Bulletins

      OF CANADA                                             DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

February 18, 2005 242 - 268                                                                le 18 février 2005

CONTENTS                                                     TABLE DES MATIÈRES

The Halifax Insurance Company of Canada

Geoffrey D.E. Adair, Q.C.

Adair, Morse

v. (30671)

Innopex Limited, et al.  (Ont.)

Craig Burgess

Torkin, Manes, Cohen, Arbus

FILING DATE:   14.12.2004

NAV Canada

Michel G. Ménard

Lapointe, Rosenstein

v. (30731)

Inter-Canadien (1991) Inc., et al.  (Que.)

Gordon Levine

Kugler, Kandestin

- and between -

Aéroports de Montréal

Gerald N. Apostolatos

Langlois, Kronström, Desjardins

v. (30731)

Wilmington Trust Company, et al.  (Que.)

Bertrand Giroux

Brouillette, Charpentier, Fortin

- and between -

Greater Toronto Airports Authority

Robert E. Charbonneau

Borden, Ladner, Gervais

v. (30731)

Administration de l’Aéroport International MacDonald-Cartier d’Ottawa, et al.  (Que.)

Richard L. Desgagnés

Ogilvy, Renault

- and between -

Ottawa MacDonald-Cartier International Airport Authority

Richard L. Desgagnés

Ogilvy, Renault

v. (30731)

Wilmington Trust Company and Wilmington Trust Corporation, et al.  (Que.)

Bertrand Giroux

Brouillette, Charpentier, Fortin

FILING DATE:   14.01.2005

NAV Canada

Michel G. Ménard

Lapointe, Rosenstein

v. (30732)

Inter-Canadien (1991) Inc., et al.  (Que.)

Gordon Levine

Kugler, Kandestin

- and between -

Aéroports de Montréal

Gerald N. Apostolatos

Langlois, Kronström, Desjardins

v. (30732)

Renaissance Leasing Corporation, et al.  (Que.)

Bertrand Giroux

Brouillette, Charpentier, Fortin

- and between -

Greater Toronto Airports Authority

Robert E. Charbonneau

Borden, Ladner, Gervais

v. (30732)

Administration de l’Aéroport International MacDonald-Cartier d’Ottawa, et al.  (Que.)

Richard L. Desgagnés

Ogilvy, Renault

- and between -

Ottawa MacDonald-Cartier International Airport Authority

Richard L. Desgagnés

Ogilvy, Renault

v. (30732)

Renaissance Leasing Corporation, et al.  (Que.)

Bertrand Giroux

Brouillette, Charpentier, Fortin

FILING DATE:   14.01.2005

Aéroports de Montréal

Gerald N. Apostolatos

Langlois, Kronström, Desjardins

v. (30742)

Newcourt Credit Group (Alberta) Inc., et al.  (Que.)

Pierre Bourque., c.r.

Desjardins, Ducharme, Stein, Monast

- and between -

St. John’s International Airport Authority, et al.

Richard L. Desgagnés

Ogilvy, Renault

v. (30742)

Newcourt Credit Group (Alberta) Inc., et al.  (Que.)

Pierre Bourque., c.r.

Desjardins, Ducharme, Stein, Monast

- and between -

Greater Toronto Airports Authority

Robert E. Charbonneau

Borden, Ladner, Gervais

v. (30742)

Greater London International Airport Authority, et al.  (Que.)

Richard L. Desgagnés

Ogilvy, Renault

FILING DATE: 14.01.2005

J. A.

J.A.

v. (30736)

T.R.  (Man.)

Michael Thomson

Tapper, Cuddy

FILING DATE:   24.01.2005

Calvin Pearson

Gregory Lafontaine

Lafontaine & Associates

 v. (30702)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Shawn Porter

A.G. of Ontario

FILING DATE:   26.01.2005

Sudesh Mishra

Sudesh Mishra

v. (30741)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Peter A. Eccles

A.G. of British Columbia

FILING DATE:   28.01.2005

Myfam Holdings Ltd., et al.

H. Rod Anderson

Harper, Grey, Easton

v. (30744)

Shideh Rohani, et al.  (B.C.)

Darrell W. Robert, Q.C.

Miller, Thomson

FILING DATE: 31.01.2005

Scott Irwin Simser

Scott Simser

v. (30746)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

John H. Simms, Q.C.

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE:   31.01.2005

Ice Consultants Inc., et al.

Geoff R. Hall

McCarthy, Tétrault

v. (30748)

Microvoice Applications Inc.  (Ont.)

Neil S. Abbott

Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson

FILING DATE:   31.01.2005

Sandra Sullivan, et al.

Osborne G. Barnwell

v. (30768)

Durham Regional Services Police Board (Ont.)

Kirk F. Stevens

Lerners

FILING DATE:   31.01.2005

Attorney General of Canada, et al.

Paul Vickery

A.G. of Canada

v. (30759)

Marlene Cloud, et al.  (Ont.)

Russell M. Raikes

Cohen, Highley

- and between -

The New England Company

Robert B. Bell

Borden, Ladner, Gervais

v. (30759)

Marlene C. Cloud, et al.

Russell M. Raikes

Cohen, Hichley

FILING DATE:   01.02.2005

Citadelle, Coopérative de producteurs de sirop d’érable

Madeleine Renaud

McCarthy, Tétrault

c. (30771)

Régie des Marchés Agricoles et Alimentaires du Québec, et autres  (Qc)

Gaëtan Ouellet

DATE DE PRODUCTION:   01.02.2005

Produits alimentaires Jacques et Fils Inc., et autres

Karl Delwaide

Fasken, Martineau, DuMoulin

c. (30772)

Régie des Machés Agricoles et Alimentaires du Québec, et autres  (Qc)

Gaëtan Ouellet

DATE DE PRODUCTION:   01.02.2005

Standard Life Assurance Company

Isabelle Poirier

De Grandpré, Joli-Coeur

c. (30773)

Famous Players Inc.  (Qc)

Mark Schrager

Davies, Ward, Phillips & Vineberg

DATE DE PRODUCTION:   02.02.2005

François Binette

Guy Quirion

c. (30752)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qc)

Steve Magnan

P.G. du Québec

DATE DE PRODUCTION:   03.02.2005

Alain Brault

Christopher R. Mostovac

Starnino, Mostovac

c. (30760)

Le Sous Ministre du Revenu du Québec (Qc)

Mario Laprise

Veillette, Larivière

DATE DE PRODUCTION:   04.02.2005

Société en Commandite CDTI de Montréal

Claude G. Leduc

Mercier, Leduc

c. (30753)

Tecsys Inc.  (Qc)

Simon Potter

McCarthy, Tétrault

DATE DE PRODUCTION:   07.02.2005

Annie Schneider

Annie Schneider

c. (30761)

Sa Majesté la Reine (N.-É.)

Lloyd Lombard

Public Prosecution Service

DATE DE PRODUCTION:   07.02.2005

FEBRUARY 14, 2005 / LE 14 FÉVRIER 2005

CORAM:  Chief Justice McLachlin and Binnie and Charron JJ.

La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Binnie et Charron

Leon Grinshpun

v. (30700)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law (Non Charter) - Procedural law - Private information - Whether Provincial Court judge erred in the exercise of her discretion not to permit process to issue - Did the lower courts err in refusing to grant the application of mandamus  - Criminal Code  R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 504 , 507.1 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Li Liang

v. (30587)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian  Charter  - Criminal - Criminal law - Sentencing - Evidence - Was the Applicant subject to an unreasonable delay from the time of the issuance of an arrest warrant to her subsequent arrest? - Did the trial judge improperly consider evidence of the Applicant’s previous contact with the victim in sentencing?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Pro Swing Inc.

v. (30529)

Elta Golf Inc.  (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

International law - Conflict of laws - Enforcement of foreign judgment - Whether the decision engrafts a new condition onto the common law requirement for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment set out in Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077, as it was expanded to encompass judgments from other countries in Beal v. Saldanha, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 416- Whether a non-monetary judgment may be enforced in Canada and whether additional conditions are required has yet to be considered by This Honourable Court - Whether the court of appeal erred in law in its application of the test in Uniforêt Pate Port-Cartier Inc. v. Zerotech Technologies Inc., [1998] 9 W.W.R. 688 (B.C.S.C.), and, if not reviewed by This Honourable Court, will create confusion and uncertainty in the application of the doctrine of comity to emerging cross-border business relations - Whether the court of appeal erred in law by mis-applying the doctrine of comity.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:  Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

Les juges Major, Fish et Abella

Serendip Physiotherapy Clinic and Sutha Kunaratnam

v. (30706)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law (non Charter ) - Search and seizure - Health records - Patient files being seized at a physiotherapy clinic pursuant to a warrant - Whether a justice of the peace issuing a warrant pursuant to s. 487  of the Criminal Code  is obliged to consider and apply the same safeguards concerning the compulsory disclosure of confidential medical information as prescribed in R. v. O’Connor and R. v. Dyment - Whether there are common law requirements that make it incumbent upon a judicial officer to consider and take steps to protect the privacy interests of patients when the police wish to search for and seize health records - Whether, absent conditions to protect the privacy interests of patients, a search warrant is ultra vires.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Robert Tranchemontagne

v. (30615)

Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program of the Ministry of Community, Family and Children's Services (Ont.)

AND BETWEEN:

Norman Werbeski

v.

Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program of the Ministry of Community, Family and Children's Services

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Forum - Jurisdiction of tribunal - Jurisdiction of appellate court - Choice of forum - Applications for disability benefits within tribunals exclusive jurisdiction - Human rights issues within jurisdiction of tribunal and Human Rights Commission - Argument that disability support program contravened Human Rights Code - Court of Appeal dismissed appeal on the basis that a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission was a more appropriate procedure - Whether an administrative appeal tribunal with jurisdiction over a properly constituted appeal within its mandate has an inherent or implied discretion to decline to exercise that jurisdiction if it forms the view that one or more issues raised in the appeal are better addressed in another forum - If so, what test should apply to determine when such a discretion exists and how it should be exercised - If not, whether an appellate court nonetheless has a discretion to stay the appeal to the tribunal on the ground that another procedure or forum is more appropriate, or on any other ground - What test should apply to determine when such a discretion exists and how it should be exercised - Whether an appellate court sitting in review of the decision of an administrative appeal tribunal has the discretion to make an order that the tribunal could not have made - What test should apply to determine when such a discretion exists and how it should be exercised - In circumstances of concurrent jurisdiction, what is the test for determining when the applicant’s choice of forum will prevail - Whether the essential nature of the dispute, practical considerations, or the existence of a comprehensive statutory scheme of review have a role in determining whether the applicant’s choice of forum will prevail - How a comprehensive scheme of review is to be identified.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Wanda Young

v. (30670)

Leslie Bella, William S. Rowe and Memorial University of Newfoundland (N.L.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Actions - Appeal - Torts - Negligence- Damages -Appeal from award of damages by civil jury - Each of three judges on Court of Appeal writing separate, partially concurring reasons - Respondents found liable to Applicant for damages for negligence in reporting her to Child Protection Services for suspected child sexual abuse - Court of Appeal overturning jury decision - Whether action lies against the Respondent - Whether paragraph 80 of the Court of Appeal judgment correctly summarize the ultimate result of the appeal - What is the proper test for appellate interference with findings of negligence by a civil jury? - Interpretation of the duty to report  in ss. 38(1)(2) and (6) of the Child Welfare Act, S.N. 1992, c-57. s.1 - Whether a claim for loss of reputation may proceed by way of negligence - Was the Applicant’s claim for general damages a “case of the nature of” Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd. (1995) 2 S.C.R. 229 or one of the exceptional circumstances to the judicially mandated cap?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

September 9, 2003

Supreme Court of Newfoundland & Labrador

(Barry J.)

Limited publication ban regarding any personal sexual information provided by the Applicant, otherwise proceedings to be conducted in open courtroom

November 13, 2003

Supreme Court of Newfoundland & Labrador, Trial Division

(Barry J.)

Applicant awarded $841,938.75 by jury for claim in negligence resulting from report made to Child Protection Services

October 11, 2004

Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador

(Roberts J.A.[dissenting, concurring in part], Welsh and Rowe JJ.A.[dissenting in part])

Appeal allowed; cross appeal dismissed

December 7, 2004

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

CORAM: Major, Fish and Charron

Les juges Major, Fish et Charron

Zbigniew Belz, Gazeta Inc., Gazeta Magazine, and Alicja Gettlich

v. (30593)

Elizabeth Rogacki (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Libel and slander - Whether an appellate court in a libel case used a strict literalist reinterpretation of the words to characterize them as facts, notwithstanding an unchallenged determination by the jury they are opinions, resulting in the comments not being viewed in context, and thereby causing a serious upset to the appropriate balance between free speech and reputation values - Whether there should be a special rule for the fair comment defence where there are allegations of corrupt or dishonourable conduct, or of criminal matters.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:  Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

Anahit Cilinger

c. (30703)

Procureur général du Québec (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Procédure civile - Actions - Recours collectif - Autorisation - Recours en dommages-intérêts résultant de l’impossibilité pour les personnes du groupe visé par le recours de bénéficier de traitements de radiothérapie pour le cancer du sein à l’intérieur d’un délai adéquat - En matière de recours collectif pour une action en responsabilité extracontractuelle contre l’État, la question de la détermination de la nature politique ou opérationnelle des actes ou omissions allégués à titre de faute doit-elle être décidée au stade de l’autorisation ou laissée à l’appréciation du juge qui bénéficie de l’ensemble de la preuve lors de l’audition au mérite? - Les faits allégués quant à l’existence d’une violation de l’art. 7  de la Charte  et appuyés d’une preuve prima facie d’une atteinte à l’intégrité physique et psychologique des membres du groupe visé sont-ils suffisants, à l’étape de l’autorisation, pour justifier les conclusions recherchées?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

Frederick McLaughlin

c. (29776)

Air Canada (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Pensions - Arrears - Interest - Applicant’s action for interest on disability pay retroactive to date of entitlement dismissed - Court of Appeal affirming decision - Whether Court of Appeal erred in law when it failed to find that the Respondent owed a fiduciary duty to the Applicant insofar as the Respondent was in possession of the Applicant’s property - Whether Court of Appeal erred in fact and law when it did not find that the Respondent’s pension plan created a trust relationship between the Respondent and the Applicant.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Jean‐Pierre Jolicoeur

c. (30678)

Monique Dussault (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Code civil (Interprétation) - Enrichissement injustifié - Don par un conjoint de fait à l’autre conjoint durant l’union - Rupture subséquente de l’union de fait - Code civil du Québec, L.Q. 1991, ch.64, art. 1493 et ss; art. 1806 et ss - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en utilisant une approche restrictive des conditions d’application de l’enrichissement injustifié? - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle utilisé à tort une méthode de qualification du don qui en fait un acte juridique de donation, excluant ainsi tout recours pour enrichissement injustifié dans les cas de contributions en capital entre conjoints de fait?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

FEBRUARY 17, 2005 / LE 17 FÉVRIER 2005

30448                    Aerotech Herman Nelson Inc., Paul R. Sigurdson v. Kellog Brown & Root Inc. (Man.) (Civil) (By Leave)

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

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba, Number AI03‐30‐05461, dated May 4, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Manitoba, numéro AI03‐30‐05461, daté du 4 mai 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Contracts - Statutes - Interpretation - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of and failure to apply the International Sale of Goods Act - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Respondent was entitled to rescind the contract in question despite the Respondent’s use of the goods - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the damages based on an amount of foreign currency be converted into Canadian currency as of the date of the reasons for decision in the court of first instance.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30472                    Zoe Childs, Andrew Childs, Pauline Childs, Heather Lee Childs and Jennifer Christine Childs v. Desmond Desormeaux, Julie Zimmerman, Dwight Courrier (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

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

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C38836, dated May 19, 2004, is granted with costs to the applicants in any event of the cause.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C38836, daté du 19 mai 2004, est accordée avec dépens en faveur des demandeurs quelle que soit l'issue de l'appel.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence - Social host liability - Whether a duty of care is owed by social hosts to person injured by the negligence of an impaired driver who had consumed alcohol at hosts’ residence - Whether there are policy grounds to limit or negate such duty - Whether a social host duty of care and the resulting tort are novel - Whether the appellate court erred by substituting its findings of fact and mixed findings of fact and law for the findings of the trial judge absent a finding if palpable and overriding error.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30508                    Sa Majesté la Reine c. Richard Lavigne (Qc) (Criminelle) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Binnie et Charron

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐10‐002682‐035, daté du 15 juin 2004, est accordée.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐10‐002682‐035, dated June 15, 2004, is granted.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Détermination de la peine - Produits de la criminalité - Possibilité d’infliger une amende compensatoire en remplacement d’une ordonnance de confiscation en vertu de l’art. 462.37  du Code criminel , L.R.C. 1985, ch. C-46  - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en statuant qu’un juge pouvait considérer la capacité de payer d’un accusé lorsqu’il lui inflige une amende compensatoire? - Interprétation des art. 462.37(3)  et 734(2)  du Code criminel .

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30545                    Forum des maires de la Péninsule acadienne c. Agence canadienne de l'inspection des aliments (CF) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Binnie et Charron

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‐467‐03, 2004 CAF 263, daté du 22 juillet 2004, est  accordée avec dépens en faveur des demandeurs quelle que soit l'issue de l'appel.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐467‐03, 2004 CAF 263, dated July 22, 2004, is granted with costs to the applicants in any event of the cause.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Législation - Interprétation - Droit administratif - Recours - Compétence - Loi sur les langues officielles, L.R.C. 1985, ch.31 - Contravention par l’intimée aux parties IV et VII de la loi -Redressements ordonnés par la Cour fédérale - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en jugeant que la partie VII de la loi, et notamment son article 41, ne créent pas d’obligation ou de droit susceptibles d’être sanctionnés par les tribunaux?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30462                    Rogers Communications Incorporated v. Sandra Buschau, (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

 The applications for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA030787, dated May 18, 2004, are granted with costs to the applicants in any event of the cause.

 Les demandes d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA030787, daté du 18 mai 2004, sont accordées avec dépens en faveur des demanderesses quelle que soit l'issue de l'appel.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Pensions - Was the British Columbia Court of Appeal correct in finding that the rule in Saunders v. Vautier (1841), 4 Beav. 115, (1841), 49 E.R. 282, aff’d (1841) 41 E.R. 482 (Ch.), permits the termination of a modern pension trust without the intervention of the court - If so, does the employer have an interest in respect of the trust - What is the nature and scope of an employer’s obligation to act in good faith in the administration of a pension plan.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY (First Application)

April 25, 2002

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Loo J.)

Respondent’s application for an order requiring the Applicant to produce pension plan-related documents, granted

May 1, 2003

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Loo J.)

Respondents’ application for termination of the pension plan granted

February 20, 2004

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Newbury, Low and Thackray JJ.A.)

Petitioners given three months to make further submissions

May 18, 2004

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Newbury, Low and Thackray JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed; order terminating pension plan set aside; petition brought under Trust and Settlement Variation Act dismissed; Applicant declared without interest in trust

June 29, 2004

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Newbury, Low and Thackray, JJ.A.)

Costs of the appeal awarded to Respondents

August 10, 2004

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

PROCEDURAL HISTORY (Second Application)

April 25, 2002

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Loo J.)

Application for an order requiring the Respondent to produce pension plan-related documents, granted

May 1, 2003

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Loo J.)

Application for termination of pension plan, granted

February 20, 2004

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Newbury, Low and Thackray JJ.A.)

Saunders v. Vautier applies; employer’s consent nor required; petitioners given three months to make further submissions

May 18, 2004

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Newbury, Low and Thackray JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed; order terminating pension plan set aside; petition brought under Trust and Settlement Variation Act dismissed; Respondent declared without interest in trust

June 29, 2004

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Newbury, Low and Thackray, JJ.A.)

Costs of the appeal awarded to Respondents

August 16, 2004

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

30515                    Serge Côté c. Commission administrative des régimes de retraite et d'assurances, Procureur général du Québec (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐014056‐030, daté du 17 juin 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐014056‐030, dated June 17, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Compétence - Contrôle judiciaire - Législation - Interprétation - Dommages-intérêts - Compétence implicite d’un arbitre - Erreur commise par une commission administrative (CARRA) - Prise de retraite sur la foi de cette erreur - Loi sur le régime de retraite des employés du gouvernement et des organismes publics, L.R.Q. ch.R-10, art. 179 à 186 - Loi sur le régime de retraite des enseignants, L.R.Q. ch.R-11 - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en infirmant le jugement de la Cour supérieure et, par le fait même, en refusant d’admettre que le Tribunal d’arbitrage institué par cette loi a juridiction pour adjuger une réclamation en dommages-intérêts?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30532                     Corporation Sun Media c. Société de transport de Montréal, Publications Métropolitaines Inc. (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐013768‐031, daté du 15 juillet 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐013768‐031, dated July 15, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Charte canadienne  (civil) – Libertés publiques – Libertés de presse et d’expression – Contrat d’exclusivité conclu par la Société de transport de Montréal quant à la distribution d’un quotidien gratuit dans des stations de métro – La conclusion du contrat est-elle contraire aux art. 2 b )  de la Charte canadienne  et 3 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., ch. C-12?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30623                     Ernest William Westergard v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C33232, dated April 15, 2004, is dismissed.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C33232, daté du 15 avril 2004, est  rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non Charter)- Offences - First degree murder - Sexual assault - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in dismissing the Applicant’s appeal from conviction - Whether a dead body can be “sexually assaulted” for the purposes of s. 231(5)(b) - Whether MacPherson J.A. erroneously reversed the burden of proof by putting an onus on an accused to raise an air of reality to the proposition that the underlying offence was committed after and/or in a separate transaction as the murder for the purposes of constructive first degree murder under s. 231(5) - Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 231(5) (b)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30628                     Léo Durand c. Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec, Procureur général du Québec (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel des arrêts de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Québec), numéros  200‐09‐004803‐042 et 200‐09‐004804‐040, datés du 30 août 2004, est rejetée sans dépens.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgments of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Quebec), Numbers  200‐09‐004803‐042 and 200‐09‐004804‐040, dated August 30, 2004, is dismissed without costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Procédure civile - Exception déclinatoire - Est-ce qu’une requête visant à contester la constitutionnalité des art. 76 et 76.1 du Code de la sécurité routière, L.R.Q., ch. C-24.2, relève de la compétence du Tribunal administratif du Québec ou de la Cour supérieure? - Quelle est l’étendue de la discrétion que possède un juge pour façonner une ordonnance de sauvegarde, en l’occurrence la délivrance d’un permis de conduire pendant l’instance, qui corresponde aux besoins des parties et quels critères doivent être considérés?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

7.2.2005

Before / Devant:   DESCHAMPS J.

Motions for leave to intervene

BY / PAR:              Attorney General of Ontario

Criminal Lawyer’s Association (Ontario)

IN / DANS:            Francisco Batista Pires

v. (30151)

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

- and between -

Ronaldo Lising

v. (30240)

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

Requêtes en autorisation d'intervenir

GRANTED / ACCORDÉES

UPON APPLICATIONS by the Attorney General of Ontario and the Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario) for leave to intervene in the above appeals;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, Attorney General of Ontario, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before February 25, 2005.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario), is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before February 25, 2005.

The request to present oral argument is deferred to a date following the perfecting of the appeal.

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.

9.2.2005

Before / Devant:   DESCHAMPS J.

Motion to strike

The Corporation of the City of Surrey

v. (30696)

Canada Safeway Limited

- and between -

City of Surrey

v.

Canada Safeway Limited (B.C.)

Requête en radiation

GRANTED IN PART / ACCORDÉE EN PARTIE

UPON APPLICATION by the respondent for an order:

1.             striking out the affidavits of Mary E. Bench, John Mascarin, Harvey Haber, Bruce Noble, Q.C., John R. Basey, Q.C., Anna Kinastowski and Pierre G. Page filed in support of the application for leave to appeal and for a further order striking out the references and excerpts from these affidavits from the argument in support of the application for leave to appeal; and

2.             extending the time within which the response to the application for leave to appeal may be filed to 30 days after the disposition of this motion.

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The affidavits of Mary E. Bench, Bruce Noble, John R. Basey, Anna Kinastowski and Pierre G. Page depose to facts that are relevant to the national importance of the motion for leave to appeal.  They are, therefore, properly filed.

With regard to the affidavits of John Mascarin and Harvey Haber, they express legal opinions and are, therefore, inappropriately filed.  In view of their limited scope and given that it would not be prejudicial to the respondent, an order striking and removing the affidavits and any references to them will satisfy the ends of justice.

For these reasons, the motion is granted in part.  The affidavits of John Mascarin and Harvey Haber and the references to them shall be struck and removed from the application for leave to appeal.

The time to serve and file the respondent’s response to the application for leave to appeal is extended 30 days from the disposition of this motion.

There will be no order as to costs.

10.2.2005

Before / Devant:   THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Motion to state a constitutional question

Leroy Latty, et al.

v. (30295)

United States of America, et al. (Crim.) (Ont.)

Requête en formulation d’une question constitutionnelle

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the appellants for an order stating constitutional questions in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE FOLLOWING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ARE STATED:

1.         Do ss. 32(1) (a), 32(1) (c) and 33  of the Extradition Act , S.C. 1999, c. 18 , infringe the rights and freedoms guaranteed by s. 7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

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

1.         Les alin é as 32(1) a) et 32(1) c) et l’article 33  de la Loi sur l ’ extradition , L.C. 1999, ch. 18 , portent-ils atteinte aux droits et libertés garantis par l’art. 7  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libert é s ?

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

10.2.2005

Before / Devant:   THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Motion to state a constitutional question

Shane Tyrone Ferras

v. (30211)

United States of America, et al.  (Crim.) (Ont.)

Requête en formulation d’une question constitutionnelle

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the appellant for an order stating constitutional questions in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE FOLLOWING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ARE STATED:

1.         Do ss. 32(1) (a) and 33  of the Extradition Act , S.C. 1999, c. 18 , infringe the rights and freedoms guaranteed by s. 7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

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

3.         Do ss. 32(1) (a) and 33  of the Extradition Act , S.C. 1999, c. 18 , infringe the rights and freedoms guaranteed by s. 6  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

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

1.         L’alin é a 32(1) a) et l'article 33  de la Loi sur l ’ extradition , L.C. 1999, ch. 18 , portent-ils atteinte aux droits et libertés garantis par l’art. 7  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libert é s ?

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

3.         L’alin é a 32(1) a) et l’article 33  de la Loi sur l ’ extradition , L.C. 1999, ch. 18 , portent-ils atteinte aux droits et libertés garantis par l’article 6  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libert é s ?

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

10.2.2005

Lafferty, Harwood & Partners Ltd.,  et al.

v. (30103)

Jacques Parizeau, et al.  (Que.)

(Appeal)

11.2.2005

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (30376)

R.L.  (Ont.) (Criminal) (As of Right)

Riun Shandler and Benita Wassenaar for the Appellant

Paul Burstein for the Respondent

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

15.2.2005

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.

Jody James Gunning

v.  (30161)

Her Majesty the Queen  (B.C.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Glen Orris, Q.C.,  for the Appellant

Richard C.C. Peck, Q.C. / Paul Barclay / Gregory J. Fitch for the Respondent

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

16.2.2005

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish and Charron JJ.

Isidore Garon Ltée

c. (30171)

Syndicat du bois ouvré de la région de Québec inc. (C.S.D.)  (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Fillion et Frères (1976) inc.

c.  (30172)

Syndicat national des employés de garage du Québec inc. (C.S.D.)  (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Robert Dupont,  Suzanne Thibaudeau et Laurent Lesage pour l’appelante

Georges Marceau et Johanne Drolet pour l’intimée

Guy Dion, Jasmin Marcotte et Sébastien Gobeil / Benoit Mailloux pour l’appelante

Georges Marceau et Johanne Drolet pour l’intimée

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

                                                         SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

                                                             CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME

                                                                                                                  - 2004 -    

             10/06/04

                                                                                                          - 2005 -