vaillant et Annie Chapados pour l’intervenant Barreau du Québec
Jean-Yves Bernard pour l’intervenant Procureur général du Québec
Denis Semco pour l’intimée Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec (Aucune soumission)
Jean Renaud pour l’intimée Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec (Aucune soumission) |
|
|
|
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Procedure - Civil procedure - Intervention - Whether article 208 of the Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q., ch. C-25 allows a person to intervene to an action instituted by his spouse who is unable to represent himself in court or to retain the services of a lawyer for the purposes of asserting their rights and seeking justice? |
|
Nature de la cause:
Procédure - Procédure civile - Intervention - Est-ce que l’art. 208 du Code de procédure civile, L.R.Q., ch. C-25, permet à une personne d’intervenir dans une action intentée par son conjoint qui est dans l’incapacité de se représenter seul et qui ne peut avoir d’avocat, afin de faire valoir leurs droits ? |
|
|
|
18.3.2004
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps, and Fish JJ.
The Minister of Human Resources Development Canada
v. (29351)
Betty Hodge (F.C.) |
|
Brian J. Saunders and Christopher Rupar for the appellant
Sans comparution pour l’intervenant Procureur général du Québec (Soumission écrite de Jean Hugo)
Holly D. Penner for the intervener Attorney General of Manitoba
Leah Greathead for the intervener Attorney General of British Columbia
Chantal Tie and Ian M. Aitken for the respondent No one appearing for the intervener Canadian Aids Society (Written Submission by R. Douglas Elliott, Patricia A. LeFebour, Megan B. McPhee) |
|
|
|
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Canadian Charter - Civil – Civil rights – Social welfare – Constitutional law – Statutes – Definition of “spouse” in determining eligibility for survivor benefit under Canada Pension Plan – Common law spouses not cohabiting with contributor spouse at time of contributor’s death not eligible for survivor benefit – Married spouses not having same cohabitation requirement – Whether definition is unjustifiably discriminatory under s. 15(1) of the Charter on ground of marital status – If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit pursuant to s. 1of the Charter – Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‐8, s. 2(1). |
|
Nature de la cause:
Charte canadienne - Civil – Libertés publiques – Bien-être social – Droit constitutionnel – Définition législative - La définition de “conjoint” servant à déterminer l’admissibilité aux prestations de survivant prévues par le Régime de pensions du Canada – Les conjoints de fait ne cohabitant pas avec le conjoint cotisant au moment de son décès n’ont pas droit à une pension de survivant – Les conjoints mariés ne sont pas assujettis à la même exigence de cohabitation – Une discrimination en raison de l’état matrimonial porte-t-elle atteinte au paragraphe 15(1) de la Charte ? – Dans l’affirmative, cette atteinte peut-elle se justifier en application de l’article premier de la Charte ? – Le régime de pensions du Canada, L.R.C., 1985, ch. C‐8, art. 2(1). |
|
|
|
The Spring Session of the Supreme Court of Canada will start April 13, 2004.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court Act and Rules, the following requirements for filing must be complied with before an appeal can be heard:
Appellant’s record; appellant’s factum; and appellant’s book(s) of authorities must be filed within 12 weeks of the filing of the notice of appeal or 12 weeks from decision on the motion to state a constitutional question.
Respondent’s record (if any); respondent’s factum; and respondent’s book(s) of authorities must be filed within eight weeks after the service of the appellant's documents.
Intervener's factum and intervener’s book(s) of authorities, (if any), must be filed within eight weeks of the order granting leave to intervene or within 20 weeks of the filing of a notice of intervention under subrule 61(4).
Parties’ condensed book, if required, must be filed on the day of hearing of the appeal.
The Registrar shall enter the appeal on a list of cases to be heard after the respondent’s factum is filed or at the end of the eight-week period referred to in Rule 36. |
|
La session du printemps de la Cour suprême du Canada commencera le 13 avril 2004.
Conformément à la Loi sur la Cour suprême et aux Règles, il faut se conformer aux exigences suivantes avant qu'un appel puisse être entendu:
Le dossier de l’appelant, son mémoire et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine doivent être déposés dans les douze semaines du dépôt de l’avis d’appel ou douze semaines de la décision de la requête pour formulation d’une question constitutionnelle.
Le dossier de l’intimé (le cas échéant), son mémoire et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine doivent être déposés dans les huit semaines suivant la signification des documents de l’appelant.
Le mémoire de l'intervenant et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine, le cas échéant, doivent être déposés dans les huit semaines suivant l’ordonnance autorisant l’intervention ou dans les vingt semaines suivant le dépôt de l’avis d’intervention visé au paragraphe 61(4).
Le recueil condensé des parties, le cas échéant, doivent être déposés le jour de l’audition de l’appel.
Le registraire inscrit l’appel pour audition après le dépôt du mémoire de l’intimé ou à l’expiration du délai de huit semaines prévu à la règle 36. |
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE
CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME
- 2003 -
04-07-2002
OCTOBER - OCTOBRE |
|
NOVEMBER - NOVEMBRE |
|
DECEMBER - DECEMBRE |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
M 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
5 |
M 6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
|
2 |
M 3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
|
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
12 |
H 13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
|
9 |
10 |
H 11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
|
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
|
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
|
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
H 25 |
H 26 |
27 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
23 30 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
|
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
- 2004 -
JANUARY - JANVIER |
|
FEBRUARY - FÉVRIER |
|
MARCH - MARS |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
|
|
|
H 1 |
2 |
3 |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
8 |
M 9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
|
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
11 |
M 12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
|
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
|
14 |
M 15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
|
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
|
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APRIL - AVRIL |
|
MAY - MAI |
|
JUNE - JUIN |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
H 9 |
10 |
|
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
|
6 |
M 7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
11 |
H 12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
|
9 |
M 10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
|
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
18 |
M 19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
|
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
|
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
23 |
H 24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
|
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sittings of the court: Séances de la cour: |
|
18 sitting weeks/semaines séances de la cour 87 sitting days/journées séances de la cour 9 motion and conference days/ journées requêtes.conférences 3 holidays during sitting days/ jours fériés durant les sessions |
Motions: Requêtes: |
M |
|
Holidays: Jours fériés: |
H |
|
|
|
|