Bulletins

      OF CANADA                                             DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

January 14, 2005  34 - 71                                                                   le 14 janvier 2005

CONTENTS                                                      TABLE DES MATIÈRES

W.S.

Gregory Lafontaine

Lafontaine & Associates

v. (30672)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Scott C. Hutchison

A.G. of Ontario

FILING DATE:   20.12.2004

NLK-Celpac Canada (Montreal) Inc.

Alain Létourneau

Cain, Lamarre, Casgrain, Wells

c. (30688)

Canadian Industrial Risks Insurers, et autre  (Qc)

Pierre Boivin

Kugler Kandestin

DATE DE PRODUCTION: 22.12.2004

Robert Stewart Cairns

D. Mayland McKimm, Q.C.

McKimm and Wishart

v. (30689)

Her Majesty the Queen  (B.C.)

M. Joyce DeWitt-Van Oosten

A.G. of British Columbia

FILING DATE:   22.12.2004

Claude Hernandez, et autre

Daniel Royer

Labelle, Boudrault, Côté et Associés

c. (30640)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qc)

Chantal Grégoire

P.G. du Québec

DATE DE PRODUCTION:   23.12.2004

Telus Communications Inc.

John F. Rook, Q.C.

Bennett, Jones

v. (30698)

Delta Cable Communications Ltd., on behalf of itself and Coast Cable Communications Ltd., et al. (F.C.)

C.C. Johnston, Q.C.

Johnston & Buchan

FILING DATE:   23.12.2004

George Maniatakos

Simon Lahaie

Pepper et Associés

c. (30691)

Paul Morin, et autre (Qc)

Pierre R. Sicotte

Tremblay, Brosseau, Fleury, Savoie

DATE DE PRODUCTION:   23.12.2004

Eli Lilly and Company

Anthony G. Creber

Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson

v. (30693)              

Apotex Inc.  (F.C.)

Harry Radomski

Goodmans

FILING DATE:   24.12.2004

Her Majesty the Queen

John H. Sims, Q.C.

A.G. of Canada

v. (30695)

Imperial Oil Limited (F.C.)

Al Meghji

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt

FILING DATE:   29.12.2004

The Corporation of the City of Surrey

Craig MacFarlane

Legal Services Division

v. (30696)

Canada Safeway Limited (B.C.)

Robert V. Wickett

MacKenzie Fujisawa

- and between -

City of Surrey

v. (30696)

Canada Safeway Limited

Robert V. Wickett

MacKenzie Fujisawa

FILING DATE:   29.12.2004

The Diocese of Toronto Camps, (Anglican Church of Canada)

Yvonne J. Hamlin

Borden, Ladner, Gervais

v. (30697)

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (Ont.)

Chris Schulze

Davis, Webb, Schulze & Moon

FILING DATE:   29.12.2004

Leon Grinshpun

Leon Grinshpun

v. (30700)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

W.J. Scott Bell

A.G. of British Columbia

FILING DATE:   29.12.2004

Kristoffer Wang

Sergio Grillone

Will Barristers

v. (30584)

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Ont.)

Elisa A. Scali

Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson

FILING DATE:   30.12.2004

Adela Turczinski, in her personal capacity and as executor for the estate of Maria Domicela Turczinski

J. Gardner Hodder

Polten & Hodder

v. (30701)

Dupont Heating & Air Conditionning Limited (Ont.)

John M. Burnes

Brown & Burnes

FILING DATE: 30.12.2004

Anahit Cilinger

Michel Savonitto

Marchand, Melançon, Forget

c. (30703)

Procureur général du Québec, et autres  (Qc)

Robert Monette

Bernard, Roy & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION:   31.12.2004

Conquest Vacations Company

Christopher Ashby

v. (30704)

T-Comm/A Travel Communication Association Inc.  (Ont.)

Timothy J. Law

Heifetz, Crozier, Law

FILING DATE:   04.01.2005

Gabor L. Zsoldos

Gabor Zsoldos

v. (30705)

Ontario Association of Architects, et al.  (Ont.)

P. John Brunner

Brunner and Lundy

FILING DATE:   05.01.2005

JANUARY 10, 2005 / LE 10 JANVIER 2005

                                                CORAM:  Chief Justice McLachlin and Binnie and Charron JJ.

La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Binnie et Charron

M.W.F.

v. (30575)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law (Non Charter) - Young offenders - Right to counsel - Waiver - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to apply the decision of this court in R. v. Prosper - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law misinterpreting the provisions of section 56  of the Young Offenders Act  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in misinterpreting section 11  of the Young Offenders Act  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by misapplying and misinterpreting the law in finding that the inculpatory statement made by the Applicant, to a police officer, was admissible as evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by misapplying and misinterpreting the law with respect to the waiver given by the Applicant - R.  v. Prosper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236 - Young Offenders Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. Y-1 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Canutilities Holdings Ltd.

v. (30492)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Dividends - Capital gains - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in determining what constitutes a “series of transactions or events” for the purposes of the Income Tax Act  and specifically subsection 55(2) of the Act - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that pre-ordination is the sole and proper test in determining what constitutes a “series of transactions or events” at common law - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that tax planning and the achievement of tax avoidance is a sufficient nexus or connection to cause independent transactions carried out for their own bona fide commercial purposes to constitute a “series of transactions or events” at common law - Income Tax Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp .), s. 55(2)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario

v. (30521)

Granite Power Corporation (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Civil procedure - Motion to strike - Torts - Misfeasance in public office - Private utility company bringing action against Crown after electricity market opened to competition - Court of Appeal allowing  action to continue in respect of claim for misfeasance in public office only - Whether claim for misfeasance in public office should be struck out - Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, Rule 21.01(1)(b).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Synchronics and Ian Brown

v. (30612)

Synchronics, Incorporated (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  (civil) - Procedural law - Federal Court Rules - Personal Applicant attempting to represent Applicant company - Can a court lawfully use minor procedural rules to defeat statutory protections and fundamental principles ofjustice?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                      Marc-André Bouliane

                                                                                                c. (30401)

                              Procureur général du Québec et le ministre de la Sécurité publique du Québec (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif — Tribunaux — Appel — Contrôle judiciaire — Norme de retenue judiciaire — Crainte raisonnable de partialité — Équité procédurale — Enquête sur la conduite d’un coroner — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en statuant qu’elle n’est pas tenue à la règle usuelle de retenue judiciaire lorsqu’elle examine une conclusion en matière de partialité d’un décideur? — Art. 14 de la Loi sur la recherche des causes et circonstances des décès, L.R.Q. ch. R-0.2 — L’enquête tenue en vertu de l’art. 14 comporte‐t‐elle un caractère décisionnel demandant une application plus rigoureuse des règles d’équité procédurale quant à la divulgation de la preuve et au rôle du procureur désigné pour assister le juge enquêteur?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

CORAM:  Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

Les juges Major, Fish et Abella

Amherst Crane Rentals Limited

v. (30507)

Arlene Clare Perring, personally and as a Trustee of the estate of Ashley Perring, Deceased (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

 Commercial law – Creditor and debtor – Property law – Estates – Executors and administrators –  Statutes – Interpretation – Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs) – Designation of beneficiary – Deceased having designated spouse as beneficiary of RRSP’s – Spouse receiving proceeds from plan administrator – Spouse also named as executrix in will – Executrix filing voluntary assignment in bankruptcy in respect of estate – Executrix treating RRSP proceeds as falling outside estate and refusing to pay proceeds to trustee in bankruptcy – Estate creditor making claim against estate for indebtedness of deceased’s liability as director of contractor under the Construction Lien Act – Estate creditor seeking order that estate trustee holding proceeds of RRSPs in trust for them – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding proceeds of RRSP’s not assets of deceased’s estate and exempt from claims of creditors where beneficiary designated – Whether Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s. 53 of Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S-26 (“SLRA”) as operating as exception to s. 2(1) Estates Administration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-22 (“ESA”), and shielding RRSP proceeds from claims of estate creditors directly against executors – Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S-26, s. 53 – Estates Administration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-22, s. 2(1).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Rogers Communications Incorporated

v. (30462)

Sandra Buschau, Sharon M. Parent, Albert Poy, David Allen, Eileen Anderson, Christine Ash,

Frederick Scott Atkinson, Jaspal Badyal, Mary Balfry, Carolyn Louise Barry, Raj Bhamber,

Evelyn Bishop, Deborah Louise Bissonnette, George Boshko, Colleen Burke, Brian Carroll,

Lynn Cassidy, Florence K. Colbeck, Peter Colistro, Ernest A. Cottle, Ken Dann, Donna De Freitas,

Terry Dewell, Katrin Dolemeyer, Elizabeth Engel, Karen Engleson, George Fierheller, Joan Fisher,

Gwen Ford, Don R. Fraser, Mabel Garwood, Cheryl Gervais, Rose Gibb, Roger Gilodo, Murray

Gjernes, Daphne Goode, Karen L. Gould, Peter James Hadikin, Marian Heibloem‐Reeves, Thomas

Hobley, John Iannantuoni, Vincent A. Iannantuoni, Ron Inglis, Mehroon Janmohamed, Michael J.

Jervis, Marlyn Kellner, Karen Kilba, Douglas James Kilgour, Yoshinori Koga, Martin Kosuljandic,

Ursula M. Kreiger, Wing Lee, Robert Leslie, Thomas A. Lewthwaite, Holly LEGO indicia, David

Liddell, Rita Lim, Betty C. Lloyd, Rob Lowrie, Che‐Chung Ma, Jennifer MacDonald, Robert John

MacLeod, Sherry M. Madden, Tom Makortoff, Fatima Manji, Edward B. Mason, Glenn A.

McFarlane, Onagh Metcalfe, Dorothy Mitchell, Shirley C.T. Mui, William Neal, Katherine Sheila

Nimmo, Gloria Paiement, Lynda Pasacreta, Barbara Peake, Vera Piccini, Inez Pinkerton, Dave

Podworny, Doug Pontifex, Victoria Prochaska, Frank Radelja, Gale Rauk, Ruth Roberts, Ann Louise

Rodgers, Clifford James Roe, Pamela Mamon Roe, Delores Rose, Sabrina Roza‐Pereira, Sandra

Rybchinsky, Kenneth T. Salmond, Marie Schneider, Alexander C. Scott, Inderjeet Sharma, Hugh

Donald Shiel, Michael Shirley, George Allen Short, Glenda Simoncioni, Norm Smallwood, Gilles A.

St. Dennis, Geri Stephen, Grace Isobel Stone, Mari Tsang, Carmen Tuvera, Sheera Waisman,

Margaret Watson, Gertrude Westlake, Robert E. White, Patricia Jane Whitehead, Aileen Wilson,

Elaine Wirtz, Joe Wuychuk, Zlatka Young and National Trust Company

- and between -

National Trust Company

v. (30462)

Sandra Buschau, Sharon M. Parent, Albert Poy, David Allen, Eileen Anderson, Christine Ash,

Frederick Scott Atkinson, Jaspal Badyal, Mary Balfry, Carolyn Louise Barry, Raj Bhamber,

Evelyn Bishop, Deborah Louise Bissonnette, George Boshko, Colleen Burke, Brian Carroll,

Lynn Cassidy, Florence K. Colbeck, Peter Colistro, Ernest A. Cottle, Ken Dann, Donna De Freitas,

Terry Dewell, Katrin Dolemeyer, Elizabeth Engel, Karen Engleson, George Fierheller, Joan Fisher,

Gwen Ford, Don R. Fraser, Mabel Garwood, Cheryl Gervais, Rose Gibb, Roger Gilodo, Murray

Gjernes, Daphne Goode, Karen L. Gould, Peter James Hadikin, Marian Heibloem‐Reeves, Thomas

Hobley, John Iannantuoni, Vincent A. Iannantuoni, Ron Inglis, Mehroon Janmohamed, Michael J.

Jervis, Marlyn Kellner, Karen Kilba, Douglas James Kilgour, Yoshinori Koga, Martin Kosuljandic,

Ursula M. Kreiger, Wing Lee, Robert Leslie, Thomas A. Lewthwaite, Holly LEGO indicia, David

Liddell, Rita Lim, Betty C. Lloyd, Rob Lowrie, Che‐Chung Ma, Jennifer MacDonald, Robert John

MacLeod, Sherry M. Madden, Tom Makortoff, Fatima Manji, Edward B. Mason, Glenn A.

McFarlane, Onagh Metcalfe, Dorothy Mitchell, Shirley C.T. Mui, William Neal, Katherine Sheila

Nimmo, Gloria Paiement, Lynda Pasacreta, Barbara Peake, Vera Piccini, Inez Pinkerton, Dave

Podworny, Doug Pontifex, Victoria Prochaska, Frank Radelja, Gale Rauk, Ruth Roberts, Ann Louise

Rodgers, Clifford James Roe, Pamela Mamon Roe, Delores Rose, Sabrina Roza‐Pereira, Sandra

Rybchinsky, Kenneth T. Salmond, Marie Schneider, Alexander C. Scott, Inderjeet Sharma, Hugh

Donald Shiel, Michael Shirley, George Allen Short, Glenda Simoncioni, Norm Smallwood, Gilles A.

St. Dennis, Geri Stephen, Grace Isobel Stone, Mari Tsang, Carmen Tuvera, Sheera Waisman,

Margaret Watson, Gertrude Westlake, Robert E. White, Patricia Jane Whitehead, Aileen Wilson,

Elaine Wirtz, Joe Wuychuk, Zlatka Young and Rogers Communications Incorporated (B.C.)

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 trust2

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

Bank of Montreal

v. (30527)

Deborah Jean Collum (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Guaranty - Suretyship - Banks - Banking operations - Disclosure - Spousal guarantee for line of credit for husband’s fir - Duty on part of lending institution to disclose - Does a creditor have a positive duty to disclose information to a proposed spousal guarantor in advance of the contract of guarantee? - Is the Court of Appeal’s formulation of that duty too broad? -  Is it consistent with previous authority? - What effect does the existence of independent legal advice have on the enforceability of a spousal guarantee? -  Did the Court of Appeal improperly disregard the fact of independent legal advice in determining whether the creditor’s duty to disclose had been satisfied? - Are the decisions of the House of Lords in Barclays Bank v. O’Brien, [1993] 4 All E.R. 417, and Barclays Bank plc v. Coleman, [2001] 4 All E.R. 449, the law in Canada? - Did the Court of Appeal properly interpret and apply the principles set out in those decisions?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Andrea Lori Torchia

v. (30577)

Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Company of Canada (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Insurance - Exclusions - Arson -  Applicant’s husband convicted of arson after her property was destroyed by fire - Applicant’s action for indemnity under her insurance policy dismissed - Whether courts below erred in holding that exclusion clause was not ambiguous - Whether courts below erred in failing to apply contra proferentum rule of contract interpretation - Whether courts below failed to apply modern approach to insurance contract interpretation.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:  Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

Nicole Mackenzie

c. (30359)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.) (N.-É.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Charte canadienne  (criminel), art. 15, 16, 19, 24 - Droit criminel - Infractions  –  Infraction punissable par voie de déclaration sommaire de culpabilité - Procédure préalable au procès - Langue du procès -  Droit de l’accusé d’obtenir un  procès dans sa langue  –  Obligation  du  juge d’informer l’accusé - Réparation – Code criminel,  L.R.C. 1985, ch. C-46, art. 530 (3) , 686  - Motor   Vehicle   Act,  R.S.N.S.1989, c.293 - Summary Proceedings Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 450 – Provincial Court Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c.238. - Accusée non informée de  son  droit  par le  juge  lors de sa comparution sans procureur en Cour provinciale –  Arrêt des procédures décrété  par  la  Cour  supérieure –  Nouveau  procès ordonné par la Cour d’appel - La Cour d’appel  a-t-elle commis  une erreur de droit dans son analyse de l’opportunité de  recourir à l’arrêt  des  procédures  en  l’espèce? 

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

Le 5 juin 2002

Cour provinciale

Comparution de la demanderesse, en tant qu’accusée, pour une infraction au Motor Vehicle Act (avoir dépassé la limite de vitesse permise)

Le 10 avril 2003

Cour supérieure (N.S. Supreme Court)

(Le juge Edwards)

Appel accueilli; arrêt des procédures décrété

Le 27 janvier 2004

Cour d’appel

(Les juges Fichaud, Saunders et Chipman)

Appel accueilli; nouveau procès ordonné

Le 28 mai 2004

Cour suprême du Canada

Demandes d’autorisation d’appel et de prorogation de délai déposées

Michel Morel et Linda Rivet

c. (30586)

Société canadienne des postes (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit civil – Contrat – Nature du contrat – Contrat d’entreprise ou de service – Résiliation unilatérale – Motif de résiliation ‐ Faute – Bonne foi ‐ Dommages‐intérêts –  Charte des droits et libertés de la personne,  L.R.Q. ch. C-12, art. 4, 5, 49 - Code civil du Québec, art. 35, 2125 - Résiliation par l’intimée du contrat du demandeur à la suite d’une enquête pour fraude – Accusation et acquittement subséquents – Quel était le statut du demandeur et la décision du premier juge sur ce point était‐elle révisable par la Cour d’appel? - La Société canadienne des postes pouvait‐elle se prévaloir de l’article 2125 du Code civil du Québec? -  La Société canadienne des postes avait‐elle un motif de mettre fin à son contrat avec le demandeur? -  Les droits fondamentaux du demandeur ont‐ils été bafoués?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

Mehrdad Golzarian

c. (30618)

Le Procureur général du Québec et Sûreté du Québec (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Appel - Action personnelle du demandeur intentée devant le Tribunal des droits de la personne du Québec déclarée irrecevable - Requête pour permission d’appel rejetée - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en se basant sur la décision du Tribunal des droits de la personne, alors qu’il avait erré quant à l’application de l’art. 77 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., ch. C-12? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en refusant de considérer et d’appliquer l’art. 2895 du Code civil du Québec, L.Q. 1991, ch. 64? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en se basant sur les jugements rendus le 19 mars 2003 et en février 2002? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en écartant de façon prématurée le présent dossier et en concluant que le litige entre les parties relève des relations de travail?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

Frank Comeau and Memramcook Valley Take‐Out Ltd.

v. (30639)

Daniel G. Pole and Brewer MacPherson Quinn

- and between -

Frank Comeau

v. (30639)

Kenneth Martin (N.B.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Libel and slander - Professional negligence - Statements made in the course of judicial proceedings - Whether the Applicants were denied a fair trail because of bias on the part of the learned trial judge? - Whether the Applicants were denied a fair trial because of excessive interventions on the part of the learned trial judge? - Whether the Applicants were denied a fair trial because of witness tampering on the part of counsel for the Respondents, or by reason of unfair actions on the part of the Law Society of New Brunswick? - Whether the learned trial judge erred in his appreciation of the evidence?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Guy Lavoie

c. (30583)

Bon L Canada Inc.  (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Droit du travail - Contrôle judiciaire - Employeur et employé - Indemnisation - Congédiement - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que le cumul des indemnités donnait lieu à une décision manifestement déraisonnable? -  La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré de façon manifeste dans son application de la norme d’intervention? -  La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en décidant qu’il n’y avait pas chose jugée dans cette cause? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que la perte d’emploi implique automatiquement la cessation du bénéfice des avantages sociaux tributaires du lien d’emploi? - Article 128 de la Loi sur les normes du travail, L.R.Q., ch. N-1.1.

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

JANUARY 13, 2005 / LE 13 JANVIER 2005

30405                    Jonathan H. Marler v. Andre Boudreau (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

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

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C38201, dated April 19, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C38201, daté du 19 avril 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Civil procedure - Counsel of choice - Evidence - Appeal - Disqualification of counsel - Right to self-representation - Proof of fraudulent conveyance or unlawful preference- Whether a decision that the question of whether a competent civil litigant can be self-represented is a matter of judicial discretion and not an absolute right is in conflict with established jurisprudence and a constitutional right - Whether Courts below ignored established precedent on the proof  required to establish fraud and in particular a fraudulent conveyance or preference - Whether Court of Appeal misinterpreted jurisprudence and whether upholding the trial decision to disqualify  counsel will lower standard for disqualification of counsel - Whether courts below bolstered their decisions by a multiplicity of legal and factual errors. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30455                    Iris Plamondon, Gladys Wacowich v. Russel Czaban (Alta.) (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 Alberta (Edmonton), Number 0203‐0277‐AC, dated May 11, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Alberta (Edmonton), numéro 0203‐0277‐AC, daté du 11 mai 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  -  Civil - Civil rights - Property law - Estates - Jointly held assets - Survivorship - When does the death of a joint holder of title lead to the subject property being held on a constructive trust for the estate of the deceased - Whether the rule of advancement is limited to fathers passing property to children - Whether supporting the finding that there is a gift to the surviving child by using the rule of advancement offends equality under the Charter?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30465                     Sharon Ann Mariani v. John Adrian Lemstra, Anne Lemstra (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

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

 The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C39746, dated May 12, 2004, is dismissed with costs.  The application for leave to cross‐appeal is dismissed with costs.

 La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C39746, daté du 12 mai 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.  La demande d’autorisation d’appel incident est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Real property - Agreement of Purchase and Sale - Remedies - Torts - Negligent misrepresentation - Purchaser discovering latent defects in construction of home rendering it dangerous to occupy - Relationship between the minimum standards for safe construction set out in Building Code legislation and the “dangerous defects” threshold in Winnipeg Condominium Corporation No. 36 v. Bird Construction Co. - Whether builders that fail to meet Building Code standards may use “dangerous defects” threshold to shield themselves from liability for costs of repairing Building Code defects - If dangerous defects in a dwelling cause damage to other elements of the structure, should a builder’s liability be limited to the cost of repairing only the dangerous defects or extend to cover the costs of repairing the damaged elements that are related or causally connected to the negligence of the builder and/or the dangerous defects?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30351                    Ville de Québec c. André Beaurivage, Roy, Métivier, Roberge Inc., en sa qualité de syndic de l’actif du débiteur André Beaurivage, Gérald Robitaille & Associés Ltée (Qc) (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 du Québec (Québec), numéro 200‐09‐004329‐030, daté du 15 mars 2004, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de l’intimée Roy, Métivier, Roberge Inc, en sa qualité de syndic de l’actif du débiteur André Beaurivage.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Quebec), Number 200‐09‐004329‐030, dated March 15, 2004, is dismissed with costs to the respondent Roy, Métivier, Robert Inc., en sa qualité de syndic de l’actif du débiteur André Beaurivage.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit municipal - Renouvellement d’un permis - Pouvoir de limiter le nombre de permis - Indemnisation - Le droit au renouvellement d’un permis et d’une licence annuelle de véhicule hippomobile est-il un droit essentiellement précaire? - Le pouvoir de la demanderesse de limiter le nombre de permis et licences prévu à sa Charte inclut-il celui de réduire ou révoquer le nombre de permis et licences existant sans indemnité?  

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30404                    Jonathan Marler v. Robert Platt AND BETWEEN 798839 Ontario Ltd. v. Robert Platt, Kaarina Malmstrom, Murrayfield Corp., Jonathan Marler, Scott & Pichelli Ltd. (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

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

 The applications for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C37583, dated April 19, 2004, are dismissed with costs.

 Les demandes d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C37583, daté du 19 avril 2004, sont rejetées avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural Law - Evidence - Fresh Evidence - Appeal - Reliance on Reasons for Judgment in separate proceedings - What are the minimum procedural and evidentiary standards required of an appellate court conducting a trial de novo on fresh evidence -  Can an appellate court rely upon findings of fact and credibility of a trial judge in a separate proceeding than the one appealed from - Under what circumstances should an appellate court hearing an appeal concerning fresh evidence decide the issue rather than sending the matter back for a new trial - What are the rules for determining whether fresh evidence should be admitted at the hearing of a civil appeal - Should fresh evidence be admitted on a civil appeal before the appellate court considers the appeal on its merits - Should respondents be afforded the opportunity to rebut or explain the fresh evidence - What is the impact on a fresh evidence application of the filing of responding material - When should the appellate court direct a new trial or make findings of fact and credibility based upon fresh evidence - Is the appellate court required to give reasons for the admission of fresh evidence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30483                    Daniel Martin Younger v. Her Majesty the Queen (Man.) (Criminal) (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 AR01‐30‐04966, dated June 29, 2004, is dismissed.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Manitoba, numéro AR01‐30‐04966, daté du 29 juin 2004, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Procedural law - Trial - Effect of jury member contravening instruction by the trial judge not to attend  the crime scene or personally investigate the case by doing both and sharing her findings with  other jurors - Whether trial judge erred by not discharging the juror who accidentally encountered the Applicant in handcuffs and shackles - Whether trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury on the issue of post-offence conduct - Whether demeanour evidence and silence in response to police questioning was wrongly admitted into evidence at the trial - Whether cold weather exposure constitutes bodily harm under section 229 (a)(ii) of the Criminal Code  - Whether trial judge misdirected the jury by instructing it that it could convict of first degree murder if it was satisfied that the Applicant intended to kill or intended to cause bodily harm with the knowledge that death was likely at some point during the kidnapping or unlawful confinement - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by failing to find reversible error in the trial judge’s instruction on reasonable doubt - Whether reversible error in the trial judge’s refusal to issue a Vetrovec warning to the jury respecting Diane Grisdale’s evidence - Whether reversible error in the trial judge’s decision to prohibit defence counsel from cross-examining Ericka Grisdale as to whether she worked as a prostitute - Whether the verdict was reasonable.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30556                    Wilfred Dwayne Johnson v. Her Majesty the Queen (N.S.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

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

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, Number CAC 173767, dated July 14, 2004, is dismissed.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Nouvelle‐Écosse, numéro CAC 173767, daté du 14 juillet 2004, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law (Non Charter) - Offences - Murder - Evidence - Sentencing - Out-of-court statements - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the statements of the deceased relating to prior incidents between the Applicant and the deceased were properly admissible at trial - whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in allowing a conviction to be sustained regarding the infant deceased where not supported by the evidence - whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in sustaining a sentence that was excessively harsh.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30485                    Jodi Edell, Cara Edell and Hayden Edell, Samantha Edell, Marek Edell and Mayson Edell by their Litigation Guardian, Jodi Edell v. Paul Sitzer in all of his capacities, Michael Sitzer, Paul Sitzer Holdings Limited, and Geraldine Sitzer Holdings Ltd. (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 C36820, dated June 3, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C36820, daté du 3 juin 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property Law - Estates - Mutual wills - Constructive trusts - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not addressing the legal issues involved in this case which are of significant national importance as a result of the evolution of laws dealing with matrimonial, dependants’ support, and trust matters - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not adopting the approach taken by decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and other decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal dealing with similar issues that are of great impact on the continuing evolution of the laws in the aforementioned areas - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in basing its decision exclusively on the findings of fact made by the trial judge.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30487                     David James Sneddon, Kirpal Singh Bains, Balbir Singh Bhate, Douglas Wallace Platt, suing on their own behalf and in a representative capacity on behalf of all persons who were members of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Pension Plan in 1980, and received a refund of pension Contributions when transferred to the Metro Transit Operating Company v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia (Minister of Finance, Corporate Relations), Superannuation Commissioner, Trustee of the Public Service Pension Plan also known as Public Service Board of Trustees, British Columbia Pension Corporation (B.C.) (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 British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA31104, dated May 26, 2004, is dismissed with costs to the respondents, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia (Minister of Finance, Corporate Relations), Superannuation Commissioner, Trustee of the Public Service Pension Plan also known as Public Service Board of Trustees .

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA31104, daté du 26 mai 2004, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimés, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia (Minister of Finance, Corporate Relations), Superannuation Commissioner, Trustee of the Public Service Pension Plan also known as Public Service Board of Trustees .

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Pensions - Termination of employment - Refund of contributions - Public transit employees being transferred to new corporation - Certain employees opting to receive refunds of their pension contributions instead of transferring their pensions - Whether s. 7 of Metro Transit Operating Company Act, S.B.C. 1979, c. 257, should be interpreted as prohibition against refund of contributions.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30518                     Yvan Duhamel c. Sa Majesté la Reine (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 500‐10‐002388‐021, daté du 23 juin 2004, est rejetée.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐10‐002388‐021, dated June 23, 2004, is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Preuve - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en décidant implicitement que la délivrance d’un mandat ADN en vertu de motifs obtenus par processus d’élimination ne viole pas le principe interdisant l’auto-incrimination? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en décidant implicitement que la délivrance d’un mandat ADN en vertu de motifs obtenus par processus d’élimination en l’absence de nécessité sert au mieux l’administration de la justice?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30450                    Estela de Araujo v. Kenneth C. Read (B.C.) (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 British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA29268, dated May 13, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA29268, daté du 13 mai 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Appeal - Trial - Jury trial - Appellate court granting an appeal from a jury verdict and ordering a new trial - What is the test for a new civil trial after a jury verdict.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30413                    Gérard Dodier c. 2436‐8094 Québec Inc., Benoît Viens (Qc) (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 du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐011222‐015, daté du 30 avril 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐011222‐015, dated April 30, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Responsabilité civile - Le jugement de première instance contient-il des erreurs qui permettaient à la Cour d’appel d’intervenir tant dans l’application du droit que dans l’appréciation de la preuve? - À qui appartient le fardeau de la preuve? - Dans une altercation, jusqu’où va la responsabilité de l’initiateur, c’est-à-dire de celui qui pose le premier geste excessif? - Quelle est la norme de comportement acceptable pour un portier d’un établissement hôtelier public?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30574                    Mario Proulx c. Christiane Alary, Jacques L. Archambault, André P. Asselin, François Beauchamp, Jean Benoît, Louis Demers, Jean‐Pierre Desmarais, Gilles Fafard, Jean‐Jacques Gagnon, Gilles Godin, Andrée Gosselin, Gabriel Kordovi, Pierre Labelle, Diane Lajeunesse, Jean‐François Ménard, Pierre Mercille, Yves Poirier, Olivier Prat, Alain Robichaud, Hélène Schampaert (Qc) (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 du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐012133‐021, daté du 10 août 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐012133‐021, dated August 10, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Contrats - Droit des compagnies - Société - Le principe du formalisme dans le contrat a-t-il pour conséquence que la convention de société ne peut être considérée comme un amendement? - L’art. 2216 C.c.Q. exige-t-il l’unanimité des associés pour amender la convention de société - Le second paragraphe de l’art. 2216 C.c.Q. n’est-il que supplétif? - Qu’en est-il de l’absence d’acceptation tacite et de ratification de la part du demandeur?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30470                    Gina Zanetti, Tina Zanetti v. Bonniehon Entreprises Ltd., Bonniehon Management Inc., Paul H. Cody, Andrew James Baillargeon (B.C.) (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 British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA031657, dated May 18, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA031657, daté du 18 mai 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law-Appeal-Judicial review- Is the failure from the Chief Justice of the Appeal Court to recuse himself a violation of principles of procedural fairness and gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias? - Is the issue of failing to apply the principles of procedural fairness  infringing upon Canadians right to fair hearings and access to justice?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30607                     D.L. c. A.L., P.M. (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

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

 La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐014498‐042, daté du 12 juillet 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

 The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐014498‐042, dated July 12, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Procédure civile - Actions - Exception déclinatoire - Droit de la famille - Garde - Aliments - Responsabilité civile - Dommages-intérêts - Requête introductive d’instance du demandeur contre les intimés pour garde d’enfants, fixation de pension alimentaire et dommages-intérêts - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en confirmant le jugement de la Cour supérieure suivant lequel il n’y a pas de fondement juridique pour poursuivre l’intimé parce qu’il n’assume pas les obligations parentales du demandeur et que les conditions ayant trait à la faute, au préjudice et au lien de causalité ne sont pas remplies envers lui?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30513                     The Neighbourhoods of Cornell Inc. v. 1440106 Ontario Inc., Samuel Lam and Peter Wong (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 C40522, dated June 8, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C40522, daté du 8 juin 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Real property - Remedies - Specific performance -  Procedural law - Motion for summary judgment - Respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing Applicant’s action for specific performance of alleged oral agreement for purchase of land granted - Court of Appeal affirming decision - Appropriate test for disregarding a party’s evidence on a summary judgment motion as “self-serving” to ensure that such motions do not become paper trials - Use courts should make of drafts of agreements proffered by one party in the course of memorializing an alleged oral agreement in determining whether essential terms of a contract have been agreed to orally - What constitutes part performance of an oral agreement for the purchase and sale of land so as to take the agreement out of the Statute of Frauds, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.19?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

4.1.2005

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Further order on motion for leave to intervene

BY / PAR:              Canadian Association for Community Living and the Ethno-Racial People with Disabilities Coalition of Ontario

IN / DANS:            David Hilewitz

v. (30125)

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (FC)

and between

Dirk de Jong

v. (30127)

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (FC)

Autre ordonnance relative à une requête en autorisation d’intervention

UPON APPLICATION by the Canadian Association for Community Living and the Ethno-Racial People with Disabilities Coalition of Ontario for leave to intervene in the above appeal and pursuant to the order of November 2, 2004;

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said intervener is granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding ten (10) minutes at the hearing of the appeal.

4.1.2005

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the application for leave

General Motors of Canada Ltd.

v. (30668)

Her Majesty the Queen (FC)

Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la demande d’autorisation d’appel

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to February 1, 2005.

4.1.2005

Before / Devant:   DESCHAMPS J.

Further order on motion for leave to intervene

BY / PAR:              Canadian Association of Journalists

IN / DANS:            Her Majesty the Queen

v. (30113)

Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, et al. (Ont.)

Autre ordonnance relative à une requête en autorisation d’intervention

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the Canadian Association of Journalists for leave to intervene in the above appeal and pursuant to the order of October 22, 2004;

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said intervener is denied permission to present oral argument at the hearing of the appeal.

5.1.2005

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum and book of authorities of the intervener Attorney General of Canada and to present 15 minutes of oral argument

Government of Saskatchewan

v. (29973)

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (Sask.)

Requête de l’intervenant le procureur général du Canada en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de ses mémoire et recueil de sources, et en vue de présenter une plaidoirie orale de 15 minutes

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to November 30, 2004.

5.1.2005

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum and book of authorities of the intervener Attorney General of British Columbia and to present 15 minutes of oral argument

Government of Saskatchewan

v. (29973)

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (Sask.)

Requête de l’intervenant le procureur général de la Colombie-Britannique en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de ses mémoire et recueil de sources, et en vue de présenter une plaidoirie orale de 15 minutes

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to December 2, 2004.

6.1.2005

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Further order on motions for leave to intervene

BY / PAR:              Congress of Aboriginal Peoples

Assembly of First Nations

Songhees Indian Band, Malahot First Nation, T’Sou-Ke First Nation, Snaw-naw-as (Nanoose) First Nation and the Beecher Bay Indian Band (collectively the “Te’mexw Nations”)

Forest Products Association of Nova Scotia

New Brunswick Forest Products Association

Union of New Brunswick Indians

IN / DANS:            Her Majesty the Queen

v. (30005)

Joshua Bernard (N.B.)

and between

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (30063)

Stephen Frederick Marshall, et al. (N.S.)

Autre ordonnance relative aux requêtes en autorisation d’intervention

UPON APPLICATIONS by the  Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the Assembly of First Nations, Songhees Indian Band, Malahot First Nation, T’Sou-Ke First Nation, Snaw-naw-as (Nanoose) First Nation and the Beecher Bay Indian Band (collectively the “Te’mexw Nations”), Forest Products Association of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick Forest Products Association and Union of New Brunswick Indians for leave to intervene in the above appeals and pursuant to the orders of November 18, 2004;

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said interveners, New Brunswick Forest Products Association and Union of New Brunswick Indians are each granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding ten (10) minutes at the hearing of the appeal in Her Majesty the Queen v. Joshua Bernard (30005).

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said intervener, Forest Products Association of Nova Scotia is granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding ten (10) minutes at the hearing of the appeal in Her Majesty the Queen v. Stephen Frederick Marshall (30063).

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said interveners, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the Assembly of First Nations and Songhees Indian Band, Malahot First Nation, T’Sou-Ke First Nation, Snaw-naw-as (Nanoose) First Nation and the Beecher Bay Indian Band (collectively the “Te’mexw Nations”) are each granted permission to present one oral argument not exceeding ten (10) minutes at the hearing of the appeals in Her Majesty the Queen v. Joshua Bernard (30005) and Her Majesty the Queen v. Stephen Frederick Marshall (30063).

6.1.2005

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Further order on motion for leave to intervene and motion to file an amended factum

BY / PAR:              Keptin John Joe Sark and Keptin Frank Nevin of the Mi’Kmaq Grand Council, the Native Council of Nova Scotia and the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council

IN / DANS:            Her Majesty the Queen

v. (30005)

Joshua Bernard (N.B.)

and between

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (30063)

Stephen Frederick Marshall, et al. (N.S.)

Autre ordonnance relative à une requête en autorisation d’intervention et requête en vue de déposer un mémoire modifié

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the interveners, Keptin John Joe Sark and Keptin Frank Nevin of the Mi’Kmaq Grand Council, the Native Council of Nova Scotia and the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council, for an order permitting the filing of an amended single 15-page factum in both above mentioned appeals and for an order permitting the said intervener to present oral argument at the hearing of these appeals.

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion of the interveners, John Joe Sark and Keptin Frank Nevin of the Mi’Kmaq Grand Council, the Native Council of Nova Scotia and the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council, for an order permitting the filing of an amended single 15-page factum in both above mentioned appeals is granted.

The said interveners are granted permission to present one oral argument not exceeding ten (10) minutes at the hearing of these appeals.

6.1.2005

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondent’s record, factum and book of authorities and to present oral argument at the hearing of the appeal

Jody James Gunning

v. (30161)

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

Requête de l’intimée en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de ses dossier, mémoire et recueil de sources, et en vue de présenter une plaidoirie orale lors de l’audition de l’appel

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to January 14, 2005.

7.1.2005

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent’s response on the cross-appeal

Heather Robertson

v. (30644)

The Thomson Corporation, et al. (Ont.)

and between

The Thomson Corporation, et al.

v. (30644)

Heather Robertson (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti à l’intimée pour déposer une réponse relativement à l’appel incident

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to January 17, 2005.

1.12.2004

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (30642)

Sean Spence (Ont.)

(As of right)

6.1.2005

Rainer Zenner

v. (30422)

Prince Edward Island College of Optometrists (P.E.I.)

11.1.2005

CORAM:               La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella et Charron

Procureur général du Canada

c. (30187)

Procureur général du Québec (Qc) (Civile) (De plein droit)

Claude Joyal et René Leblanc pour l’appelant.

Dominique Rousseau et Pierre Christian Labeau pour l’intimé.

Steven M. Barrett and Charlene Wiseman for the intervener Canadian Labour Congress.

Soumission écrite seulement pour l’intervenant Procureur général du Nouveau-Brunswick.

Written submission only for the intervener Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador.

EN DÉLIBÉRÉ / RESERVED

12.1.2005

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

David Brock Henry

v. (29952)

Her Majesty the Queen

AND

Barry Wayne Riley

v. (29953)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Criminal) (As of Right)

Gil D. McKinnon, Q.C., and Lisa Sturgess for the appellants (joint).

Alexander Budlovsky and Nikos Harris for the respondent (joint).

Kenneth J. Yule, Q.C., and Ron Reimer for the intervener Attorney General of Canada (joint).

David Lepofsky for the intervener Attorney General of Ontario (joint).

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

13.1.2005

CORAM:               Les juges Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella et Charron

Christopher Carter, et al.

c. (30060)

Louise Glegg (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Gerald R. Tremblay, c.r., Catherine Mandeville et Mélanie Dugré pour les appelants Christopher Carter et Gilles Dextradeur.

Odette Jobin-Laberge pour l’appelant Smith et Nephew Inc.

Dominic Desjarlais pour l’intimée.

EN DÉLIBÉRÉ / RESERVED

13.1.2005

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

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (29965)

Lynn Fice (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Philip Perlmutter for the appellant.

D. Edwin Boeve for the respondent.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

                                                    SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

                                                         CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME

                                                                                                                   - 2004 -    

             10/06/04