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
Remand
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. |
44-46
47-54
-
55
-
-
56-66
-
67
-
-
68-69
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
71
72 |
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
Renvoyé
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 |
Richard L. Corriveau
William Noonan
Hickson, Noonan
c. (29817)
Sa Majesté la Reine (Qc)
Paul Roy
P.G. du Québec
DATE DE PRODUCTION : 12.12.2003
Jonathan Ching Chang
Paul L. Moreau
Paul L. Moreau Professional Corp.
v. (30097)
Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)
Donna R. Valgardson
A.G. of Canada
FILING DATE: 19.12.2003
Darlene Cottrelle, et al.
Paul J. Bates
Cassels, Brock & Blackwell
v. (30109)
Alexander B. Gerrard (Ont.)
David I. Hamer
McCarthy, Tétrault
FILING DATE: 23.12.2003
Régent Lessard
Jean Carol Boucher
Boucher & Associés
c. (30115)
Ville La Prairie, et autres (Qc)
Richard Coutu
Dunton, Rainville
DATE DE PRODUCTION : 23.12.2003
Rofia Aghabeigi
J.M. Peter Firestone
Firestone & Tyhurst
v. (30016)
Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)
Kenneth J. Yule, Q.C.
A.G. of Canada
FILING DATE: 23.12.2003
Joseph Marino, et al.
Calin Lawrynowicz
Lawrynowicz & Associates
v. (30107)
DBM Capital Corp. (Ont.)
Michael J. Valente
Scarfone Hawkins
FILING DATE: 23.12.2003
Hermil Lebel
Serge Morin
Boulianne, Morin
c. (30102)
Sa Majesté la Reine (Qc)
Dominique Benoit
Bernard, Roy & Associés
DATE DE PRODUCTION : 23.12.2003
Robert Armstrong
Clayton C. Ruby
Ruby & Edwardh
v. (30105)
Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
David M. Lepofsky
A.G. of Ontario
FILING DATE: 23.12.2003
Lafferty, Harwood & Partners Ltd., et al. (Qc)
Mark Bantey
Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson
v. (30103)
Jacques Parizeau, et al. (Que.)
Yvan Bolduc
Heenan, Blaikie
FILING DATE: 23.12.2003
Adil Charkaoui
Johanne Doyon
Doyon, Morin
c. (30104)
Le Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’immigration, et autre (C.F.)
Daniel Latulippe
P.G. du Canada
DATE DE PRODUCTION : 24.12.2003
Joanne Leonelli - Contino
D. Smith
MacDonald & Partners
v. (30100)
Joseph Contino (Ont.)
Joseph Contino
FILING DATE: 24.12.2003
Tracey Ferguson
Kirk H. Wirsig
Hanson, Wirsig, Matheos
v. (30111)
John Lush (B.C.)
Deborah Taylor
Lindsay, Kenney
FILING DATE: 29.12.2003
Constantin Panousis
Marvin R. Bloos
Beresh, Depoe, Cunningham
v. (30073)
Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)
Erika Bottcher
A.G. of Canada
FILING DATE: 29.12.2003
Club Juridique
Club Juridique
c. (30110)
Procureur général du Canada (C.F.)
Bruno Levasseur
P.G. du Canada
DATE DE PRODUCTION : 29.12.2003
Stewart Roy Smith
Brian E. Devlin, Q.C.
O’Brien, Devlin, Markey, Macleod
v. (30049)
Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)
David Marriot
A.G. of Alberta
FILING DATE: 29.12.2003
Barbara Haight-Smith
Barbara Haight-Smith
v. (30112)
Attorney General of Canada (F.C.)
Carl C. Januszczak
A.G. of Canada
FILING DATE: 29.12.2003
Ferme Geléry Inc.
Johanne Brodeur
Brodeur, Lord, Hotte
c. (30116)
La Municipalité de Laverlochère, et autre (Qc)
Denise Descôteaux
Fontaine, Descôteaux, Beaudet
DATE DE PRODUCTION : 30.12.2003
Abattoir A. Trahan Transformation Inc., et autre
Marc Simard
Bélanger, Sauvé
c. (30114)
Fédération des producteurs de porcs du Québec (Qc)
Claude Savoie
Tremblay, Brosseau, Fleury, Savoie
DATE DE PRODUCTION : 31.12.2003
Lafontaine-Rish Medical Group Ltd., et al.
David B. Cousins
v. (30119)
Marta Erdelyi (Ont.)
Sylvia L. Tint
Wilson, Lewis
FILING DATE: 7.1.2004
Caroline Martin
Caroline Martin
v. (29917)
Alberta Mental Health Board (Alta.)
Craig Neuman
Neuman, Thompson
FILING DATE: 8.1.2004
Steven John Schneeberger
Christopher Elgin
Elgin, Cannon & Associates
v. (30124)
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.)
William B. Hardstaff
A.G. of Canada
FILING DATE: 9.1.2004
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE
|
|
DEMANDES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
JANUARY 12, 2004 / LE 12 JANVIER 2004
CORAM: Chief Justice McLachlin and Major and Fish JJ.
La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Major et Fish
E.B.
v. (29890)
Order of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate in the Province of British Columbia (B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Torts - Vicarious liability - Residential school - Employee of religious community sexually assaulting minor on a regular and frequent basis over a period of four to five years - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by overlooking and contradicting the trial judge’s factual findings - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by disregarding the operational characteristics of the Indian Residential School as a factor relevant to determining vicarious liability - Whether the Court of Appeal’s errors will prejudice pending claims of vicarious liability for sexual assault in the Indian Residential School context.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 19, 2001 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Cohen J.) |
|
Applicant’s action in damages for sexual assault granted; Respondent ordered to pay $233,400 |
|
|
|
May 15, 2003 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Esson, Hall, Saunders, Low and Smith JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed; cause remitted to trial court for further proceedings |
|
|
|
August 14, 2003 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
November 16, 2003 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Motion to file a supplementary memorandum of argument granted |
|
|
|
Dynamex Canada Inc.
v. (29932)
Adele Victoria Mamona and Randolph William Hepner and Robert Philip Cyr and the Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law - Judicial review ‐ Statutes - Interpretation - Whether two (2) standards of review were erroneously applied to a single decision - Whether the standard of reasonableness was erroneously applied because it involves a question of mixed fact and law.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 9, 2000 (Taylor, Referee) |
|
Respondents Mamona, Hepner and Cyr found to be employees and not independent contractors of Applicant |
|
|
|
April 9, 2002 Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (Kelen J.) |
|
Application for judicial review dismissed |
|
|
|
June 4, 2003 Federal Court of Appeal (Décary, Linden and Sharlow JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
September 4, 2003 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
October 31, 2003 Supreme Court of Canada (Fish J.) |
|
Motion to extend time to file and/or serve the leave application granted |
|
|
|
Vasile (Willy) Dorus and Vianney Maria Dorus
v. (29784)
John G. Taylor, Mr. Michael P. Lipkewich, Mr. Dan B. Rogness, Mr. Howard C. Chu, Mr. David A. Thompson, Mr. Richard A. Mundie, Ms. Karen L. Dunfee, Mr. Larry A. Macwood, Mr. Norman B. Rudden and Mr. George Stevens (B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Torts - Intentional torts - Commercial law - Company law - Corporate liability - Personal liability of corporate officers - Corporate veil - Unjust enrichment - No cause of action against personal defendants - Whether the directing minds of a company should be held personally liable for conspiracy if their acts are unlawful, malicious, dishonest and fraudulent -- Whether the directing minds of a company should be held personally liable for violating their own workers’ human and constitutional rights, even if they claim that only the company gains financially or otherwise - Whether the directing minds that commit unlawful, fraudulent or other harmful acts for which an ordinary person would be liable, should be able to hide behind the “corporate veil” and claim that they acted for the benefit of the company – Whether the indemnification offered by a company to its directors can be seen as an encouragement or invitation to put company profits above the law.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 17, 2001 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Gill J.) |
|
Applicants’ claim against the personal Respondents, struck out |
|
|
|
April 15, 2002 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Donald J.A.) |
|
Applicants’ application for an extension of time to file notice of application to appeal, dismissed |
|
|
|
March 20, 2003 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Huddart, Hall and Mackenzie JJ.A.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Applicants’ application to vary an order dismissing an application to extend time in which to commence an appeal, dismissedMay 16, 2003 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal and motion to extend time filed |
|
|
|
CORAM: Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.
Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et Arbour
Robert Lavigne
v. (30035)
Canada Post Corporation (F.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Labour law - Administrative law - Privacy law - Jurisdiction - Collective agreement - Dispute arising from the application of a seniority tie-breaker clause in the collective agreement - Whether the Federal Court erred in finding that it lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae to hear the dispute - Whether the action arises under the Privacy Act, R.S.C., c. P-21, due to use of personal information in contravention with s. 7 of the Privacy Act - Whether procedural fairness can oust the exclusive jurisdiction of the grievance arbitrator
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 14, 2002 Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (Morneau, Prothonotary) |
|
Respondent’s motion for an order striking the Applicant’s statement of claim, granted : Applicant’s action pursuant to s. 17(1), (2)(b) and 48 of the Federal Court Act, arising from a complaint for use by the Respondent of the Applicant’s personal information in contravention with s. 7 of the Privacy Act, dismissed |
|
|
|
September 30, 2002 Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (Tremblay‐Lamer J.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
June 3, 2003 Federal Court of Appeal (Desjardins, Létourneau and Noël JJ.A. ) |
|
Appeal dismissed
|
|
|
|
September 10, 2003 Federal Court of Appeal (Desjardins, Létourneau and Noël JJ.A.) |
|
Applicant’s motion under section 37.1 of the Supreme Court Act for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, dismissed |
|
|
|
November 5, 2003 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal and motion for an extension of time filed |
|
|
|
The Great American Insurance Company and The Chateau Insurance Company
v. (29874)
Father Francis Reed, The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Sault Ste. Marie in Canada, The Continental Insurance Company, Ecclesiastical Insurance Office plc, The Phoenix Assurance Company Limited, The Phoenix Assurance Company of Canada and The Continental Insurance Company of Canada (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law – Insurance – Duty to defend and indemnify – Plaintiff brought action against parish priest and Diocese alleging sexual assault – Settlement entered into with Plaintiff and third party insurers, other than Applicants – Whether the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal is in conflict with decisions of the Alberta and British Columbia Court of Appeal, as well as American appellate decisions – Whether there should be a presumption that the parties to an insurance contract intended to exclude, rather than to include, coverage for sexual assault claims arising from intentional misconduct – Whether the same term found in different parts of an insurance policy, or any other contract, should be accorded the same meaning unless there is some good and valid reason for doing otherwise – Whether the provisions of an insurance policy, or any other contract, should not be interpreted in a manner that creates unexplained anomalies – Whether a clause in an insurance policy, or any other contract, should not be interpreted in a manner that renders part of that clause meaningless – Whether a single word, such as “the”, should not be given governing weight without considering that word in the context of the insurance policy, or other contract, as a whole and in accordance with the presumed intention of the parties – Whether the question of insurance coverage for clergy members who allegedly commit sexual misconduct is a matter of national importance?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 15, 2000 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Wilkins J.) |
|
Applicants’ insurance policy found to provide coverage for Respondents Reed and Diocese with a duty under it to defend and indemnify |
|
|
|
September 7, 2001 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Wilkins J.) |
|
Judgment with respect to apportionment of liability between third party insurers and costs |
|
|
|
May 13, 2003 Court of Appeal for Ontario (McMurtry C.J.O., Doherty and Gillese JJ.A.) |
|
Applicants’ appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part |
|
|
|
July 25, 2003 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Société en commandite Sainte‐Hélène
c. (30051)
G.M. Développement Inc. (Qc)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit des biens - Bien immeubles - Droits réels - Titre de propriété - Servitude par destination du père de famille - Fond servant et fond dominant - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en répudiant la condition d’un aménagement physique ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré dans ses conclusions relatives à l’extinction de la servitude par les effets de la renonciation et de la clause de dation en paiement ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré dans son interprétation de l’article 1184 C.c.Q. sur la contribution du propriétaire du fonds dominant aux travaux nécessaires à la conservation de la servitude de stationnement ?
HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES
Le 14 août 2002 Cour supérieure du Québec (Le juge Gervais) |
|
Action confessoire de servitude de l’intimée G.M. Développement Inc, rejetée; demande reconventionnelle et requête en radiation d’inscription de la demanderesse, accueillies en partie |
|
|
|
Le 17 septembre 2003 Cour d’appel du Québec (Les juges Baudouin, Chamberland et Morin) |
|
Appel accueilli; jugement cassé; action déclaratoire de servitude accueillie |
|
|
|
Le 14 novembre 2003 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée
|
|
|
|
CORAM: Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.
Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps
Pierre Rémillard
c. (29833)
Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.) (Qc)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit criminel - Preuve Agressions sexuelles d'une fillette de quatre ans - Confession - Admissibilité - Exclusion de la preuve - Le juge de procès doit-il exclure la confession jugée non libre et volontaire selon la procédure de l’article 24(2) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés si, dans son analyse d’admissibilité des déclarations de l’accusé, il a déterminé que, parmi les critères et facteurs à prendre en considération, il y avait eu violation d’un droit garanti par la Charte, sans que cette violation ne soit formellement invoquée par l’accusé ?
HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES
Le 16 novembre 2001 Cour du Québec (Le juge Garneau) |
|
Déclarations orales du demandeur déclarées irrecevables |
|
|
|
Le 23 novembre 2001 Cour du Québec (Le juge Garneau) |
|
Demandeur acquitté d’avoir touché, à des fins sexuelles, une partie du corps d’une mineure de moins de 14 ans et demandeur acquitté d’agression sexuelle contrairement aux art. 151 et 271(1)a) du Code criminel |
|
|
|
Le 3 juin 2003 Cour d’appel du Québec (Les juges Fish, Morissette et, Letarte [ad hoc et dissident]) |
|
Appel accueilli; jugement infirmé; tenue d’un nouveau procès ordonnée
|
|
|
|
Le 6 octobre 2003 Cour suprême du Canada (La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache et Binnie) |
|
Requête du demandeur en annulation de l’appel, rejetée. Appel de plein droit autorisé. |
|
|
|
Le 21 novembre 2003 Cour suprême du Canada
|
|
Demandes d'autorisation d'appel de prorogation, de délai de production du mémoire et ordonnance afin de traiter la demande d’autorisation d’appel de toute urgence déposées |
|
|
|
Dominic Gismondi
v. (29857)
The Corporation of the City of Toronto (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Labour Law - Employment Law - Municipal Law - Master and Servant - Termination of Employment - Notice Period - Reinstatement of Employment - Municipal manager of a former municipality unsuccessful in competitions for new management positions in a new city formed in part from the former municipality - Manager’s employment terminated - Manager given a termination package in accordance with a resolution of the new City Council adopted in advance of the job competitions - Whether a duty of fairness or doctrine of reasonable expectations applied to the competitions and hiring process - Whether principles set out in Knight v. Indian Head School Division No. 19 (1990), 69 D.L.R. (4th) 489 ought to have been applied or were misapplied - Whether statutory protections were breached - Whether failure by the respondent to follow its own rules and guidelines resulted in the applicant’s termination - Whether the respondent’s failure to accurately disclose the outcome of its own review supported additional damages - Whether applicant must show termination package was unreasonable.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 22, 2002 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Gans J.) |
|
Applicant’s action allowed in part; damages for wrongful dismissal awarded, application for reinstatement dismissed |
|
|
|
April 29, 2003 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Carthy, Charron and Rosenberg JJ.A.) |
|
Respondent’s appeal allowed and trial judgment set aside; Order that respondent shall pay applicant 80 weeks pay and benefits in accordance with an offer dated December 8, 1998; Applicant’s cross-appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
June 30, 2003 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
November 13, 2003 Supreme Court of Canada (Major J.) |
|
Motion to extend time to file and/or serve the leave application granted. |
|
|
|
Morris Feduk
v. (29903)
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool (Sask.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Contracts - Equitable set-off - Clean hands doctrine - Wheat Pool suing farmer for breach of two canola contracts - Farmer counterclaiming to recover amount withheld under barley and deferred delivery contracts - Trial judge finding that Wheat Pool not entitled to equitable set-off as it did not come to court with clean hands - Court of Appeal allowing claim for equitable set-off - Whether Court of Appeal applied test for clean hands doctrine that is not consistent with application of this equitable principle found in other provinces and in England.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 27, 2001 Court of Queen’s Bench of Saskatchewan (Gunn J.) |
|
Respondent ordered to pay Applicant the sum of $120,449.74, plus pre-judgment interest on the sum of $90,449.74, less the sum of $19,329.00, plus pre-judgment interest |
|
|
|
May 20, 2003 Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (Vancise, Gerwing and Jackson JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed in part; Applicant to pay Respondent net amount of $39,092.99 |
|
|
|
August 25, 2003 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
September 16, 2003 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Motion to extend time to file and/or serve leave application filed |
|
|
|
Le ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration
c. (30025)
Léon Mugesera, Gemma Uwamariya, Irenée Rutema, Yves Rusi,
Carmen Nono, Mireille Urumuri et Marie-Grâce Hoho (C.F.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Droit de l’immigration - Droit criminel - Crimes contre l’humanité - Incitation à la haine, au meurtre ou au génocide - Quels sont les éléments essentiels qui doivent être établis pour qu’un acte d’incitation à la haine, au meurtre ou au génocide soit considéré comme un crime contre l’humanité aux fins de l’application de l’al. 19(1)j) de la Loi sur l’immigration? - Quelle approche un tribunal doit-il adopter pour décider si des paroles, prononcées dans un autre pays, constitueraient une infraction au Canada aux termes des sous-al. 27(1)a.1)(ii) ou 27(1)a.3)(ii) de la Loi sur l’immigration? - Aux termes de l’al. 52b)(i) de la Loi sur la Cour fédérale, quelle est l’étendue du pouvoir de la Cour d’appel fédérale lorsqu’elle siège en appel d’une décision de la Section de première instance relativement à une demande de révision judiciaire?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 10 mai 2001 Cour fédérale du Canada (Le juge Nadon) |
|
Demande de révision judiciaire accueillie en partie |
|
|
|
Le 8 septembre 2003 Cour d’appel fédérale (Les juges Décary, Létourneau et Pelletier) |
|
Appel du demandeur rejeté; appel des intimés accueilli |
|
|
|
Le 7 novembre 2003 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée
|
|
|
|
ORAL HEARING ON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE |
|
AUDIENCE SUR LES DEMANDES D’AUTORISATION |
|
|
|
JANUARY 12, 2004 / LE 12 JANVIER 2004
CORAM: Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.
Jacques Leduc
v. (29958)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (Ont.)
Philip Campbell, Marlys A. Edwardh and Steven Skurka for the applicant.
J. John C. Pearson for the respondent.
DISMISSED / REJETÉE
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C36077, dated July 24, 2003, heard this day, is dismissed. |
|
La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C36077, daté du 24 juillet 2003, entendue ce jour, est rejetée. |
|
|
|
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter (Criminal) - Criminal law - Evidence - Procedure - Remedies - Wilful non-disclosure - Stay of proceedings - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in holding that the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in his determination that non‐disclosure of evidence by the Crown was wilful - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in holding that this was not an appropriate case for the issuance of a stay of proceedings pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if the non‐disclosure of evidence by the Crown was wilful - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in setting aside an order of costs against the Attorney General of Ontario made in favour of the Applicant, on the ground that such an order is not permitted by authorities under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. |
|
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Charte canadienne (droit criminel) - Droit criminel - Preuve - Procédure - Réparations - Non-divulgation volontaire - Arrêt des procédures - La Cour d’appel de l’Ontario a-t-elle erré en décidant que le juge de première instance avait commis des erreurs manifestes et dominantes en statuant que la non-divulgation par le ministère public d’éléments de preuve était volontaire ? La Cour d’appel de l’Ontario a-t-elle erré en décidant que, si la non-divulgation par le ministère public d’éléments de preuve était volontaire, il n’aurait pas été approprié en l’espèce d’ordonner, en application du par. 24(1) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, l’arrêt des procédures ? La Cour d’appel de l’Ontario a-t-elle erré en annulant l’ordonnance du tribunal de première instance qui condamnait le ministère public aux dépens, au motif que la jurisprudence ne permet pas au tribunal de première instance de rendre une telle ordonnance en application du par. 24(1) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ? |
|
|
|
MOTIONS |
|
REQUÊTES
|
5.1.2004
Before / Devant : MAJOR J.
Further order on motions for leave to intervene
BY / PAR : Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops Attorney General of Canada
IN / DANS : Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of St. George’s, et al.
v. (29426)
John Doe (“a pseudonym”), et al. (N.L.) |
|
Autre ordonnance sur des requêtes en autorisation d'intervention |
|
|
|
UPON APPLICATIONS by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Attorney General of Canada, for leave to intervene in the above appeal and cross-appeal and pursuant to the order of November 13, 2003;
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said interveners are each granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding fifteen (15) minutes at the hearing of the appeal.
5.1.2004
Before / Devant : MAJOR J.
Further order on motions for leave to intervene
BY / PAR : Fédération des ordres professionnels de juristes du Canada Procureur général du Canada
IN / DANS : Barreau du Québec
c. (29344)
Christina McCullock-Finney (Qc) |
|
Autre ordonnance sur des requêtes en autorisation d'intervention |
|
|
|
À LA SUITE DES DEMANDES de la Fédération des ordres professionnels de juristes du Canada et du Procureur général du Canada visant à obtenir l’autorisation d’intervenir dans l’appel susmentionné et suite à l’ordonnance du 4 novembre 2003;
IL EST EN OUTRE ORDONNÉ que la plaidoirie des intervenants soit ainsi limitée à quinze (15) minutes chacun.
5.1.2004
Before / Devant : IACOBUCCI J.
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the application for leave
Robert Armstrong
v. (30105)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (Ont.) |
|
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 December 23, 2003;
AND HAVING READ the material filed;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The application for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal is granted to December 23, 2003.
5.1.2004
Before / Devant : IACOBUCCI J.
Motions to extend the time in which to serve an application for leave and to accept the application for leave to appeal as filed
Richard Condo
v. (30042)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (Ont.) |
|
Requêtes en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier une demande d'autorisation et en acceptation de la demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉES
UPON APPLICATION by the applicant for an order extending the time to serve an application for leave to appeal to November 24, 2003 and for an order accepting the application for leave to appeal as filed;
AND HAVING READ the material filed;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The application for an order extending the time to serve an application for leave to appeal to November 24, 2003 and accepting the application for leave to appeal as filed is granted.
5.1.2004
Before / Devant : IACOBUCCI J.
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the application for leave
Jean-Roch Massé
c. (29153)
Ministre du Revenu National (C.F.) |
|
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la demande d'autorisation |
|
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
À LA SUITE D’UNE DEMANDE du demandeur visant à obtenir une prorogation de délai pour signifier et déposer une demande d’autorisation d’appel au 28 novembre 2003;
ET APRÈS AVOIR PRIS CONNAISSANCE de la documentation déposée;
IL EST PAR LA PRÉSENTE ORDONNÉ CE QUI SUIT:
La demande de prorogation de délai pour signifier et déposer une demande d’autorisation d’appel au 28 novembre 2003 est accordée.
5.1.2004 (Revised 9/1/2004)
Before / Devant : ARBOUR J.
Further order on motions for leave to intervene
BY / PAR : Evangelical Fellowship of Canada Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Canada World Sikh Organization of Canada Ontario Human Rights Commission Canadian Civil Liberties Association
IN / DANS : La Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme Lafontaine, et autres
c. (29507)
Municipalité du village de Lafontaine, et autres (Qc)
- et entre -
The League for Human Rights of B’Nai Brith Canada
c. (29252)
Syndicat Northcrest (Qc)
- et entre -
Moïse Amselem, et autres
c. (29253)
Syndicat Northcrest (Qc) |
|
Autre ordonnance sur des requêtes en autorisation d'intervention
|
|
|
|
UPON APPLICATIONS by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Canada, for leave to intervene in the above three appeals number 29252, 29253 and 29507 and pursuant to the order of September 22, 2003, revised on October 6, 2003;
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said interveners are granted permission to present a shared oral argument not exceeding fifteen (15) minutes on the day of the hearing in the appeals 29252 and 29253 and the said interveners are granted permission to present an oral argument not exceeding fifteen (15) minutes on the day of the hearing in the appeal 29507.
UPON APPLICATIONS by the World Sikh Organization of Canada and the Ontario Human Rights Commission, for leave to intervene in the above two appeals number 29252 and 29253 and pursuant to the order of September 22, 2003, revised on October 6, 2003;
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said interveners are each granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding fifteen (15) minutes on the day of the hearing of these appeals.
UPON APPLICATION by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association leave to intervene in the above appeal number 29507 and pursuant to the order of November 6, 2003;
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said intervener is granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding fifteen (15) minutes on the day of the hearing of the appeal.
5.1.2004
Before / Devant : IACOBUCCI
Motions for leave to intervene
BY / PAR : Environment Voters, a Division of Animal Alliance of Canada John Herbert Bryden, Member of Parliament Democracy Watch and the National Anti-Poverty Organization
IN / DANS : Attorney General of Canada
v. (29618)
Stephen Joseph Harper (Alta.) |
|
Requêtes en autorisation d'intervention
|
|
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉES
UPON APPLICATIONS by the Environment Voters, a Division of Animal Alliance of Canada, John Herbert Bryden, Member of Parliament and the Democracy Watch and the National Anti-Poverty Organization 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 Environment Voters, a Division of Animal 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 January 20, 2004, and that the affidavit of Stephen Douglas Best be part the record of the intervener.
The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, John Herbert Bryden, Member of Parliament, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before January 20, 2004.
The motion to extend the time to apply for leave to intervene and for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Democracy Watch and the National Anti-Poverty Organization, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before January 20, 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 interveners.
The interveners shall not be entitled to raise new issues or adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties.
Pursuant to Rule 59(1)(a) the interveners shall pay to the appellants and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellants and respondents by their intervention.
5.1.2004
Before / Devant : IACOBUCCI J.
Motions for leave to intervene
BY / PAR : Attorney General of Canada National Trust Company Nicole Lacroix R.M. Smallhorn, D.G. Halsall, S.J. Galbraith and S.W. (Bud) Wesley
IN / DANS : Monsanto Canada Inc., et al.
v. (29586)
Superintendent of Financial Services, et al. (Ont.) |
|
Requêtes en autorisation d'intervention
|
|
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
UPON APPLICATIONS by the Attorney General of Canada, the National Trust Company, Nicole Lacroix and R.M. Smallhorn, D.G. Halsall, S.J. Galbraith and S.W. (Bud) Wesley 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 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 January 26, 2004.
The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, National Trust Company, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before January 26, 2004.
The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, Nicole Lacroix, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before January 26, 2004.
The motion for leave to intervene of the applicants, R.M. Smallhorn, D.G. Halsall, S.J. Galbraith and S.W. (Bud) Wesley, is granted and the applicants shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before January 26, 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 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 appellants and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellants and respondents by their intervention.
6.1.2004
Before / Devant : LEBEL J.
Miscellaneous motion
Ville de Saint-Léonard, et autre
c. (28920)
Ville de Montréal (Qc) |
|
Autre requête |
|
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
À LA SUITE D’UNE DEMANDE de l’intimée visant à obtenir le report de l’examen de la demande d’autorisation d’appel au 31 mars 2004;
ET APRÈS AVOIR PRIS CONNAISSANCE de la documentation déposée;
IL EST PAR LA PRÉSENTE ORDONNÉ CE QUI SUIT:
Vu les représentations faites par la Ville de Montréal, la demande d’autorisation d’appel ne sera pas soumise à une formation de cette Cour avant le 31 mars 2004. D’ici cette date, la Ville de Montréal et toutes parties encore intéressées dans cette affaire devront indiquer la nature de leurs positions, quant à la demande d’autorisation d’appel, et présenter toutes représentations additionnelles qu’elles estimeront nécessaires à son sujet. Le 31 mars 2004, la demande d’autorisation d’appel sera soumise par la registraire à une formation de la Cour.
6.1.2004
Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR
Motions to file lengthy factum and to extend the time to serve and file the factum of the respondent the Attorney General of Quebec
Jacques Chaoulli, et autre
c. (29272)
Procureur général du Québec, et autre (Qc) |
|
Requêtes visant le dépôt d’un long mémoire et en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire de l’intimé le Procureur général du Québec |
|
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉES Time extended to January 20, 2004.
6.1.2004
Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum of the respondent the Attorney General of Canada
Jacques Chaoulli, et autre
c. (29272)
Procureur général du Québec, et autre (Qc) |
|
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire de l’intimé le Procureur général du Canada |
|
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Délai prorogé au 20 janvier 2004.
7.01.2004
Before / Devant : IACOBUCCI J.
Further order on motions for leave to intervene
BY / PAR : Canadian Canola Growers Association Attorney General of Ontario Ag-West Biotech Inc. Council of Canadians, the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, the Sierra Club of Canada, the National Farmers Union, the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology and the International Center for Technology Assessment, Canadian Seed Trade Association BioteCanada
IN / DANS : Percy Schmeiser, et al.
v. (29437)
Monsanto Canada Inc., et al. (F.C.) |
|
Autre ordonnance sur des requêtes en autorisation d'intervention |
|
|
|
UPON APPLICATIONS by the Canadian Canola Growers Association, the Attorney General of Ontario, Ag-West Biotech Inc., the Council of Canadians, the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, the Sierra Club of Canada, the National Farmers Union, the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology and the International Center for Technology Assessment, the Canadian Seed Trade Association and BioteCanada for leave to intervene in the above appeal and pursuant to the order of October 23, 2003;
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said interveners, Canadian Canola Growers Association and the Attorney General of Ontario, are each granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding ten (10) minutes at the hearing of the appeal.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said intervener, Ag-West Biotech Inc., is denied permission to present oral argument at the hearing of the appeal.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said interveners, Council of Canadians, the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, the Sierra Club of Canada, the National Farmers Union, the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology and the International Center for Technology Assessment, are granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding fifteen (15) minutes at the hearing of the appeal.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said interveners, Canadian Seed Trade Association and BioteCanada, are granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding fifteen (15) minutes to be divided by agreement between the parties or, failing agreement, to be divided equally, the submissions of Canadian Seed Trade Association to be limited to issue (3) of its factum.
7.1.2004
Before / Devant : IACOBUCCI J.
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the application for leave
Darryl Williams
v. (29818)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (Ont.) |
|
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 October 17, 2003;
AND HAVING READ the material filed;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The application for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal is granted to October 17, 2003.
7.1.2004
Before / Devant : IACOBUCCI J.
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the notice of appeal
Cory Howard Grandinetti
v. (30096)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (Alta.) |
|
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer l'avis d'appel |
|
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
UPON APPLICATION by the appellant for an order extending the time to serve and file a notice of appeal as of right to December 22, 2003;
AND HAVING READ the material filed;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The application for an order extending the time to serve and file a notice of appeal as of right is granted to December 22, 2003.
8.1.2004
Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondents’ response
Nicolaas Koks
v. (29929)
HIVO Entreprises Ltd., et al. (Alta.) |
|
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la réponse des intimés |
|
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to December 22, 2003.
8.1.2004
Before / Devant : THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Motions to extend the time in which to serve and file the appellant’s factum, the respondent’s factum and to adjourn the hearing of the appeal
David Masi Cheddesingh
v. (29662)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (Ont.) |
|
Requêtes en prorogation de délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire de l’appelant, le mémoire de l’intimée et en vue d’ajourner l'audition de l'appel |
|
|
|
GRANTED IN PART / ACCORDÉES EN PARTIE
UPON APPLICATION by the appellant and the respondent for an order extending the time to serve and file the appellant’s factum to January 16, 2004; extending the time to serve and file the respondent’s factum to March 4, 2004; and alternatively for an order adjourning the hearing of the appeal;
AND HAVING READ the material filed;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1) The appellant is granted an extension of time to serve and file its factum to January 16, 2004.
2) The respondent is granted an extension of time to serve and file its factum to February 27, 2004.
3) The motion to adjourn the appeal is dismissed.
8.1.2004
Before / Devant : IACOBUCCI J.
Motion to expedite the application for leave
B.F., et al.
v. (30075)
Minister of Community Services, et al. (N.S.) |
|
Requête visant à accélérer la demande d’autorisation d’appel |
|
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
UPON APPLICATION by the applicant for and order expediting the determination of the application for leave to appeal;
AND HAVING READ the material filed;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The motion to expedite the determination of the application for leave to appeal is granted.
9.1.2004
Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR
Motions to extend the time in which to serve and file the joint factum and book of authorities of the appellants
David Brock Henry
v. (29952)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (B.C.)
- and -
Barry Wayne Riley
v. (29953)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (B.C.) |
|
Requêtes en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer mémoire conjoint et recueil de jurisprudence des appelants |
|
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉES Time extended to January 7, 2004.
NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
|
AVIS D’APPEL DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
23.12.2003
Her Majesty the Queen
v. (30098)
Randolph Blake (Ont.)
(as of right)
APPEALS HEARD SINCE LAST ISSUE AND DISPOSITION |
|
APPELS ENTENDUS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION ET RÉSULTAT
|
14.1.2004
Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of St. George’s
v. (29426)
John Doe (“a pseudonym”), et al.
- and between -
John Doe (“a pseudonym”), et al.
v. (29426)
Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of St. George’s, Raymond Lahey, Alphonsus Penny, James MacDonald, Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of St. John’s and the Roman Catholic Church (N.L.)
|
|
Geoffrey D.E. Adair, Q.C. and Krista Springstead for the appellant on the Appeal, for the respondent on the Cross-Appeal.
William J. Sammon for the intervener on Appeal and the Cross-Appeal - Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Gregory B. Stack for 35 of the respondents, for the appellant’s on Cross-Appeal.
Richard S. Rogers for remaining respondents, for the appellant’s on Cross-Appeal.
David G.L. Buffett, Q.C. for the respondents Penney, Lahey and MacDonald on the Cross-Appeal.
James R. Adams for the respondent Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of St. John’s on the Cross-Appeal.
Anne M. Turley for the intervener on Appeal and the Cross-Appeal - Attorney General of Canada |
|
|
|
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Torts - Liability - Corporation sole - Sexual assaults by priest - Whether the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Court of Appeal erred in imposing direct liability upon the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of St. George’s in respect of certain sexual assaults upon the Respondents - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold the defendant Roman Catholic Church, an unincorporated association, vicariously liable for the acts of the priest - If the Appellant succeeds with its appeal, than are any other of the Respondents on Cross-Appeal liable to the Respondents?
|
|
Nature de la cause:
Délits civils- Responsabilité - Agressions sexuelles commises par un prêtre- Est-ce que la Cour d’appel de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador a commis une erreur en décidant que la Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of St. George’s avait encouru une responsabilité délictuelle pour certains des actes d’agression sexuelle dont avaient été victimes les intimés ? - Est-ce que la Cour d’appel a commis une erreur en ne tenant pas l’Église catholique, qui est une association non constituée en personne morale, responsable du fait d’autrui pour les agressions commises par le prêtre ?- Si le pourvoi principal était accueilli, il faudrait décider si les autres intimés dans le pourvoi incident ont encouru une responsabilité envers les intimés dans le pourvoi principal. |
|
|
|
15.1.2004
Russell Alan Kehler
v. (29755)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (Alta.) |
|
Marvin R. Bloos, Q.C. for the appellant.
Jim Bowron for the respondent. |
|
|
|
DISMISSED WITH REASONS TO FOLLOW / REJETÉ AVEC MOTIFS À SUIVRE
The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Number 0103‐0447‐A3, dated April 2, 2003, heard on January 15, 2004 is dismissed with reasons to follow. |
|
L’appel interjeté contre l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Alberta (Calgary), numéro 0103‐0447‐A3, en date du 2 avril 2003, entendu le 15 janvier 2004 est rejeté avec motifs à suivre. |
|
|
|
Nature of the case
Criminal law - Evidence - Evidence of unsavoury witness - Corroborative evidence - Robberies - Where a Court rules that, in order to be relied upon, a witness’ testimony must be corroborated, must the corroboration, where identity is the only issue at trial, implicate the accused? - Whether the verdict is unsafe and not supported by the evidence. |
|
Nature de la cause
Droit criminel - Preuve - Déposition d’un témoin douteux - Preuve corroborante - Vols qualifiés- Lorsqu’un tribunal décide que la déposition d’un complice, pour que l’on puisse s’y fier, doit être corroborée et que la seule question en litige lors du procès est de savoir si l’accusé est l’auteur des infractions, la preuve corroborante doit-elle impliquer l’accusé ? - Le verdict est-il imprudent et s’appuie-t-il sur la preuve ? |
|
|
|
REMAND |
|
RENVOYÉ
|
JANUARY 12, 2004 / LE 12 JANVIER 2004
29292 The Regional Manager of the Cariboo Forest Region, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia v. Roger William, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Xeni Gwet'in First Nations Government and on behalf of all other members of the Tsilhqot'in Nation, Attorney General of Canada - and between - Attorney General of Canada and Roger William, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Xeni Gwet'in First Nations Government and on behalf of all other members of the Tsilhqot'in Nation, The Regional Manager of the Cariboo Forest Region, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia and Attorney General of Ontario, Chief Dan Wilson, in his personal capacity and as representative of the Okanagan Indian Band, and all other persons engaged in the cutting, damaging or destroying of Crown timber at Timber Sale Licence A57614, Chief Ronnie Jules, in his personal capacity and as representative of the Adams Lake Band, Chief Stuart Lee, in his personal capacity and as representative of the Spallumcheen Indian Band, Chief Arthur Manuel, in his personal capacity and as representative of the Neskonlith Indian Band, David Anthony Nordquist, in his personal capacity and as representative of the Adams Lake Indian Band, the Spallumcheen Indian Band and the Neskonlith Indian Band, and all other persons engaged in the cutting, damaging or destroying of Crown Timber at Timber Sale Licence A38029, Block 2 (B.C.)
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish JJ.
This appeal is remanded to the British Columbia Supreme Court to be dealt with in accordance with the reasons of this Court in British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band, 2003 SCC 71.
L’affaire est renvoyée à la Cour suprême de la Colombie-Britannique pour qu’elle soit tranchée conformément à l’arrêt de notre Cour Colombie-Britannique (Ministre des Forêts) c. Bande indienne Okanagan, 2003 CSC 71.
The Winter Session of the Supreme Court of Canada started January 12, 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 d’hiver de la Cour suprême du Canada a commencé le 12 janvier 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 REPORTS |
|
RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS DE LA COUR SUPRÊME
|
THE STYLES OF CAUSE IN THE PRESENT TABLE ARE THE STANDARDIZED STYLES OF CAUSE (AS EXPRESSED UNDER THE "INDEXED AS" ENTRY IN EACH CASE).
|
|
LES INTITULÉS UTILISÉS DANS CETTE TABLE SONT LES INTITULÉS NORMALISÉS DE LA RUBRIQUE "RÉPERTORIÉ" DANS CHAQUE ARRÊT. |
Judgments reported in [2003] 1 S.C.R. Part 4
Caisse populaire Desjardins de Val-Brillant v. Blouin, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 666, 2003 SCC 31
R. v. Buhay, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 631, 2003 SCC 30
R. v. Owen, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 779, 2003 SCC 33
Starson v. Swayze, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 722, 2003 SCC 32
Judgments reported in [2003] 1 S.C.R. Part 5
Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 884, 2003 SCC 36
Ell v. Alberta, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 857, 2003 SCC 35
Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912, 2003 SCC 37
Trociuk v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 835, 2003 SCC 34
|
|
Jugements publiés dans [2003] 1 R.C.S. Partie 4
Caisse populaire Desjardins de Val-Brillant c. Blouin, [2003] 1 R.C.S. 666, 2003 CSC 31
R. c. Buhay, [2003] 1 R.C.S. 631, 2003 CSC 30
R. c. Owen, [2003] 1 R.C.S. 779, 2003 CSC 33
Starson c. Swayze, [2003] 1 R.C.S. 722, 2003 CSC 32
Jugements publiés dans [2003] 1 R.C.S. Partie 5
Bell Canada c. Association Canadienne des employés de téléphone, [2003] 1 R.C.S. 884, 2003 CSC 36
Ell c. Alberta, [2003] 1 R.C.S. 857, 2003 CSC 35
Figueroa c. Canada (Procureur général), [2003] 1 R.C.S. 912, 2003 CSC 37
Trociuk c. Colombie-Britannique (Procureur général), [2003] 1 R.C.S. 835, 2003 CSC 34
|
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 |
|
|
|
|