CONTENTS TABLE DES MATIÈRES
Applications for leave to appeal 607 Demandes d'autorisation d'appel
filed déposées
Applications for leave submitted - Demandes soumises à la Cour depuis la
to Court since last issue dernière parution
Oral hearing ordered - Audience ordonnée
Oral hearing on applications for - Audience sur les demandes d'autorisation
leave
Judgments on applications for 608 - 618 Jugements rendus sur les demandes
leave d'autorisation
Motions 619 - 622 Requêtes
Notices of appeal filed since last 623 Avis d'appel déposés depuis la dernière
issue parution
Notices of intervention filed since - Avis d'intervention déposés depuis la
last issue dernière parution
Notices of discontinuance filed since - Avis de désistement déposés depuis la
last issue dernière parution
Appeals heard since last issue and - Appels entendus depuis la dernière
disposition parution et résultat
Pronouncements of appeals reserved 624 Jugements rendus sur les appels en
délibéré
Headnotes of recent judgments 625 - 632 Sommaires des arrêts récents
Weekly agenda 633 Ordre du jour de la semaine
Summaries of the cases - Résumés des affaires
Cumulative Index ‐ Leave 634 - 643 Index cumulatif ‐ Autorisations
Cumulative Index ‐ Appeals 644 - 646 Index cumulatif ‐ Appels
Appeals inscribed ‐ Session - Appels inscrits ‐ Session
beginning commençant le
Notices to the Profession and - Avis aux avocats et communiqué
Press Release de presse
Deadlines: Motions before the Court 647 Délais: Requêtes devant la Cour
Deadlines: Appeals 648 Délais: Appels
Judgments reported in S.C.R. 649 Jugements publiés au R.C.S.
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FILED |
|
DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION D'APPEL DÉPOSÉES |
Attorney General for New Brunswick et al.
Bruce Judah, Q.C.
Office of the Attorney General
v. (24623)
Henry Morgentaler (N.B.)
E.J. Mockler, Q.C.
Mockler & Company
FILING DATE 21.3.1994
Robin James Goertz
Noel S. Sandomirsky
Hleck Kanuka Thuringer
v. (24622)
Janet Rita Gordon (formerly Janette Rita Goertz) (Sask.)
Neil Turcotte
Cuelenaere, Kendall, Katzman & Richards
FILING DATE 22.3.1995
Le Procureur général du Québec
Claude Bouchard
Monique Rousseau
Boucher & Gagnon
c. (24625)
Jocelyn Guimond (Crim.)(Qué.)
René E. Vallerand
Godin & Lacoursiere
DATE DE PRODUCTION 23.3.1995
Northeast Marine Services Limited
Anne S. Derrick
Buchan, Derrick & Ring
v. (24629)
Atlantic Pilotage Authority (F.C.A.)(N.S.)
John D. Murphy, Q.C.
Stewart, McKelvey Stirling, Scales
FILING DATE 24.3.1995
Association des policiers provinciaux du Québec et al.
Stéphane Lacoste
Castiglio & Associés
c. (24627)
Sûreté du Québec et al. (Qué.)
William Atkinson
McCarthy Tétrault
DATE DE PRODUCTION 24.3.1995
Donald Litchfield
Larry Barron
Barron & Company
v. (24630)
Robert Vanderkerkhove (B.C.)
D. Geoffrey Cowper
Russell & Dumoulin
FILING DATE 27.3.1995
Services Environnementaux Laidlaw (Mercier) Ltée
Richard Rusk
Stikeman, Elliott
c. (24632)
Le Procureur général du Québec (Qué.)
Charles Charbonneau
Dupré, Langis
DATE DE PRODUCTION 27.3.1995
JUDGMENTS ON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE |
|
JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION |
MARCH 30, 1995 / LE 30 MARS 1995
24478 NIKOLAUS WOLF - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Evidence - Offences - Fraud - Seizure - Whether the Applicant was denied his rights guaranteed under ss. 7 and 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in not being granted an adjournment to retain counsel - Whether the trial judge erred in law in allowing evidence to be adduced from three solicitors which was subject to solicitor-client privilege and which was incomplete and unsupported - Whether the Applicant was denied his right to establish solicitor-client privilege with respect to search warrants issued to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pursuant to section 488.1 of the Criminal Code - Whether the Attorney General failed to inform and provide full disclosure to the Applicant - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the charges of fraud and theft were supported by the evidence.
24465 GEORGE BUCHAN SIMPSON - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(B.C.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Criminal Code, s. 272(a) - Sexual assault while carrying a weapon - Trial Judge's treatment of evidence - Criminal Code, s. 686(1)(a) - Reasonableness and supportability of conviction.
24443 HAROLD CHALMERS FUNK, KIMBERLY ANN SOPINKA AND CYNTHIA SUZANNE FUNK - v. - ROYAL BANK OF CANADA (Ont.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Banks and banking operations - Loans - Interest - Appeals - Procedure - Calculation of interest - Did Respondent Bank calculate interest on loans in such a way as to contravene s. 4 of the Interest Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I‐15 - Did Court of Appeal err in its procedure on the appeal - Did Court of Appeal err in dismissing appeal.
24476 ALBERT MANLEY, ALTRIM LUMBER COMPANY LIMITED, EILEEN LEWIS, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MARTIN LEWIS AND CLEAR CUSTOMS BROKERS LIMITED - v. - SHELDON CLARFIELD - and between - SHELDON CLARFIELD, ALBERT MANLEY, ALTRIM LUMBER COMPANY AND CLEAR CUSTOMS BROKERS LIMITED - v. - EILEEN LEWIS, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MARTIN LEWIS (Ont.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Company law - Remedies - Appeal - Winding up decision - What is the scope of the exercise of equitable doctrine in winding-up cases.
24504 DUDLEY LAWS - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.
The application for extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Evidence - Applicant insisting that his wife return to their bedroom and attempting to lift her while she struggled - Complainant falling on her back - Conviction of assault - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that decisions of this Court prevented it from finding error in the fact that the trial judge did not refer to evidence of good character - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the conviction was based on a subjective assessment of the Applicant's knowledge at the time of the offence.
24510 MARIE CARRUBA TADDÉO - c. - LA VILLE DE MONTRÉAL-NORD (Qué.)
CORAM: Le Juge en chef et les juges L'Heureux-Dubé et Gonthier
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Responsabilité civile - Droit municipal - Municipalités - Négligence - Preuve - Demanderesse chutant sur un trottoir glacé situé sur le territoire de l'intimée - L'intimée a-t-elle été imprudente ou négligente en débutant son épandage de sable trois heures et demi après que le point de congélation fut atteint durant la nuit? - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle eu raison d'intervenir au motif que le juge de première instance avait imposé à l'intimée une obligation de diligence trop exigeante en regard de la jurisprudence? - Granby c. Dame Delaney [1971] C.A. 380; Garberi c. Cité de Montréal [1961] R.C.S. 408.
24428 PRINCE RUPERT GRAIN LTD. - v. - INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, SHIP AND DOCK FOREMEN, LOCAL 514 AND GRAIN WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 333 AND CANADA LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD (F.C.A.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est accordée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Labour law - Administrative law - Judicial review - Certification - Jurisdiction - Interpretation -Pragmatic and functional approach - Application of s. 33 of the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2 - International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Ship and Dock Foremen, Local 514, application for certification for a unit of foremen employed by the Applicant dismissed by the Canada Labour Relations Board - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal's finding that the Board could not certify a larger unit without the union's consent deprived the Board from holding that the smaller unit applied for was inappropriate - Whether the Board has the authority to decide that a bargaining unit relating to a single employer is inappropriate and that a multi-employer unit is the appropriate unit - Conflict with IAM, Lodge 692 et al. v. British Columbia (Industrial Relations Council) (1993), 87 B.C.L.R.(2d) 98.
24486 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - v. - NORMAN ROLLAND AUSTIN (Crim.)(B.C.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est accordée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Sentencing - Evidence - Statutes - Interpretation - Firearms - Mandatory ten year firearms prohibition for a first violent offence - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in law in its interpretation of s. 100(1.1)(a) of the Criminal Code in that it found that the trial judge had erred in finding that the words of s. 100(1.1) required the Respondent to establish that he needed a firearm to protect himself either from other people or from dangerous animals -Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in law in its interpretation of s. 100(1.1)(a) of the Criminal Code in that it held that the words of the subsection only required the Respondent to establish that there was no definite reason relating to his or to another's safety that would necessitate the making of the prohibition order?
24487 MEDITRUST PHARMACY SERVICES INC. - v. - ORDRE DES PHARMACIENS DU QUÉBEC AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR QUEBEC (Qué.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural law - Injunction - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that undertakings offered by a person residing in another province are of less value or trustworthiness than those offered by a Quebec resident, contrary to the principles of equality and comity established in Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077 and Hunt v. Lac d'Amiante, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 289 - Whether the Court of Appeal's ruling conflicts with the rulings in Morguard and Hunt in respect of interprovincial mobility - In holding that an apparent violation of a public order statute results in irreparable prejudice, without any real risk of injury, whether the Court of Appeal conflicts with established principles in respect of the appropriate criteria to be applied in respect of the issuance of an interlocutory injunction and insofar as evaluating the public interest - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interfering with the discretion of the Superior Court judge in the absence of any overriding palpable error or abuse of discretion.
24544 BRIAN BACHMAN - v. - ALLAN ROBSON GARDEN, JAMES GRANT GARDEN AND JANET IRENE MILLER, AS ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF BARBARA RUTH KENNY, DECEASED, KIRK KENNY, AN INFANT SUING BY HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN, JAMES GRANT GARDEN, MARY JANE KENNY, AN INFANT SUING BY HER LITIGATION GUARDIAN, JAMES GRANT GARDEN AND DANIEL KENNY, AN INFANT SUING BY HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN, JAMES GRANT GARDEN AND FRED HART (Sask.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Maritime law - Torts - Courts - Jurisdiction - Interpretation - Collision of two boats on Katepwa Lake, part of the inland waters of Canada with death as a result of injuries sustained - Statement of Claim issued and amended founding claim in Canada Shipping Act as well as provincial Fatal Accidents Act - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan had concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Court of Canada in fatal accident claims involving maritime law.
24453 ALEXANDER HUGH GILLIS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(N.S.)
CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Trial - Evidence - Charge to the Jury - Applicant charged and convicted of attempted murder while alleging accident - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in not finding the trial judge to be in error when he instructed the jury that there were no included offences in the charges against the Applicant - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in not finding the trial judge to be in error to allow evidence of previous character and conduct of the Applicant, when such evidence should not have been admitted.
24447 CITY OF DARTMOUTH v. THE PAY EQUITY COMMISSION and GAIL CANN, JEAN DOBSON, HEATHER ROBINSON, PAM COLE and DON MELANSON, Chairperson and Members Respectively of the Pay Equity Commission (N.S.)
CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law - Jurisdiction - Pay Equity Act - Prerogative writs - Whether Applicant required to ensure that employees of private-sector employers to whom it contracted services, who were formerly municipal employees, were paid at rates of municipal employees, notwithstanding that private-sector employers, employees and the practice of subcontracting are not covered by the Act - Whether a pay equity tribunal has an express or implied power to make orders with respect to employees in the private-sector when the services were formerly provided by public service employees - Whether the legislation that governs aspects of the master/servant relationship in the public sector carry with it an implied jurisdiction, power or right to govern contracts where the services are provided by the private sector - Whether the standard of review applied to a pay equity commission that lacks a true privative clause, that of mere or simple error, or is it patent unreasonability - Whether the Nova Scotia Pay Equity Commission committed a reviewable error going to the root of jurisdiction when it purported to make an order concerning persons and employment relations who were not subject to the Act and not employed by the Applicant; and when it purported to compel the Applicant to take certain steps with resect to these persons notwithstanding that they were not the Applicant's employees.
24442 ROLAND HOME IMPROVEMENTS LTD. and ROLAND FILZMAIER JR. v. ROYAL BANK OF CANADA (Ont.)
CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Banks and banking operations - Contract - Damages - Accounting - Creditor/debtor - Loan - Breach of bank's agreement to honour cheques - Effect of breach to destroy Applicants' business - Should Applicants have been awarded punitive and aggravated damages - Vorvis v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1085.
24444 MARGARET KABAN v. SIKHOR NATH SETT (Man.)
CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Torts - Negligence action - Evidence - Admissibility of nurses' notes and their use as evidence -Ares v. Venner, [1970] S.C.R. 608 - Expert evidence - Weight to be given to delusional evidence from emotionally upset plaintiff.
24305 CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NEW BRUNSWICK, HIS HONOUR DOUGLAS RICE and GERALD CARSON (N.B.)
CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est accordée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - Sentencing - Right to freedom of expression guaranteed pursuant to s. 2(b) of the Charter - Exclusion of the public from courtroom for sentencing of the accused ordered by the trial judge pursuant to s. 484(1) of the Criminal Code - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in its finding that section 486(1) of the Criminal Code was valid, notwithstanding its violation of section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as it was a reasonable limit which could be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in their finding that the analysis of section 486(1) of the Criminal Code made by the trial judge was acceptable.
24439 HELMUT SWANTJE v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (F.C.A.)(B.C.)
CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.
The application for an extension of time and the application for leave to appeal are granted.
La demande de prorogation de délai et la demande d'autorisation d'appel sont accordées.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Taxation - Assessment - Pension income received from Germany - Canada-Germany Tax Agreement (1981) - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in finding that the receipt of German pension did not have the effect of imposing a tax on the German pension, in contravention of the Canada-Germany Tax Agreement (1981) - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Applicant's German pension was used to calculate the amount of tax owed results in a contravention of Canada-Germany Tax Agreement (1981) - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal misapplied or neglected to apply section 3(2) of the Canada-Germany Tax Agreement Act, 1982 that provides that in the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of the said Act or the Agreement, and the provisions of any other law, the provisions of the said Act and the Agreement prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
24384 LEONARD JOSEPH HENRY v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (B.C.)
CORAM: L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Evidence - Procedural law - Severance - Admittance of fresh evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not ordering a new trial once it had permitted the introduction of fresh evidence at the bail hearing depriving the Applicant of his right to trial by jury - Once the fresh evidence was introduced at the bail hearing the Court of Appeal erred in weighing the fresh evidence and encroached upon the jury's role as the sole trier of fact - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in admitting the fresh evidence of the Crown, the complainant's affidavit, of an admitted perjurer without requiring the Crown to meet the four part test set out in Palmer and Palmer v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the common law rule in Palmer that offends against ss. 7, 11(d) and 11(f) of the Charter and is not saved by s. 1 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial judge's decision refusing severance by presuming the jury did not use the statement of the co-accused as evidence against the Applicant.
24403 EDITH JOAN NOBLE v. FIRST CITY TRUST COMPANY (Alta.)
CORAM: L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Property Law - Mines & minerals - Real property - Real rights - Land titles - Commercial law -Contracts - Petroleum and natural gas leases - Nature of interest acquired by trustee under "Gross Royalty Trust Agreement".
24404 ALLEN T. FLETCHER AND HILDA A. FLETCHER v. SCURRY-RAINBOW OIL LIMITED ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF THE OTHER GROSS ROYALTY TRUST CERTIFICATE HOLDERS IN THE HALVARD KOLSTAD GROSS ROYALTY TRUST EXCEPT THOSE WHO ARE ALSO DEFENDANTS (Alta.)
CORAM: L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Property law - Mines & minerals - Real property - Real rights - Land titles - Commercial law -Contracts - Use of evidence as to commercial context Petroleum and natural gas leases - What constitutes an "interest in land" - Nature of owner's interest, royalty interest - Use of evidence as to commercial context.
24405 DAISY MARIE BURDEN AND MARLENE MERLE BOUCHARD AS EXECUTRICES OF THE ESTATE OF CLARENCE C. GALLOWAY, DECEASED v. SCURRY-RAINBOW OIL LIMITED ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF THE OTHER GROSS ROYALTY TRUST CERTIFICATE HOLDERS IN THE FREDRICK BERTRAM FISHER NO. 2 GROSS ROYALTY TRUST EXCEPT THOSE WHO MIGHT ALSO BE DEFENDANTS (Alta.)
CORAM: L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Property Law - Mines & minerals - Real property - Real rights - Land titles - Commercial law -Contracts - Petroleum and natural gas leases - Nature of interest acquired by trustee under "Gross Royalty Trust Agreement".
24353 COMMONWEALTH INVESTORS SYNDICATE LTD. v. JOHN N. LAXTON, Q.C., BARRISTER AND SOLICITOR, PRACTISING IN PARTNERSHIP IN THE FIRM OF LAXTON, PIDGEON & COMPANY, AND THE SAID LAXTON, PIDGEON & COMPANY (B.C.)
CORAM: L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Barristers and solicitors - Contracts - Remuneration - Contingency fee agreement - Reasonableness of contract - Applicant agreeing to pay fees to the Respondent amounting to 25 per cent of its asset value on completion of litigation or settlement -What are the proper criteria to be applied in determining the reasonableness of fees charged pursuant to a contingency fee agreement, or indeed, any other written agreement between lawyer and client?
24390 EDDIE ROHAN MCDOWALL v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Ont.)
CORAM: L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Appeal - Highway Traffic Act - Plea of guilty to multiple counts of Driving While Licence Suspended, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act and other offences - Applicant sentenced to one year imprisonment and fined $6,450.00 - Applicant's appeals dismissed - Applicant alleging that counsel appearing before Court of Appeal did not place pertinent matters before the Court.
24472 SYNDICAT DE L'ENSEIGNEMENT DE LANAUDIÈRE c. COMMISSION SCOLAIRE DES CASCADES-L'ACHIGAN ET JEAN GAUVIN, SERGE BAIL ET MADELEINE BIRON (Qué.)
CORAM: Les juges L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et McLachlin
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit du travail - Arbitrage - Convention collective - Indemnisation - Dommages-intérêts - Preuve - Droit administratif - Compétence - Contrôle judiciaire - Indemnisation pour dommages moraux -Requête en évocation d'une sentence arbitrale au motif que l'arbitre aurait excédé sa compétence en accordant des dommages moraux - La Cour d'appel, à la majorité, a-t-elle commis une erreur en analysant la suffisance et la pertinence de la preuve entendue par le tribunal d'arbitrage protégé par une clause privative? - Même en l'absence de preuve quant à l'étendue exacte du préjudice subi, la Cour d'appel, à la majorité, a-t-elle commis une erreur en cassant une décision d'un tribunal d'arbitrage protégé par une clause privative et rendue à l'intérieur de sa compétence, alors que cette décision n'était pas manifestement déraisonnable? - La Cour d'appel, à la majorité a-t-elle commis une erreur en refusant d'accepter que l'octroi d'une somme d'argent, même en l'absence de preuve quant à l'étendue exacte du préjudice subi, constitue une mesure de redressement disponible à un arbitre lorsque la violation d'une convention collective est admise?
24400 STEPHEN ROSS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Crim.)(B.C.)
CORAM: L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est accueillie.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Extradition - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 6(1), 7 - Narcotics - Sentencing - Parole - Evidence - Police - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the decision of the Minister of Justice to order the surrender of the Applicant to the United States authorities pursuant to his jurisdiction under the Extradition Act does not violate the Applicant's rights under ss. 6 and 7 of the Charter. 109)
24438 LEA MICHAEL WHITLEY v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Crim.) (Ont.)
CORAM: L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est accueillie.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Extradition - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 6(1), 7 - Procedural law - Administrative law - Judicial review - Narcotics - Sentencing - Parole - Evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that surrender of the Applicant, given the mandatory minimum sentences applicable in the Requesting State, did not violate the Applicant's rights under s. 7 of the Charter - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the legal memoranda that went before the Minister of Justice was privileged - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Applicant had received a copy or was told the substance of all of the government's material that went to the Minister - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the duty of fairness owed to the Applicant was not breached by the judgments of the extradition judge and the Minister of Justice - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling that the decision to extradite instead of prosecute domestically was neither unreasonable nor a violation of the Applicant's rights under s. 6(1) of the Charter.
24430 MORGAN FRANCIS HINCHEY v. THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Nfld.)
CORAM: L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est accueillie.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Offences - Interpretation - Criminal Code, s. 121(1)(c) - Accepting "a commission, reward, advantage or benefit" - Nature of offence - What must be proved - Conduct of trial
24515 SHONA CHALKLEY v. GARY JOHN CHALKLEY (Man.)
CORAM: L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed, L'Heureux-Dubé J. dissenting.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée, le juge L'Heureux‐Dubé est dissidente.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Family law - Infants - Abduction - Application of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction - Did Court of Appeal err in finding that infant child was not entitled to remain in Canada, pursuant to the provisions of Article 13(b) of the Convention? - Should Article 13(b) of the Convention have been interpreted such that a risk of physical or psychological harm to a child only entitled that child, and not sibling, to remain in the jurisdiction - Whether by ordering the return of only one of two children, the Court of Appeal frustrated overriding purpose of the Convention to facilitate the orderly hearing of custody and access disputes in one jurisdiction - Did Court of Appeal apply the overriding principle and intention of the Convention to safeguard the best interests of children generally?
MOTIONS |
|
REQUÊTES |
27.3.1995
Before / Devant: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER
Motion for a stay of proceedings and an order expediting the hearing of the appeal
L.L.A., et al.
v. (24568)
A.B., et al. (Crim.)(Ont.) |
|
Requête en suspension des procédures et en obtention d'une ordonnance enjoignant d'accélérer l'audition de l'appel
Diane Oleskiw, for the motion.
Melvyn Green, for the respondent A.B.
|
|
|
|
Milan Rupic, for the respondent Attorney General for Ontario.
|
|
|
ORDER
Application for leave to appeal was dealt with and granted on an urgent basis, and the application for a stay was adjourned to be dealt with before me.
In March 1993, the respondent A.B. was charged with indecent assault of L.L.A. between February and December 1980. He was committed for trial in June, and a trial date was set for February 14, 1994. On February 3, 1994, the accused's counsel served subpoenas duces tecum with a view to obtaining records of the Women's Outreach Centre and the Sexual Assault Care Centre relating to the complainant. On the same day, the accused also served notices of motion with a view to requiring production before the opening of trial of these records. On the day set for trial, the trial judge, Mr. Justice Loukidelis of the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) refused to quash the subpoenas and, the next day, granted the motion for production. The trial was adjourned and the order for production stayed by the trial judge "until the appeals are heard or otherwise disposed of." At the time that order was made, the applicants had indicated their intention to appeal. They sought to appeal to the Court of Appeal, but on January 6, 1995, their appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction, as a result of our judgment in C.B.C. v. Dagenais, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835, released by this Court on December 8, 1994. A new trial date was set for the week of June 5, 1995.
The applicants thereupon sought leave to appeal to this Court, along with a stay "staying the order of Mr. Justice Loukidelis until the Application for Leave to Appeal is determined and, if leave be granted, until the disposition of the appeal before this Court or such further or other order that the said judge may deem appropriate ...."
The applicants seeking the stay do not seek an adjournment of the trial (as indeed they could not) and have undertaken to serve the Case on Appeal within 14 days of leave being granted and the factum within 21 days. Their position is that their rights to privacy will be irreparably damaged if the stay is not granted.
The accused vigorously opposes the stay, arguing that the accused has already suffered "prejudice as a consequence of the applicant's various appellate initiatives". The Crown has not filed material relating to the stay at this time.
The matter before me raises the difficult problem of accommodating three competing interests: the right to privacy and the loss of trust in the services of counsellors of crisis centres; the right to a fair trial through disclosure and full answer and defence; and society's interests in seeing offenses prosecuted, and in seeing allegations of criminal activities fully tried and, in the eventuality of a finding of guilt the adequate sentencing measures required to protect society (a fortiori where the allegation is one of dangerousness) being taken.
I have reflected upon this matter and I have come to the conclusion that the trial judge, who has jurisdiction to do so under s. 65.1 of the Supreme Court Act, is in a much better position than I or this Court could be to balance these competing interests. As a result, I am referring the matter back to him.
As the appellant has undertaken to have the factum ready in 21 days from the granting of leave, which occurred on March 17, 1995, it is ordered that the factum be in by April 4, 1995. The respondents, normally having eight weeks from the filing of the appellant's factum, will file their facta no later than June 5, 1995, and the case is set down to be heard on June 16, 1995.
|
|
ORDONNANCE
La demande d'autorisation de pourvoi a été examinée et accueillie d'urgence et la demande de suspension a été ajournée de manière à pouvoir être traitée devant moi.
En mars 1993, l'intimé A.B. a été accusé d'avoir attenté à la pudeur de L.L.A. entre février et décembre 1980. Il a été renvoyé à son procès en juin et la date du procès a été fixée au 14 février 1994. Le 3 février 1994, l'avocat de l'accusé a signifié des subpoenas duces tecum dans le but d'obtenir les dossiers du Women's Outreach Centre et du Sexual Assault Care Centre, concernant la plaignante. Le même jour, l'accusé a également signifié des avis de motion dans le but d'exiger la production de ces dossiers avant l'ouverture du procès. Le jour du procès, le juge du procès, le juge Loukidelis de la Cour de justice de l'Ontario (Division générale) a refusé d'annuler les subpoenas et a fait droit, le lendemain, à la motion de production. Le procès a été ajourné et l'ordonnance de production suspendue par le juge du procès [traduction] «jusqu'à ce que les appels soient entendus ou réglés autrement.» Au moment où l'ordonnance a été rendue, les requérants avaient exprimé leur intention d'interjeter appel. Ils ont cherché à interjeter appel devant la Cour d'appel, mais, le 6 janvier 1995, leur appel a été annulé pour cause d'absence de compétence, à la suite de l'arrêt de notre Cour Dagenais c. Société Radio‐Canada, [1994] 3 R.C.S. 835, rendu le 8 décembre 1994. Une nouvelle date de procès a été fixée à la semaine du 5 juin 1995.
Sur ce, les requérants ont demandé l'autorisation de se pourvoir devant notre Cour, ainsi que la [traduction] «suspension de l'ordonnance du juge Loukidelis jusqu'à ce que la demande d'autorisation de pourvoi ait été tranchée et, si l'autorisation est accordée, jusqu'à ce qu'on ait statué sur le pourvoi devant notre Cour ou sur toute autre ordonnance que ledit juge peut juger appropriée . . .»
Les requérants qui demandent la suspension ne demandent pas l'ajournement du procès (étant donné, en fait, qu'ils ne pourraient pas le faire) et se sont engagés à signifier le dossier d'appel dans les 14 jours de l'obtention de l'autorisation et le mémoire, dans les 21 jours.
Ils prétendent que leurs droits à la vie privée seront irrémédiablement compromis si la suspension n'est pas accordée.
L'accusé s'oppose farouchement à cette suspension en faisant valoir qu'il a déjà subi [traduction] «un préjudice par suite des différentes initiatives d'appel du requérant». Le ministère public n'a, jusqu'à maintenant, déposé aucun document relativement à la suspension.
L'affaire dont je suis saisi soulève l'épineux problème de composer avec trois droits opposés: le droit à la vie privée et la perte de confiance dans les services de conseillers dans les centres de détresse, le droit à un procès équitable grâce à la communication de la preuve et à la défense pleine et entière, et le droit de la société à l'engagement de poursuites pour les infractions commises, à la tenue de procès complets sur des allégations d'activités criminelles et, en cas de déclaration de culpabilité, au prononcé de sentences adéquates et nécessaires pour protéger la société (à plus forte raison, lorsque l'allégation en est une de dangerosité).
J'ai réfléchi à cette question et j'en suis venu à la conclusion que le juge du procès, qui a compétence pour le faire en vertu de l'art. 65.1 de la Loi sur la Cour suprême, est mieux placé que moi ou que notre Cour pour pondérer ces droits opposés. En conséquence, je lui renvoie l'affaire.
Comme l'appelant a promis que le mémoire serait prêt dans les 21 jours de l'obtention de l'autorisation, survenue le 17 mars 1995, il est ordonné que le mémoire soit déposé le 4 avril 1995, au plus tard. Les intimés, qui disposent normalement d'un délai de huit semaines à compter du dépôt du mémoire de l'appelant, devront déposer leurs mémoires le 5 juin 1995, au plus tard, et la date de l'audition de l'affaire est fixée au 16 juin 1995.
|
|
|
|
The following order is also issued:
UPON application by counsel for the appellant for an order permitting the filing of the case on appeal in the same form as the case in the Court of Appeal for Ontario and permitting the filing of a reduced number of copies of the case on appeal;
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The motions are granted.
2. The appellant may file 11 copies of the case on appeal.
28.3.1995
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent's factum
Lucien Cleghorn
v. (24248)
Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.) |
|
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l'intimée
With the consent of the parties. |
|
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to March 24, 1995.
29.3.1995
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the appellant's factum
Ontario Homebuilders' Association et al
v. (24085)
The York Region Board of Education et al. (Ont.) |
|
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l'appelante
With the consent of the parties. |
|
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to March 21, 1995.
30.3.1995
Before / Devant: McLACHLIN J.
Motion to extend the time for leave to intervene and for leave to intervene
BY/PAR: Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs
IN/DANS: Wayne Clarence Badger et al.
v. (23603)
Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.) |
|
Requête en prorogation du délai pour la demande d'autorisation et demande d'autorisation d'intervention |
|
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE The factum should be limited to 20 pages and filed no later than April 7, 1995, and oral argument be limited to 15 minutes. The Respondent is authorized to file a reply factum no later than April 24, 1995.
NOTICES OF APPEAL FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
|
AVIS D'APPEL DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
2.3.1995
The Minister of Justice of Canada
v. (24253)
Daniel Jamieson (Crim.)(Que.)
2.3.1995
Sinnadurai Paramadevan et al.
v. (24325)
Bernard Semelhago (Ont.)
23.3.1995
Brian George Stevens
v. (24626)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Man.)
24.3.1995
Stephen Edward Fitt
v. (24628)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.)
AS OF RIGHT
27.3.1995
William Wayne Dale Stillman
v. (24631)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(N.B.)
AS OF RIGHT
|
|
27.3.1995
Le Procureur général du Québec et al.
c. (24309)
2747-3174 Québec Inc. (Qué.)
27.3.1995
Centre communautaire juridique de l'Estrie
c. (24425)
Ville de Sherbrooke et al. (Qué.)
28.3.1995
Kevin Hawkins
v. (24633)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)
AS OF RIGHT
28.3.1995
John M. Tennant
v. (24339)
Her Majesty The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.)
27.3.1995
Claude Morin
v. (24634)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)
AS OF RIGHT
|
PRONOUNCEMENTS OF APPEALS RESERVED
Reasons for judgment are available |
|
JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES APPELS EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Les motifs de jugement sont disponibles |
MARCH 30, 1995 / LE 30 MARS 1995
23711 CLIFFORD CRAWFORD v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,
Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
The appeal is allowed and a new trial ordered.
Le pourvoi est accueilli et la tenue d'un nouveau procès est ordonnée.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WERE DELIVERED IN THE FOLLOWING APPEAL - LES MOTIFS DE JUGEMENT SONT DÉPOSÉS DANS L'APPEL SUIVANT:
23933 DANIEL GEORGE MACGILLIVRAY v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Alta.)
Hearing and judgment: February 23, 1995; Reasons delivered: March 30, 1995. /
Audition et jugement: 23 février 1995; Motifs déposés: 30 mars 1995.
HEADNOTES OF RECENT JUDGMENTS |
|
SOMMAIRES DE JUGEMENTS RÉCENTS |
Clifford Crawford v. Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)(23711)
Indexed as: R. v. Crawford; R. v. Creighton / Répertorié: R. c. Crawford; R. c. Creighton
Judgment rendered March 30, 1995 / Jugement rendu le 30 mars 1995
Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‐Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
Constitutional law ‐‐ Charter of Rights ‐‐ Fundamental justice ‐‐ Right to silence ‐‐ Right to make full answer and defence ‐‐ Appellant and co‐accused charged with second degree murder ‐‐ Each placing blame on other ‐‐ Appellant making no statement to police but testifying at trial ‐‐ Appellant being cross‐examined on his pre‐trial silence ‐‐ Whether appellant's right to silence infringed ‐‐ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7.
Criminal law ‐‐ Evidence ‐‐ Joint trials ‐‐ Right to pre‐trial silence ‐‐ Right to make full answer and defence ‐‐ Appellant and co‐accused charged with second degree murder ‐‐ Each placing blame on other ‐‐ Appellant making no statement to police but testifying at trial ‐‐ Appellant being cross‐examined on his pre‐trial silence ‐‐ Whether cross‐examination violating appellant's right to silence ‐‐ Whether trial judge erring in instructions to jury on use to be made of evidence that appellant had not given statement to police ‐‐ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7.
The appellant and C went out drinking at a bar one night where they met and befriended the deceased, who was impaired. The three men left the bar together, all appearing to witnesses to be drunk, and the deceased was robbed and beaten with a 2 x 4 piece of lumber. The appellant and C were charged with second degree murder. The appellant made no statement to the police. He testified at trial, 13 months after the murder, that he had never struck the deceased and denied that he had aided or abetted in the assault. C's counsel cross‐examined the appellant on the appellant's failure to make any statements to the police. C did not testify at trial. His version of the events was set out in a videotaped statement to the police on his arrest. Effectively, each accused cast the blame primarily on the other, and each relied on the defence of intoxication as negativing the intent for murder. The appellant and C were both convicted of second degree murder. The Court of Appeal, in a majority decision, upheld the convictions. This appeal is to determine (1) whether the cross‐examination of the appellant on his failure to give a statement to the police and the trial judge's failure to instruct the jury to disregard that cross‐examination violated his pre‐trial right to silence protected by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and (2) whether the trial judge erred in instructing the jury as to the use it could make of the evidence that the appellant had not given a statement to the police, in light of his constitutionally guaranteed right to remain silent.
Held: The appeal should be allowed and a new trial ordered.
Per Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‐Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci and Major JJ.: It is a corollary of the right to choose to remain silent during the pre‐trial investigation that, if exercised, this fact is not to be used against the accused at a subsequent trial on a charge arising out of the investigation and no inference is to be drawn against an accused because he or she exercised the right. The right to pre‐trial silence, however, like other Charter rights, is not absolute. Application of Charter values must take into account other interests and in particular other Charter values which may conflict with their unrestricted and literal enforcement. This approach to Charter values is especially apt in this case in that the conflicting rights are protected under the same section of the Charter.
Co‐accused persons clearly have the right to cross‐examine each other in making full answer and defence. Restrictions that apply to the Crown may not apply to restrict this right of the co‐accused. The right to make full answer and defence is not, however, absolute. When the right is asserted by accused persons in a joint trial, regard must be had for the effect of the public interest in joint trials with respect to charges arising out of a common enterprise. Although the trial judge has a discretion to order separate trials, that discretion must be exercised on the basis of principles of law which include the instruction that severance is not to be ordered unless it is established that a joint trial will work an injustice to the accused. The mere fact that a co‐accused is waging a "cut‐throat" defence is not in itself sufficient.
To resolve the competing interests at issue, a balance between the rights of the two co‐accused must be struck taking into account the interest of the state in joint trials. An accused who testifies against a co‐accused cannot rely on the right to silence to deprive the co‐accused of the right to challenge that testimony by a full attack on the former's credibility including reference to his pre‐trial silence. The co‐accused may thus dispel the evidence which implicates him emanating from his co‐accused. He cannot, however, go further and ask the trier of fact to consider the evidence of his co‐accused's silence as positive evidence of guilt on which the Crown can rely to convict. The limited use to which the evidence can be put must of course be explained to the jury with some care. The jury should be told: (1) that the co‐accused who has testified against the accused had the right to pre‐trial silence and not to have the exercise of that right used as evidence as to innocence or guilt; (2) that the accused implicated by the evidence of the co‐accused has the right to make full answer and defence including the right to attack the credibility of the co‐accused; (3) that the accused implicated by the evidence of the co‐accused had the right, therefore, to attack the credibility of the co‐accused by reference to the latter's failure to disclose the evidence to the investigating authorities; (4) that this evidence is not to be used as positive evidence on the issue of innocence or guilt to draw an inference of consciousness of guilt or otherwise; (5) that the evidence could be used as one factor in determining whether the evidence of the co‐accused is to be believed. The failure to make a statement prior to trial may reflect on the credibility of the accused or it may be due to other factors such as the effect of a caution or the advice of counsel. If the jury concluded that such failure was due to a factor that did not reflect on the credibility of the accused, then it must not be given any weight.
In this case there was nothing in the manner or form of the cross‐examination that amounted to an improper use of this evidence. The charge and re‐charge, however, contain serious misdirections. The jury were clearly invited to consider the evidence of pre‐trial silence on the issue of innocence or guilt and as consciousness of guilt. The references to the right to remain silent did not mitigate this misdirection and the re‐charge was not substantially different. The Crown has not satisfied its obligation under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code to show that if a proper direction had been given the verdict would necessarily have been the same.
Per McLachlin J.: Evidence that a co‐accused failed to give his version to the authorities should be excluded. The right to silence must mean that a suspect has the right to refuse to talk to the police and not be penalized for it. Further, since the accused has been informed by the police of the right not to speak, his exercise of it cannot logically found an inference as to his credibility when he later testifies. The same considerations govern the contention of the other accused in a joint trial, that he should be allowed to cross‐examine on the failure of his co‐accused to disclose his version to the police. Since no valid inference can be drawn from exercise of the right to silence, the evidence sought to be adduced should be excluded for lack of relevancy. Because the evidence lacks probative value, it cannot be suggested that its exclusion denies the co‐accused the right to full answer and defence. Alternatively, even if slight probative value could be found, the evidence should be excluded on the ground that it has insufficient probative value to overcome the prejudicial effect on the trial process that arises from the danger that the jury will infer not just lack of credibility but guilt. Since the law of evidence precludes the admission of prior consistent statements to bolster the credibility of an accused, admission of evidence of a co‐accused's silence leads to a further difficulty. If pre‐trial silence can lead to a negative inference as to credibility, the accused is placed in the anomalous situation of being obliged to make a prior consistent statement in order to avoid cross‐examination on his silence, but being unable to tender that evidence in support of his own credibility.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1993), 13 O.R. (3d) 130, 62 O.A.C. 91, 80 C.C.C. (3d) 421, 20 C.R. (4th) 331, 14 C.R.R. (2d) 93, upholding the appellant's conviction by White J. of second degree murder. Appeal allowed and new trial ordered.
Christopher D. Hicks, for the appellant.
C. Jane Arnup, for the respondent.
Solicitors for the appellant: Hicks, Finnestad, Toronto.
Solicitor for the respondent: C. Jane Arnup, Toronto.
Présents: Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges La Forest, L'Heureux‐Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci et Major.
Droit constitutionnel ‐‐ Charte des droits ‐‐ Justice fondamentale ‐‐ Droit de garder le silence ‐‐ Droit à une défense pleine et entière ‐‐ Appelant et un coaccusé inculpés de meurtre au deuxième degré ‐‐ Blâme rejeté l'un sur l'autre ‐‐ Aucune déclaration de l'appelant à la police, mais déposition au procès ‐‐ Contre‐interrogatoire de l'appelant relativement à son silence avant le procès ‐‐ Le droit de l'appelant de garder le silence a‐t‐il été violé? ‐‐ Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, art. 7.
Droit criminel ‐‐ Preuve ‐‐ Procès conjoints ‐‐ Droit de garder le silence avant le procès ‐‐ Droit à une défense pleine et entière ‐‐ Appelant et un coaccusé inculpés de meurtre au deuxième degré ‐‐ Blâme rejeté l'un sur l'autre ‐‐ Aucune déclaration de l'appelant à la police, mais déposition au procès ‐‐ Contre‐interrogatoire de l'appelant relativement à son silence avant le procès ‐‐ Le contre‐interrogatoire a‐t‐il porté atteinte au droit de l'appelant de garder le silence? ‐‐ Le juge du procès a‐t‐il commis une erreur dans ses directives au jury quant à l'utilisation pouvant être faire de la preuve que l'appelant n'avait fait aucune déclaration à la police? ‐‐ Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, art. 7.
Un soir, l'appelant et C sont allés prendre un verre dans un bar où ils ont rencontré la victime, dont les facultés étaient affaiblies et avec qui ils se sont liés d'amitié. Les trois hommes ont quitté le bar ensemble, apparemment tous en état d'ivresse selon des témoins, puis la victime a été volée et battue à l'aide d'un «deux‐par‐quatre». L'appelant et C ont été inculpés de meurtre au deuxième degré. L'appelant n'a fait aucune déclaration à la police. Il a témoigné au procès, 13 mois après le meurtre, qu'il n'avait jamais frappé la victime et il a nié avoir apporté son aide ou son encouragement dans l'agression. L'avocat de C a contre‐interrogé l'appelant concernant son omission de faire une déclaration aux policiers. C n'a pas témoigné au procès. Sa version des faits est donnée dans une déclaration enregistrée sur bande vidéo par la police lors de son arrestation. De fait, chacun des accusés rejette le blâme sur l'autre, et chacun invoque la défense fondée sur l'intoxication afin de repousser l'intention afférente au meurtre. L'appelant et C ont tous deux été reconnus coupables de meurtre au deuxième degré. La Cour d'appel, dans une décision majoritaire, a maintenu les déclarations de culpabilité. Le pourvoi vise à déterminer (1) si le contre‐interrogatoire de l'appelant relativement à son omission de faire une déclaration à la police et l'omission du juge du procès de donner au jury la directive de ne pas tenir compte de ce contre‐interrogatoire violaient le droit de l'appelant de garder le silence avant le procès, garanti à l'art. 7 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, et (2) si le juge du procès a commis une erreur en donnant au jury des directives quant à l'usage que celui‐ci pouvait faire de la preuve que l'appelant n'avait pas fait de déclaration à la police, vu le droit constitutionnel qu'avait ce dernier de garder le silence.
Arrêt: Le pourvoi est accueilli et la tenue d'un nouveau procès est ordonnée.
Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges La Forest, L'Heureux‐Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci et Major: Le droit de garder le silence pendant l'enquête antérieure au procès a comme corollaire que son exercice ne peut être reproché à l'accusé au procès lorsqu'une accusation est portée à l'issue de l'enquête et qu'il ne faut en tirer aucune conclusion défavorable à l'égard de l'accusé. À l'instar d'autres droits garantis par la Charte, le droit de garder le silence avant le procès n'est toutefois pas absolu. Le respect des valeurs qui sous‐tendent la Charte doit prendre en considération d'autres intérêts et, en particulier, d'autres valeurs de la Charte qui peuvent être incompatibles avec le respect intégral des premières. Cette démarche est particulièrement valable en l'espèce, les droits conflictuels étant garantis par la même disposition de la Charte.
Le droit d'un accusé de contre‐interroger un coaccusé aux fins de présenter une défense pleine et entière ne fait aucun doute. Des restrictions applicables au ministère public peuvent ne pas avoir pour effet de limiter ce droit de l'accusé. Le droit à une défense pleine et entière n'est cependant pas absolu. Lorsque des accusés font valoir ce droit dans le cadre d'un procès conjoint, il faut tenir compte de l'intérêt public afférent à la tenue de procès conjoints dans le cas d'accusations qui découlent d'une entreprise commune. Même si le juge du procès a le pouvoir discrétionnaire d'ordonner la tenue de procès distincts, il doit exercer ce pouvoir en tenant compte de principes juridiques, y compris celui voulant que la tenue de procès distincts ne soit ordonnée que s'il est établi qu'un procès conjoint causerait une injustice à l'accusé. Le seul fait qu'un coaccusé a recours à une défense «traîtresse» n'est pas suffisant en soi.
Pour régler les intérêts opposés qui sont en cause, il convient d'établir entre les droits respectifs des coaccusés un équilibre qui tienne compte de l'intérêt de l'État dans la tenue de procès conjoints. L'accusé qui, par son témoignage, incrimine un coaccusé ne peut s'appuyer sur son droit de garder le silence pour priver ce dernier du droit de contester son témoignage par une attaque systématique contre sa crédibilité, notamment en faisant état de son silence avant le procès. Ainsi, le coaccusé peut contrer la preuve incriminante qui émane de son coaccusé. Il ne peut cependant aller plus loin et demander au juge des faits de considérer le silence de son coaccusé comme une preuve positive de culpabilité sur laquelle le ministère public pourrait se fonder pour obtenir une déclaration de culpabilité. Les restrictions qui s'appliquent à l'utilisation de cette preuve doivent évidemment être expliquées au jury avec un certain soin. Voici ce qu'il faudrait dire au jury: (1) le coaccusé qui a témoigné contre l'accusé avait le droit de garder le silence avant le procès et l'exercice de ce droit ne pouvait pas être utilisé comme preuve de son innocence ou de sa culpabilité; (2) l'accusé incriminé par le témoignage du coaccusé a le droit de présenter une défense pleine et entière, y compris le droit d'attaquer la crédibilité du coaccusé; (3) l'accusé incriminé par le témoignage du coaccusé avait donc le droit d'attaquer la crédibilité du coaccusé en faisant état de l'omission de ce dernier de divulguer la preuve aux enquêteurs; (4) cette preuve ne peut être utilisée comme preuve positive quant à la question d'innocence ou de culpabilité pour conclure à l'existence de la conscience de culpabilité; (5) la preuve pourrait être utilisée comme un facteur aux fins de déterminer si le témoignage du coaccusé est crédible. L'omission de faire une déclaration avant le procès peut entacher la crédibilité de l'accusé, ou elle peut être imputée à d'autres facteurs, comme l'effet d'une mise en garde ou les conseils d'un avocat. Si le jury est d'avis que l'omission est due à un facteur qui n'entache pas la crédibilité de l'accusé, il ne doit pas en tenir compte.
En l'espèce, rien dans les modalités ou le déroulement du contre‐interrogatoire ne permet de conclure que cet élément de preuve a été utilisé de façon inappropriée. L'exposé initial et l'exposé supplémentaire renfermaient toutefois des directives gravement erronées. Le jury a été clairement invité à tenir compte de la preuve du silence gardé avant le procès pour se prononcer sur l'innocence ou la culpabilité de même qu'à le considérer comme l'indice de la conscience de culpabilité. Les mentions du droit de garder le silence n'ont pas atténué le caractère erroné de cette directive et l'exposé supplémentaire n'était pas essentiellement différent. Le ministère public ne s'est pas acquitté de son obligation, aux termes du sous‐al. 686(1)b)(iii) du Code criminel, de démontrer que si des directives appropriées avaient été données, le verdict aurait nécessairement été le même.
Le juge McLachlin: La preuve que le coaccusé a omis de donner sa version des faits aux autorités devrait être exclue. Le droit de garder le silence doit signifier qu'un suspect peut refuser de parler aux policiers sans risquer d'être pénalisé pour autant. En outre, l'accusé ayant été informé par les policiers de son droit de garder le silence, l'exercice de ce droit ne saurait logiquement fonder une conclusion concernant la crédibilité de son témoignage ultérieur. Les mêmes remarques valent à l'égard de la prétention du coaccusé, dans un procès conjoint, selon laquelle il devrait être autorisé à contre‐interroger son coaccusé concernant son omission de donner sa version des faits à la police. Comme aucune conclusion valable ne peut être tirée de l'exercice du droit de garder le silence, la preuve s'y rapportant devrait être écartée parce qu'elle n'est pas pertinente. Parce que la preuve n'a pas de valeur probante, on ne peut soutenir que son exclusion prive le coaccusé de son droit à une défense pleine et entière. Subsidiairement, même si elle avait une quelconque valeur probante, la preuve devrait être écartée pour le motif que sa valeur probante est insuffisante pour justifier l'effet préjudiciable sur le déroulement du procès qui découle du risque que le jury tire des conclusions en ce qui concerne non seulement la crédibilité, mais également la culpabilité. Puisque le droit de la preuve interdit l'utilisation de déclarations antérieures compatibles aux fins d'appuyer la crédibilité d'un accusé, l'utilisation de la preuve du silence d'un coaccusé soulève une autre difficulté. Si le fait d'avoir gardé le silence avant le procès peut justifier une conclusion défavorable au chapitre de la crédibilité, l'accusé se trouve dans la situation aberrante d'être tenu de faire une déclaration antérieure compatible pour éviter d'être contre‐interrogé relativement à son silence, tout en étant empêché de produire cette preuve à l'appui de sa propre crédibilité.
POURVOI contre un arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario (1993), 13 O.R. (3d) 130, 62 O.A.C. 91, 80 C.C.C. (3d) 421, 20 C.R. (4th) 331, 14 C.R.R. (2d) 93, qui a maintenu la déclaration de culpabilité de l'appelant pour meurtre au deuxième degré, prononcée par le juge White. Pourvoi accueilli, la tenue d'un nouveau procès est ordonnée.
Christopher D. Hicks, pour l'appelant.
C. Jane Arnup, pour l'intimée.
Procureurs de l'appelant: Hicks, Finnestad, Toronto.
Procureur de l'intimée: C. Jane Arnup, Toronto.
Daniel George MacGillivray v. Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.)(23933)
Indexed as: R. v. MacGillivray / Répertorié: R. c. MacGillivray
Hearing and judgment: February 23, 1995; Reasons delivered: March 30, 1995.
Audition et jugement: 23 février 1995; Motifs déposés: 30 mars 1995.
Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‐Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
Criminal law ‐‐ Dangerous operation of vessels ‐‐ Elements of offence -- Accused driving his boat through a known swimming area at considerable speed without seeing ahead ‐‐ Swimmer struck by boat and fatally injured ‐‐ Whether trial judge applied proper test in convicting accused ‐‐ If not, whether s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of Criminal Code applicable ‐‐ Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‐46, ss. 249(4), 686(1)(b)(iii).
On a clear summer day, the accused drove his boat at considerable speed toward a known swimming area. As he approached, a group of swimmers waved their arms and shouted to alert the accused of the dangerous situation. The bow of the boat was up at such an angle that the accused could not see in front of the boat and there was no lookout. The boat ploughed through the group of swimmers, striking and fatally injuring one of them. The accused was charged with operating a vessel in a manner dangerous to the public contrary to s. 249(4) of the Criminal Code. The trial judge considered all the evidence and the circumstances and convicted the accused. The conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Held (Lamer C.J. and Sopinka, McLachlin and Major JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be dismissed.
Per La Forest, L'Heureux‐Dubé, Gonthier, Cory and Iacobucci JJ.: The trial judge adequately described the actus reus of the offence as conduct which, viewed objectively, constituted a significant departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent person. There is no real difference between the phrase "significant departure" and the phrase "marked departure" used by this Court in Hundal when referring to the actus reus. The mens rea test adopted by the trial judge, however, required the Crown to prove advertent negligence. This subjective test places a stricter onus on the Crown than the modified objective test put forward by this Court in Hundal. The trial judge's statement at the end of his reasons that "the accused operated the boat . . . in a manner a prudent person would not" does not detract from this conclusion. When, as in this case, a trial judge sets out the legal principle and test that he intends to apply it should be assumed, in the absence of a very clear indication to the contrary, that he in fact followed that very course. Although the trial judge committed an error in law in applying a more stringent test for the mens rea, it is appropriate to apply s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code since no miscarriage of justice was occasioned by this error. Further there was strong, cogent and convincing evidence upon which the trial judge could base his conclusion that there was a significant or marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person.
Per Lamer C.J. and Sopinka, McLachlin and Major JJ. (dissenting): While, throughout his reasons, the trial judge set out a stricter test than that laid down by this Court in Hundal, there is uncertainty as to what test the trial judge in effect applied. He seems to have concluded, however, that the accused was guilty because he operated his boat "in a manner a prudent person would not". This is a much easier test for the Crown to meet than the test set out in Hundal.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (1993), 126 N.S.R. (2d) 275, 352 A.P.R. 275, dismissing the accused's appeal from his conviction on a charge of dangerous operation of a vessel contrary to s. 249(4) of the Criminal Code. Appeal dismissed, Lamer C.J. and Sopinka, McLachlin and Major JJ. dissenting.
Joel E. Pink, Q.C., for the appellant.
Robert C. Hagell and William Delaney, for the respondent.
Solicitors for the appellant: Pink Murray, Halifax.
Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General of Nova Scotia, Halifax.
Présents: Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges La Forest, L'Heureux‐Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci et Major.
Droit criminel ‐‐ Conduite dangereuse d'un bateau ‐‐ Éléments de l'infraction ‐‐ Bateau conduit à haute vitesse par l'accusé dans une zone connue de baignade, alors qu'il ne voyait pas devant ‐‐ Nageur heurté par le bateau et mortellement blessé ‐‐ Le juge du procès a‐t‐il appliqué le critère approprié pour déclarer l'accusé coupable? ‐‐ Sinon, le sous‐al. 686(1)b)(iii) du Code criminel est‐il applicable? ‐‐ Code criminel, L.R.C. (1985), ch. C‐46, art. 249(4), 686(1)b)(iii).
Par une claire journée d'été, l'accusé a conduit son bateau à haute vitesse en direction d'une zone de baignade connue. Lorsqu'il s'est dirigé vers l'endroit en question, un groupe de nageurs agitaient les bras et criaient pour sensibiliser l'accusé au danger. La proue du bateau était si élevée que l'accusé ne pouvait voir en avant du bateau et il n'y avait pas de surveillance. Le bateau s'est dirigé vers le groupe de nageurs et a heurté et mortellement blessé l'un de ceux‐ci. L'accusé a été inculpé d'avoir conduit un bateau d'une façon dangereuse pour le public en contravention du par. 249(4) du Code criminel. Le juge du procès a examiné l'ensemble de la preuve et des circonstances et déclaré l'accusé coupable. La Cour d'appel a confirmé cette décision.
Arrêt (le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Sopinka, McLachlin et Major sont dissidents): Le pourvoi est rejeté.
Les juges La Forest, L'Heureux‐Dubé, Gonthier, Cory et Iacobucci: Le juge de première instance a convenablement décrit l'actus reus de l'infraction comme une conduite qui, vue de façon objective, constituait un écart important par rapport à la norme que respecterait une personne raisonnablement prudente. Il n'y a pas de véritable différence entre l'expression «écart important» et l'expression «écart marqué» utilisée par notre Cour dans l'arrêt Hundal relativement à l'actus reus. Cependant, selon le critère de la mens rea adopté par le juge du procès, le ministère public devait établir que la négligence était consciente. Ce critère subjectif impose au ministère public une charge plus lourde que le critère objectif modifié formulé par notre Cour dans l'arrêt Hundal. L'énoncé du juge du procès à la fin de ses motifs selon lequel «l'accusé a conduit le bateau [. . .] comme ne l'aurait pas fait une personne prudente» ne va pas à l'encontre de cette conclusion. Si, comme en l'espèce, le juge du procès formule le principe de droit et la norme juridique qu'il a l'intention d'appliquer, on devrait supposer, en l'absence d'indications très claires à l'effet contraire, que c'est la voie qu'il a suivie. Bien que le juge du procès ait commis une erreur de droit en appliquant une norme plus stricte pour la mens rea, il convient d'appliquer le sous‐al. 686(1)b)(iii) du Code criminel puisqu'aucune erreur judiciaire ne s'est produite malgré cette erreur. De plus, il y avait une preuve forte et convaincante à partir de laquelle le juge du procès pouvait conclure qu'il existait en fait un écart important ou marqué par rapport à la norme de diligence qu'observerait une personne raisonnable.
Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Sopinka, McLachlin et Major (dissidents): Bien qu'il ait formulé tout au long de ses motifs un critère plus strict que celui qui avait été formulé par notre Cour dans l'arrêt Hundal, on ne sait pas exactement quel critère le juge du procès a appliqué. Cependant, il semble avoir déclaré l'accusé coupable parce qu'il avait conduit son bateau «comme ne l'aurait pas fait une personne prudente». Ce critère est, de toute évidence, beaucoup plus facile à satisfaire pour le ministère public que le critère établi dans l'arrêt Hundal.
POURVOI contre un arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Nouvelle‐Écosse (1993), 126 N.S.R. (2d) 275, 352 A.P.R. 275, qui a rejeté l'appel de l'accusé contre sa déclaration de culpabilité relative à une accusation de conduite dangereuse d'un bateau en contravention du par. 249(4) du Code criminel. Pourvoi rejeté, le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Sopinka, McLachlin et Major sont dissidents.
Joel E. Pink, c.r, pour l'appelant.
Robert C. Hagell et William Delaney, pour l'intimée.
Procureurs de l'appelant: Pink Murray, Halifax.
Procureur de l'intimée: Le procureur général de la Nouvelle‐Écosse, Halifax.
WEEKLY AGENDA |
|
ORDRE DU JOUR DE LA SEMAINE |
The next session of the Supreme Court of Canada commences on April 24, 1995.
La prochaine session de la Cour suprême du Canada débute le 24 avril 1995.
The next bulletin of proceedings will be published April 21, 1995. /
Le prochain bulletin des procédures sera publié le 21 avril 1995
This index includes applications for leave to appeal standing for judgment at the beginning of 1995 and all the applications for leave to appeal filed or heard in 1995 up to now.
Cet index comprend les requêtes en autorisation de pourvoi en délibéré au début de 1995 et toutes celles produites ou entendues en 1995 jusqu'à maintenant.
*01 Refused/Refusée
*02 Refused with costs/Refusée avec dépens
*03 Granted/Accordée
*04 Granted with costs/Accordée avec dépens
*05 Discontinuance filed/Désistement produit
*A Applications for leave to appeal filed/Requêtes en autorisation de pourvoi produites
*B Submitted to the Court/Soumises à la Cour
*C Oral Hearing/Audience
*D Reserved/En délibéré
Status/ Disposition/
CASE/AFFAIRE Statut Résultat
Page
A.M. v. Ryan (B.C.), 24612, *A 575(95)
Accurpress Manufacturing Ltd. v. Stoddard (B.C.), 23882, *A 2282(93)
Adler (Ralph) v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24341, *01 26.1.95 1770(94) 133(95)
Adler (Susie) v. The Queen (Ont.), 24347, *03 2.2.95 1844(94) 248(95)
Affeldt v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24429, *01 2.3.95 122(95) 466(95)
Allam c. Nessia Investments Ltd. (Qué.), 23168, *A 2048(92)
Allard c. Commission des valeurs mobilières (Qué.), 24483, *02
16.3.95 455(95) 551(95)
Ambrose v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24530, *B 450(95)
Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. Inc. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24562, *05 27.2.95 328(95) 475(95)
Armada Lines Ltd. v. Chaleur Fertilizers Ltd. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24351, *B 29(95)
Associated Respiratory Services Inc. v. Purchasing Commission (B.C.),
24366, *B 25(95)
Association des policiers provinciaux du Québec c. Sûreté du Québec
(Qué.), 24627 *A 607(95)
Atlantic Communication and Technical Workers' Union v. Maritime
Telegraph and Telephone Co. (N.S.), 24506, *B 534(95)
Atlific (Nfld.) Ltd. v. Hotel Buildings Ltd. (Nfld.), 24313, *02
26.1.95 1682(94) 132(95)
Attorney General for New Brunswick v. Morgentaler (N.B.), 24623, *A 607(95)
Attorney Genaeral of Canada v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Public Complaints Commission (F.C.A.)(N.B.), 24319, *02 2.2.95 1844(94) 247(95)
Augustus c. Montreal Urban Community (Qué.), 24607, *A 529(95)
B.K. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 24357, *03 2.2.95 1959(94) 256(95)
Bachman v. Garden (Sask.), 24544, *02 30.3.95 542(95) 611(95)
Baker Energy Resources Corporation v. Reading & Bates
Construction Co. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24458, *B 333(95)
Baroni v. The Queen (N.S.), 23439, *A 478(93)
Baroud v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Ont.), 24610, *A 529(95)
Barsalou v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24498, *B 371(95)
Barzelex Inc. c. Banque de Nouvelle-Écosse (Qué.), 24577, *A 369(95)
Barzelex Inc. c. Geestemünder Bank AG (Qué.), 24576, *A 369(95)
Basra v. Gill (B.C.), 24450, *B 293(95)
Bate Equipment Ltd. v. Ellis-Don Ltd. (Alta.), 24396, *B 31(95)
Battlefords and District Co-operative Ltd. v. Gibbs
(Sask.), 24342, *03 2.2.95 1775(94) 247(95)
Beals v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 24519, *B 577(95)
Bennett v. Kynock (N.S.), 24299, *01 2.2.95 1627(94) 245(95)
Bérubé c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.), 24603, *A 528(95)
Blenkin v. Regina District Health Board (Sask.), 24599, *A 528(95)
Blue v. Ontario Hydro (Ont.), 24393, *B 299(95)
Bluebird Footwear Inc. c. General Motors Acceptance Corporation
of Canada (Qué.), 24386, *A 1764(94)
Bober v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24455, *B 118(95)
Boma Manufacturing Ltd. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
(B.C.), 24520, *B 546(95)
Bouchard c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 24512, *B 449(95)
Bourbonnière c. Bureau d'expertise des assureurs Ltée
(Qué.), 24452, *02 2.3.95 241(95) 461(95)
Bouvillons Canada Ltée c. Labbé (Qué.), 24550, *B 547(95)
Brault c. Fontaine (Qué.), 23953, *A 196(94)
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers c. Picher (Qué.), 24541, *B 577(95)
Brousseau c. Stewart-Wolf (Qué.), 24407, *02 26.1.95 19(95) 129(95)
Brown v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24594, *A 500(95)
Burden v. Scurry-Rainbow Oil Ltd. (Alta.), 24405, *02 30.3.95 18(95) 615(95)
Camani v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24369, *01 16.2.95 9(95) 339(95)
Canadian Association of Fire Bomber Pilots v. Government of
Saskatchewan (Sask.), 24214, *02 2.2.95 1313(94) 254(95)
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Attorney General for New
Brunswick (N.B.), 24305, *03 30.3.95 1847(94) 613(95)
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Attorney General of the
province of Saskatchewan (Crim.)(Sask.), 23738, *02 12.1.95 1797(93) 34(95)
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24579,
*B 576(95)
Canadian National Railway Co. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24340, *02
26.1.95 1771(94) 133(95)
Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
Canadian Pacific System Federation (B.C.), 24317, *B 1683(94)
Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 24315, *02 26.1.95 1771(94) 133(95)
Casselman v. Serban (B.C.), 24613, *A 575(95)
Centre communautaire juridique de l'Estrie c. Ville de
Sherbrooke (Qué.), 24425, *03 2.3.95 243(95) 460(95)
Chaba v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24380, *01 19.1.95 1849(94) 42(95)
Chabotar c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 24563, *B 581(95)
Chalkley v. Chalkley (Man.), 24515, *01 L'Heureux-Dubé J. dissenting
30.3.95 501(95) 618(95)
Chan v. Cheung (Alta.), 24527, *B 533(95)
Charlebois v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 279 (F.C.A.),
24219, *02 12.1.95 1323(94) 37(95)
Chavali v. Ng (Ont.), 24461, *02 16.3.95 294(95) 552(95)
Chetty v. Burlingham Associates Inc. (Sask.), 24590, *A 499(95)
City of Dartmouth v. Pay Equity Commissiion (N.S.), 24447, *02
30.3.95 234(95) 612(95)
Clarke v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24583, *B 581(95)
Cloutier c. Ferland (Qué.), 24349, *02 26.1.95 1846(94) 131(95)
Codina v. The Queen (Ont.), 24597, *A 500(95)
College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick v. Kenney
(N.B.), 24488, *B 297(95)
Collier v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (B.C.), 24560, *A 328(95)
Commission des droits de la personne du Québec c. Commission
scolaire régionale Chauveau (Qué.), 24291, *02 2.2.95 1561(94) 254(95)
Commission scolaire de la Jonquière c. Syndicat du personnel
de soutien de Jonquière (Qué.), 24338, *02 26.1.95 1767(94) 128(95)
Commission scolaire Les Écores c. Syndicat de l'enseignement de
la région des Mille-Îles (Qué.), 24456, *02 9.3.95 336(95) 502(95)
Commission scolaire Jérôme Le Royer c. Syndicat des enseignantes
et des enseignants de Le Royer (Qué.), 24620, *A 575(95)
Commonwealth Investors Syndicate Ltd. v. Laxton (B.C.),
24353, *02 30.3.95 124(95) 616(95)
Compagnie de la Baie d'Hudson c. Ferland (Qué.), 24482, *02 9.3.95 377(95) 504(95)
Construction Acibec (1980) Ltée c. Résidence Marro Inc. (Qué.),
24575, *B 584(95)
Construction Amtron Inc. c. Corbeil (Qué.), 22562, *A 1783(91)
Coopers & Lybrand Ltd. v. Bruncor Leasing Inc. (N.S.),
24279, *02 19.1.95 1511(94) 40(95)
Coopers & Lybrand Ltd. v. The Queen in right of Canada (F.C.A.)(N.S.),
24329, *02 26.1.95 1955(94) 130(95)
Corporation municipale de la ville de Bécancour c. Enfoui-Bec Inc.
(Qué.), 24422, *02 16.3.95 127(95) 550(95)
Country Music Television Inc. v. Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission and MH Radio/Rawlco Partnership
(F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24477, *02 26.1.95 32(95) 130(95)
Courtcliffe Parks Ltd. v. Hamilton Wentworth Credit Union (Ont.),
24106, *02 2.2.95 1857(94) 251(95)
Couture (Jacynthe) c. Gagnon (Qué.), 24491, *02 16.3.95 456(95) 551(95)
Couture (Richard) c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 24392, *01 26.1.95 1960(94) 135(95)
Crews v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24521, *B 453(95)
Cross v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24371, *01 9.3.95 11(95) 504(95)
Crown Parking Co. v. City of Calgary (Alta.), 24377, *02 2.3.95 1850(94) 464(95)
D & B Companies of Canada Ltd. v. Director of Investigation
and Research (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24423, *02 23.2.95 1957(94) 385(95)
D.G.R. v. K.L.V. (B.C.), 24365, *B 1859(94)
D.M. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24462, *01 23.3.95 115(95) 587(95)
D'Amato v. Badger (B.C.), 24364, *03 2.3.95 14(95) 463(95)
D'Amore Construction (Windsor) Ltd. v. The Queen (Ont.),
24372, *02 23.2.95 13(95) 386(95)
David Hunt Farms Ltd. v. Minister of Agriculture (F.C.A.)(Ont.),
24281, *02 2.2.95 1511(94) 249(95)
DeCoste v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24306, *01 2.3.95 8(95) 459(95)
Desaulniers c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 24356, *01 19.1.95 1772(94) 40(95)
Devereaux v. Morrow (Ont.), 23798, *A 2068(93)
Dewald v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24363, *03 2.2.95 1774(94) 247(95)
Dick v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24059, *01 2.2.95 730(94) 245(95)
Didone c. Didone-Gagnon (Qué.), 24440, *02 23.2.95 240(95) 380(95)
Disco Gas & Oil Ltd. v. Petro-Canada Inc. (B.C.), 24379, *02
2.2.95 56(94) 251(95)
D'Onofrio v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24277, *01 2.2.95 1510(94) 253(95)
Dorscheid v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24420, *01 16.2.95 21(95) 339(95)
Dumesnil c. Dionne (Crim.)(Qué.), 24618, *A 575(95)
Dundas v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Alta.), 24591, *A 499(95)
Eakin v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24451, *01 23.3.95 116(95) 587(95)
Elgersma v. Attorney General for Ontario (Ont.), 24347, *A 1674(94)
Ellis-Don Ltd. v. Ontario Labour Relations Board (Ont.),
24243, *02 12.1.95 1324(94) 37(95)
Eneas v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24086, *B 732(94)
Ernst & Young Inc. v. B.J. Robertson & Associates Ltd. (Alta.),
24545, *B 545(95)
Ernst & Young Inc. v. Dylex Ltd. (Ont.), 24557, *A 291(95)
Ernst & Young Inc. v. Price Waterhouse Ltd. (Ont.), 24259, *03 2.2.95 1329(94) 255(95)
Exarhos c. Bank of Nova Scotia (Qué.), 24608, *A 529(95)
Falkenberg v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24493, *A 499(95)
Fecteau c. Hôpital St. François d'Assise (Qué.), 24518, *A 499(95)
Fletcher v. Scurry-Rainbow Oil Ltd. (Alta.), 24404, *02 30.3.95 17(95) 615(95)
Farshid-Ghazi v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24561, *B 582(95)
Fong v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24448, *01 23.2.95 116(95) 381(95)
Foshay v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24274, *B 530(95)
Fou du Roi Inc. c. Morin (Qué.), 24463, *02 9.3.95 337(95) 503(95)
Foulston v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24529, *B 454(95)
Fraternité des policiers de la communauté urbaine de Montréal c.
Communauté urbaine de Montréal (Qué.), 24445, *02 2.3.95 300(95) 462(95)
Funk (Harold Chalmers) v. Royal Bank of Canada (Ont.), 24443, *02
30.3.95 292(95) 608(95)
Funk (Steven Christopher) v. Labus Investments Ltd. (B.C.), 24416, *B 125(95)
G.W.M. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24394, *01 16.3.95 232(95) 550(95)
Garnett v. Attorney General of New Brunswick (N.B.), 24507, *05
3.3.95 511(95) 511(95)
Gaucher c. J. M. Asbestos Inc. (Qué.), 24441, *02 2.3.95 302(95) 462(95)
Gendron c. 2968-1467 Québec Inc. (Qué.), 24555, *B 585(95)
Gerber Scientific Instrument Co. v. Bell-Northern Research Ltd. (Ont.),
24449, *B 296(95)
Gestion Gilles Ménard Inc. c. Filion (Qué.), 24375, *B 1858(94)
Gharavy c. Institut Philippe Pinel (Qué.), 24460, *02 17.2.95 301(95) 378(95)
Gillis v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 24453, *01 30.3.95 233(95 612(95)
Goertz v. Gordon (Sask.), 24622, *A 607(95)
Greenbaum c. Public Curator of Quebec (Qué.), 24434, *02 2.3.95 126(95) 460(95)
Greenpeace Canada v. MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. (B.C.), 24437, *B 238(95)
Grenkow v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 24616, *A 575(95)
Gresham v. Ernst & Young Inc. (Sask.), 22888, *A 716(92)
Guns N'Roses Missouri Storm Inc. c. Productions Musicales
Donald K. Donald Inc. (Qué.), 24286, *02 2.2.95 1562(94) 255(95)
Guzyk v. Hare (B.C.), 24373, *02 2.3.95 1851(94) 464(95)
Gymnase Longueuil Inc. c. Construction Dupal Inc. (Qué.), 24348, *01
26.1.95 1960(94) 128(95)
H.A. c. M.T. (Qué.), 24534, *A 529(95)
Haisman v. Haisman (Alta.), 24589, *A 499(95)
Hasan v. Council of the College of Physicians and Surgeons
of New Brunswick (N.B.), 24398, *B 29(95)
Hay v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24480, *B 535(95)
Hayoun c. Compagnie T. Eaton Ltée (Qué.), 24501, *02 16.3.95 457(95) 552(95)
D.H. c. S.B. (Qué.), 24526, *B 548(95)
D.H. c. S.B. (Qué.), 24559, *B 549(95)
Henry v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24384, *01 30.3.95 1958(94) 614(95)
Hershkovitz c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 24417, *01 2.3.95 123(95) 467(95)
Hinchey v. The Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.), 24430, *03 30.3.95 298(95) 618(95)
Hinse c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 24320, *01 26.1.95 1679(94) 129(95)
Holland v. United States of America (Crim.)(Ont.), 24503, *A 370(95)
Holt v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24362, *01 12.1.95 1769(94) 33(95)
Howe v. Professional Conduct Committee (Ont.), 24275, *02 2.2.95 1333(94) 252(95)
Hunter v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24552, *B 578(95)
Jackson v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24241, *01 2.2.95 1247(94) 252(95)
Jacques c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 24012, *05 17.2.95 395(95) 395(95)
Johnson v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 24133, *01 2.2.95 1319(94) 249(95)
Jones v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23667, *03 22.12.94 1467(93) 33(95)
Kaban v. Sett (Man.), 24444, *02 30.3.95 236(95) 613(95)
Kalin v. City of Calgary (Alta.), 24418, *A 1799(94)
Kansa General Insurance Co. v. Simcoe & Erie General
Insurance Co. (B.C.), 24368, *02 2.3.95 30(95) 466(95)
Karpiel v. Pelican (Ont.), 24490, *B 295(95)
Keegstra v. The Queen (Alta.), 24296, *A 1674(94)
Kerrar c. Souyad (Qué.), 24470, *02 23.2.95 242(95) 382(95)
Kerrar c. Souyad (Qué.), 24479, *02 23.2.95 241(95) 382(95)
Kieling v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool (Sask.), 24285, *02 12.1.95 1556(94) 38(95)
Kindret v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Crim.)(Man.), 24215, *01 12.1.95 1331(94) 37(95)
Kujawa v. Milgaard (Sask.), 24382, *02 2.2.95 1855(94) 250(95)
L.L.A. v. A.B. (Ont.), 24568, *03 17.3.95 541(95) 554(95)
Laidlaw Carriers Inc. v. Ford (Ont.), 24539, *A 229(95)
Lajoie v. The Queen (Ont.), 21436, *A 975(89)
Landry c. La Reine (C.A.F.)(Qué.), 24370, *01 26.1.95 1854(94) 130(95)
Langer v. MacMillan Bloedel (B.C.), 24437, *B 238(95)
Lawrence v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24524, *A 229(95)
Laws v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24504, *01 30.3.95 371(95) 609(95)
Lawson v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24331, *01 19.1.95 1850(94) 42(95)
Lehndorff United Properties (Canada) Ltd. v. City of Edmonton
(Alta.), 24412, *B 120(95)
Lemky v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24454, *03 2.3.95 10(95) 458(95)
Leon v. United States of America (Crim.)(Ont.), 24522, *A 528(95)
Levert v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24411, *B 372(95)
Litchfield v. Vanderkerkhove (B.C.), 24630, *A 607(95)
Logozar v. Golder (Alta.), 24406, *B 125(95)
Loya v. Cooper (Ont.), 24574, *A 369(95)
Lozinski v. Agricultural Credit Corporation of Saskatchewan
(Sask.), 24326, *02 26.1.95 1681(94) 132(95)
Ludmer v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24573, *A 369(95)
Ludwig v. Crick (B.C.), 24327, *02 2.3.95 1773(94) 464(95)
Luscar Ltd. v. Pembina Resources Ltd. (Alta.), 24496, *B 455(95)
M.S. v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24431, *02 23.2.95 23(95) 383(95)
MacIsaac v. MacNeil (N.S.), 24180, *01 23.2.95 1957(94) 385(95)
Mackie v. Milgaard (Sask.), 24382, *02 2.2.95 1855(94) 250(95)
MacNeill v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.), 24231, *02
12.1.95 1322(94) 36(95)
Manley v. Clarfield (Ont.), 24476, *01 30.3.95 330(95) 609(95)
Manulife Bank of Canada v. Conlin (Ont.), 24499, *B 453(95)
Marchés Bonanza (Lachine) Inc. c. Procureur général du Québec
(Qué.), 24547, *A 536(95)
Marchés Bonanza (Lachine) Inc. c. Procureur général du Québec
(Qué.), 24548, *B 537(95)
Marinaro v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24322, *B 531(95)
McCabe v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24602, *A 528(95)
McDowall v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24390, *01 30.3.95 299(95) 616(95)
McGillivary v. Province of New Brunswick (N.B.), 24336, *02
23.3.95 1848(94) 588(95)
McLeod v. Law Society of Saskatchewan (Sask.), 24459, *B 122(95)
McMaster v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24395, *03 2.3.95 449(95) 459(95)
McMaster v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24569, *A 328(95)
McMillan v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24570, *B 543(95)
McPhillips v. British Columbia Ferry Corporation (B.C.),
24246, *02 26.1.95 1329(94) 134(95)
Meditrust Pharmacy Services Inc. c. Ordre des Pharmaciens
du Québec (Qué.), 24487, *02 30.3.95 376(95) 611(95)
Merck Frosst Canada Inc. v. Minister of National Health and
Welfare (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24260, *02 2.2.95 1318(94) 257(95)
Meubles du Québec Inspiration XIXe Ltée c. Ville de
Chicoutimi (Qué.), 24355, *02 26.1.95 1858(94) 134(95)
Michaud v. Bank of Montreal (N.B.), 24497, *B 332(95)
Minister of Justice of Canada c. Jamieson (Crim.)(Qué.), 24253, *03
2.2.95 77(94) 256(95)
Mohan v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24523, *B 536(95)
Morin v. Board of School Trustees of Regional Administration Unit No. 3
(P.E.I.), 24614, *A 575(95)
Morrissey v. Morrissey (P.E.I.), 24202, *02 12.1.95 1322(94) 36(95)
Municipalité de la paroisse de Ste-Rose-du-Nord c. Procureur
général du Québec (Qué.), 24354, *02 16.2.95 1854(94) 339(95)
NB Power Corporation v. Sivret (N.B.), 24538, *B 580(95)
Nagel v. Hunter (Alta.), 24609, *A 529(95)
Nand v. Edmonton Public School District # 7 (Alta.), 24500, *B 373(95)
National Parole Board v. Mooring (Crim.)(B.C.), 24436, *03
15.12.94 1953(94) 52(95)
Neuberger v. Connors (Ont.), 24346, *02 2.3.95 22(95) 465(95)
Newfoundland Association of Public Employees v. The Queen in
right of Newfoundland (Nfld.), 24525, *B 543(95)
Noble v. First City Trust Co. (Alta.), 24403, *02 30.3.95 16(95) 615(95)
Noftall v. The Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.), 24426, *B 118(95)
Northeast Marine Services Ltd. v. Atlantic Pilotage Authority
(F.C.A.)(N.S.), 24629, *A 607(95)
Ochapowace First Nation v. Araya (Sask.), 24571, *A 369(95)
Omar C. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24283, *05 (as of right) 27.2.95 475(95) 475(95)
Omar C. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24283, *A 575(95)
Osbourne v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24595, *A 500(95)
P.L. v. Director of Child Welfare (Nfld.), 23886, *01
2.2.95 93(93) 252(95)
P. (S.) c. R. (M.) (Qué.), 24251, *03 2.2.95 1239(4) 255(95)
Pamajewon v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24596, *A 500(95)
Paramadevan v. Semelhago (Ont.), 24325, *03 2.2.95 1682(94) 253(95)
Patenaude c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.), 24415, *02
23.2.95 302(95) 380(95)
Patrick Press Ltd. v. Pierre (B.C.), 23837, *A 2069(93)
Peckham v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24401, *01 23.2.95 1955(94) 383(95)
Pennie v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24432, *B 237(95)
Péroux c. Cité de la Santé de Laval (Qué.), 24464, *02 9.3.95 335(95) 502(95)
Peters v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 24391, *01 23.2.95 7(95) 378(95)
Petrini v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24433, *02 23.2.95 28(95) 379(95)
Pilote c. Corporation de l'Hôpital Bellechasse de Montréal
(Qué.), 24419, *02 2.3.95 25(95) 466(95)
Portree v. Woodsmill Homes Ltd. (Man.), 24289, *02 12.1.95 1557(94) 39(95)
Poznekoff v. Elasoff (B.C.), 24572, *A 369(95)
Prince Rupert Grain Ltd. v. International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union, Ship and Dock Foremen, Local
514 (F.C.A)(B.C.), 24428, *03 30.3.95 117(95) 610(95)
Procureur général du Québec c. 2747-3174 Québec Inc. (Qué.),
24309, *03 2.3.95 239(95) 461(95)
Procureur général du Québec c. Guimond (Crim.)(Qué.), 24625, *A 607(95)
R. v. Adams (Crim.)(Alta.), 24252, *C 1896(94)
R. c. Aubin (Crim.)(Qué.), 24350, *01 19.1.95 1777(94) 41(95)
R. v. Austin (Crim.)(B.C.), 24486, *03 30.3.95 231(95) 610(95)
R. v. Calder Crim.)((Ont.), 24323, *01 23.2.95 7(95) 381(95)
R. c. Chevrier (Qué.), 23126, *A 2510(92)
R. v. Finley (Crim.)(Alta.), 24587, *A 499(95)
R. v. Fisher (Crim.)(Ont.), 24102, *01 2.2.95 875(94) 245(95)
R. c. Gauthier (Crim.)(Qué.), 24234, *01 2.3.95 15(95) 467(95)
R. v. L.T.C. (Crim.)(Nfld.), 24502, *B 533(95)
R. v. Lambert (Crim.)(Nfld.), 24378, *01 23.2.95 12(95) 385(95)
R. v. Lima-Fernandez (Crim.)(Ont.), 24466, *05 16.3.95 559(95) 559(95)
R. c. Laporte (Crim.)(Qué.), 24551, *B 531(95)
R. v. MacLeod (Crim.)(N.B.), 24397, *01 9.3.95 12(95) 505(95)
R. v. Marrie (Crim)(Nfld.), 24471, *B 119(95)
R. v. Marwin G. (Crim.)(Ont.), 24484, *01 23.3.95 292(95) 587(95)
R. v. Nikolovski (Crim.)(Ont.), 24360, *B 544(95)
R. v. Peterson (Crim.)(B.C.), 24421, *01 23.2.95 20(95) 379(95)
R. v. R.A.M. (Crim.)(Man.), 24475, *B 535(95)
R. c. Richard (Crim.)(N.-B.), 24582, *A 448(95)
R. v. Robinson (Crim.)(B.C.), 24302, *03 2.3.95 1953(94) 458(95)
R. c. Simard (Crim.)(Qué.), 24408, *01 2.3.95 15(95) 465(95)
R. v. Sylliboy (Crim.)(N.S.), 21929, *A 1015(90)
R. v. Tricker (Crim.)(Ont.), 24592, *A 499(95)
R. in right of the province of British Columbia v. National
Bank of Canada (B.C.), 24509, *B 373(95)
R.L. c. J.M. (Qué.), 24537, *02 9.3.95 338(95) 503(95)
Radassao v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24615, *A 575(95)
Raîche c. Giard (Qué.), 24467, *02 9.3.95 337(95) 502(95)
Ratelle c. La Reine (Qué.), 24333, *02 26.1.95 1769(94) 128(95)
Reed v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24332, *01 2.3.95 27(95) 459(95)
Rees v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24578, *A 369(95)
Remington v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 24376, *01 9.2.95 1954(94) 304(95)
Richardson c. Cooke (Qué.), 24546, *B 548(95)
Rizk c. Syndicat des enseignantes et enseignants de Le Royer
(Qué.), 24427, *02 23.3.95 237(95) 589(95)
Robinson v. Laushway (Ont.), 24492, *B 331(95)
Rodrigue c. La Reine (Crim.)(Yuk.), 24585, *A 499(95)
Rogers v. The Queen in right of Newfoundland (Nfld.), 24531, *B 452(95)
Roland Home Improvements Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada
(Ont.), 24442, *02 30.3.95 235(95) 613(95)
Rosen v. Rosen (Ont.), 24312, *02 16.2.95 1628(94) 340(95)
Ross v. United States of America (Crim.)(B.C.), 24400, *03 30.3.95 124(95) 617(95)
Rossignol c. Corporation professionnelle des dentistes du Québec
(Qué.), 24606, *A 529(95)
Roy c. Patenaude (Qué.), 24469, *01 2.2.95 26(95) 249(95)
Royal Bank of Canada v. North American Life Assurance Co.
(Sask.), 24316, *03 2.3.95 1628(94) 462(95)
Ruffo c. Conseil de la Magistrature (Qué.), 23222, *05 29.12.94 75(95) 75(95)
S.P. c. M.R. (Qué.), 24251, *03 2.2.95 1327(94) 255(95)
Scarth v. Northland Bank (Alta.), 24424, *02 16.3.95 18(95) 553(95)
Schachtschneider v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23698, *B 1747(93)
Schofield v. Smith (N.B.), 24282, *02 12.1.95 1559(94) 39(95)
Scott & Pichelli Ltd. v. General Motors Acceptance
Corporation of Canada, Ltd. (Ont.), 24485, *B 334(95)
Scott Maritimes Ltd. v. Labour Standards Tribunal (N.S.),
24494, *B 452(95)
Sebastian v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.), 24457, *B 295(95)
Services Environnementaux Laidlaw (Mercier) Ltée c. Procureur
général du Québec (Qué.), 24632, *A 607(95)
Shephard v. Colchester Regional Hospital Commission (N.S.),
24605, *A 528(95)
Simanek v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24344, *01 12.1.95 1853(94) 33(95)
Simcoe Erie Group v. Myers (Ont.), 24330, *02 19.1.95 1773(94) 41(95)
Simpson v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24465, *01 30.3.95 231(95) 608(95)
Siscoe & Savoie v. Royal Bank of Canada (N.B.), 24566, *B 545(95)
Siska Indian Band v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. (F.C.A.),
23643, *A 1312(93)
Skelding v. Skelding (B.C.), 24389, *02 23.2.95 21(95) 387(95)
Skyview Hotels Ltd. v. Chiips Inc. (Alta.), 24374, *02 23.2.95 13(95) 386(95)
Smellie v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24474, *B 583(95)
Smith v. Howe (Alta.), 24593, *A 500(95)
Snyder v. Snyder (Alta.), 24308, *02 16.2.95 1629(94) 340(95)
Sobieh v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 24184, *01 23.2.95 114(95) 381(95)
Society for Manitobans with Disabilities Inc. v. The Queen
in right of the province of Manitoba (Man.), 24556, *B 579(95)
Sous-ministre du Revenu national c. Hydro-Québec (C.A.F.)(Qué.),
24361, *05 20.2.95 22(95) 395(95)
Stephenson v. Edmonton Telephones Corporation (Alta.),
24540, *02 16.3.95 331(95) 552(95)
Swantje v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 24439, *03 30.3.95 235(95) 614(95)
Syndicat de l'enseignement du Lanaudière c. Commission scolaire
des Cascades-l'Achigan (Qué.), 24472, *01 30.3.95 334(95) 617(95)
Syndicat des employés du Centre hospitalier régional de Lanaudière
(CSN) c. Centre hospitalier régional de Lanaudière (Qué.),
24528, *B 538(95)
Syndicat national des employés de l'Hôpital St.-Ferdinand (C.S.N.)
c. Curateur public, Me Rémi Lussier (Qué.), 24511, *B 540(95)
Taddéo c. Ville de Montréal-Nord (Qué.), 24510, *02 30.3.95 539(95) 609(95)
Tardi c. General Motors Acceptance Corporation du Canada Ltée
(Qué.), 24387, *01 26.1.95 1767(94) 131(95)
Tarel Hotel Ltd. v. Saskatchewan Co-Operative Financial
Services Ltd. (Sask.), 24402, *B 120(95)
Taylor v. Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority (Ont.),
24185, *02 12.1.95 1321(94) 35(95)
Tennant v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 24339, *03 2.3.95 1776(94) 463(95)
Terminaux portuaires du Québec Inc. c. Association des employeurs
maritimes (C.A.F.)(Qué.), 24481, *B 375(95)
Terminaux portuaires du Québec Inc. c. Association des employeurs
maritimes (Qué.), 24567, *B 584(95)
Terry v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24335, *03 2.2.95 1680(94) 246(95)
Thibodeau c. Corporation municipale de Ste-Julienne (Qué.),
24468, *B 374(95)
Tinkasimire v. Ontario Workers Compensation Board (Ont.),
24239, *01 12.1.95 1320(94) 35(95)
Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Vita Health Company (1985) Ltd.
(Man.), 24385, *B 24(95)
Trunzo v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 24261, *01 2.3.95 1330(94) 458(95)
Tseshaht v. The Queen in right of the province of British Columbia
(B.C.), 23234, *05 21.3.95 598(95) 598(95)
Tyndall v. Manitoba Labour Board (Man.), 24272, *01 12.1.95 1332(94) 38(95)
United States Fire Insurance Co. v. Tri-Service Machine Ltd.
(Alta.), 24294, *02 9.2.95 1557(94) 304(95)
Vancouver Island Peace Society v. R. in right of Canada
(F.C.A.)(B.C.), 24600, *A 528(95)
Vaughan v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24345, *01 23.2.95 1956(94) 384(95)
Verdun v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (Ont.), 24604, *A 528(95)
Village Commissioners of Waverly v. Kerr (N.S.), 24151, *02
23.3.95 1848(94) 588(95)
Ville de St-Georges c. Commission municipale du Québec
(Qué.), 24352, *B 1961(94)
Villeneuve v. Continental Insurance Co. (P.E.I.), 24212, *02 12.1.95 1320(94) 34(95)
Webber v. A. Jourdain Investments Ltd. (Ont.), 24383, *01 23.2.95 10(95) 379(95)
Wedekind v. Director of Income Maintenance Branch of the Ministry
of Community & Social Services (Ont.), 24564, *A 328(95)
Weisfeld v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 24334, *A 1595(94)
Whissell v. The Queen (Alta.), 24517, *B 451(95)
White v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 24115, *05 25.1.95 144(95) 144(95)
Whitmell v. Ritchie (Ont.), 24388, *B 121(95)
Whitley v. United States of America (Crim.)(Ont.), 24438, *03 30.3.95 297(95) 617(95)
Wilson v. McCrea (Ont.), 24358, *02 2.2.95 1776(94) 250(95)
Wisotzki v. Bannon (Ont.), 23823, *A 2065(93)
Woldrich v. Mental Health Review Board (Man.), 24553, *B 579(95)
Wolf v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24478, *01 30.3.95 233(95) 608(95)
Woo Investments Inc v. Confederation Life Insurance Co. (Sask.),
24300, *02 12.1.95 1558(94) 39(95)
Wood v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 24542, *B 532(95)
Wright v. Westfair Foods Ltd. (Alta.), 24598, *A 500(95)
Yarema v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24446, *01 23.2.95 114(95) 380(95)
Yusuf v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24601, *A 528(95)
This index includes appeals standing for judgment at the beginning of 1995 and all appeals heard in 1995 up to now.
Cet index comprend les pourvois en délibéré au début de 1995 et tous ceux entendus en 1995 jusqu'à maintenant.
*01 dismissed/rejeté
*02 dismissed with costs/rejeté avec dépens
*03 allowed/accueilli
*04 allowed with costs/accueilli avec dépens
*05 discontinuance/désistement
Hearing/ Judgment/
CASE/AFFAIRE Audition Jugement
Page
Bardyn v. Botiuk (Ont.), 23517 1920(94)
Biddle v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23734, *03 L'Heureux-Dubé J.
dissenting 2.3.95 1606(94) 481(95)
Blenner-Hassett v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 23923, *01 31.1.95 268(95) 268(95)
Branch v. British Columbia Securities Commission (Crim.)(B.C.),
22978 368(94)
Burlingham v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 23966 1758(94)
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Canada Labour Relations
Board (Ont.), 23142, *02 McLachlin J. dissenting 27.1.95 461(94) 150(95)
Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. The Queen in right of Ontario (Ont.),
23721, fails on the first ground; the first constitutional question
is answered in the affirmative. The second and third constitutional
questions are in reserve 146(95)
Chan v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 23813 267(95)
Chaplin v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23865, *01 6.10.94 (reasons
delivered 23.2.95) 1606(94) 403(95)
Chen v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23984,
*03 23.2.95 314(95) 402(95)
Church of Scientology of Toronto v. Hill (Ont.), 24216 396(95)
Consolidated Enfield Corporation v. Blair (Ont.), 23887, *02 21.3.95 600(95) 600(95)
Corporation of the City of Stratford v. Large (Ont.), 24004 476(95)
Crawford v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23711, *03 30.3.95 1756(94) 624(95)
Dow Corning Corporation v. Hollis (B.C.), 23776 270(95)
Dunn v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24041, *03 L'Heureux-Dubé J.
dissenting 27.1.95 1700(94) 150(95)
Durish v. White Resource Management Ltd. (Alta.), 23483, *04
23.2.95 1533(94) 402(95)
Egan v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23636 1701(94)
Fitzpatrick v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24254 601(95)
Friesen v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 23922 479(95)
Goyet c. Beaulieu (Qué.), 23629 479(95)
Goddard v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24200, *03 20.3.95 599(95) 599(95)
Halcrow v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 23542, *01 27.1.95 266(95) 266(95)
Harrer v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24141 512(95)
Hawrish v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 23898, *01 21.3.95 600(95) 600(95)
Hibbert v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23815 266(95)
Imperial Tobacco Ltd. c. Attorney General of Canada (Qué.), 23490 1871(94)
Jobin v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23190 368(94)
Jorgensen v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23787 398(95)
Laporte v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 24140, *01 27.1.95 266(95) 266(95)
Lord v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 23943, *01 21.2.95 397(95) 397(95)
MacGillivray v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 23933, *01 23.2.95 400(95) 624(95)
Maksymec v. Botiuk (Ont.), 23519 1920(94)
Manning v. Hill (Ont.), 24216 396(95)
Matsqui Indian Band v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23643,
*02 L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ. dissenting
26.1.95 1586(94) 149(95)
Mayfield Investments Ltd. v. Stewart (Alta.), 23739, *04 26.1.95 1588(94) 150(95)
Miron v. Trudel (Ont.), 22744 967(94)
Moore v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 23810, *01 24.2.95 476(95) 476(95)
Neuzen v. Korn (B.C.), 23773 271(95)
O'Connor v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24114 269(95)
O'Leary v. The Queen (Ont.), 23928 1917(94)
Piluke v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24070, *01 31.1.95 268(95) 268(95)
Primeau v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 23613 368(94)
R. v. Ball (Crim.)(B.C.), 24157, *01 22.2.95 399(95) 399(95)
R. v. Barrett (Crim.)(Ont.), 23749, *03 22.2.95 399(95) 399(95)
R. v. Bernshaw (Crim.)(B.C.), 23748, *03 7.10.94 1585(94) 1585(94) & 152(95)
R. v. Crown Forest Industries Ltd. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23940 480(95)
R. v. Lepage (Crim.)(Ont.), 23974, *03 Cory and Major JJ. dissenting
23.2.95 1791(94) 402(95)
R. v. Livermore (Crim.)(Ont.), 24143 601(95)
R. v. McIntosh (Crim.)(Ont.), 23843, *01 La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé,
Gonthier and McLachlin JJ. dissenting 23.2.95 1869(94) 402(95)
R. v. Park (Crim.)(Alta.), 23876 1919(94)
R. v. Pontes (Crim.)(B.C.), 24020 477(95)
R. c. Thibaudeau (C.A.F.)(Qué.), 24154 1531(94)
RJR -- MacDonald Inc. c. Attorney General of Canada (Qué.), 23460 1871(94)
R.J.S. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23581, *01 2.2.95 368(94) 272(95)
Richard B. v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto 595(94) &
(Ont.), 23298, *01 17.3.94 464(94) 151(95)
Royal Bank of Canada v. Mitsui & Co. (Canada) Ltd. (N.S.), 23914 478(95)
Ruffo c. Conseil de la magistrature (Qué.), 23127 602(95)
Shaw Cable Systems B.C. v. B.C. Telephone Co. (F.C.A.)(B.C.),
23717 145(95)
Silveira v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24013 1758(94)
Siska Indian Band v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23643 1586(94)
Simpson v. The Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.), 24099, *03 3.2.95 314(95) 314(95)
St. Pierre v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23518, *03 La Forest,
L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonther and McLachlin JJ. dissenting 2.3.95 1915(94) 481(95)
Stinchcombe v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24117, *01 23.2.95 401(95) 401(95)
Telecommunications Workers Union v. Canadian Radioi-Television and
Telecommunications Commission (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23778 145(95)
Tempelaar v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23909, *01 3.3.95 512(95) 512(95)
United Steelworkers of America, Local 9332 v. Richard (N.S.),
23621 965(94)
Vout v. Hay (Ont.), 24009 148(95)
W.R.D. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 24120, *01 28.2.95 477(95) 477(95)
Weber v. Ontario Hydro (Ont.), 23401 1918(94)
Winnipeg Condominium Corporation No. 36 v. Bird Construction Co.
(Man.), 23624, *03 26.1.95 1587(94) 149(95)
Workers' Compensation Board v. Husky Oil Operations Ltd. (Sask.)
23936 147(95)
DEADLINES: MOTIONS
|
|
DÉLAIS: REQUÊTES
|
BEFORE THE COURT:
Pursuant to Rule 23.1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, the following deadlines must be met before a motion before the Court can be heard: |
|
DEVANT LA COUR:
Conformément à l'article 23.1 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada, les délais suivants doivent être respectés pour qu'une requête soit entendue par la Cour : |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Motion day : May 1, 1995
Service : April 10, 1995 Filing : April 17, 1995 Respondent : April 24, 1995 |
|
Audience du : 1 mai 1995
Signification : 10 avril 1995 Dépot : 17 avril 1995 Intimé : 24 avril 1995
|
|
|
|
Motion day : June 5, 1995
Service : May 15, 1995 Filing : May 22, 1995 Respondent : May 29, 1995 |
|
Audience du : 5 juin 1995
Signification : 15 mai 1995 Dépot : 22 mai 1995 Intimé : 29 mai 1995
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEADLINES: APPEALS
|
|
DÉLAIS: APPELS |
The fall session of the Supreme Court of Canada will commence in early October 1995.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court Act and Rules, the following requirements for filing must be complied with before an appeal will be inscribed and set down for hearing:
Case on appeal must be filed within three months of the filing of the notice of appeal.
Appellant's factum must be filed within five months of the filing of the notice of appeal.
Respondent's factum must be filed within eight weeks of the date of service of the appellant's factum.
Intervener's factum must be filed within two weeks of the date of service of the respondent's factum.
The Registrar shall inscribe the appeal for hearing upon the filing of the respondent's factum or after the expiry of the time for filing the respondent's factum
The Registrar shall enter on a list all appeals inscribed for hearing at the October 1995 session in early August 1995.
|
|
La session d'automne de la Cour suprême du Canada commencera au début d'octobre 1995.
Conformément à la Loi sur la Cour suprême et aux Règles, il faut se conformer aux exigences suivantes avant qu'un appel puisse être inscrit pour audition:
Le dossier d'appel doit être déposé dans les trois mois du dépôt de l'avis d'appel.
Le mémoire de l'appelant doit être déposé dans les cinq mois du dépôt de l'avis d'appel.
Le mémoire de l'intimé doit être déposé dans les huit semaines suivant la signification de celui de l'appelant.
Le mémoire de l'intervenant doit être déposé dans les deux semaines suivant la signification de celui de l'intimé.
Le registraire inscrit l'appel pour audition après le dépôt du mémoire de l'intimé ou à l'expiration du délai de signification du mémoire de l'intimé.
Au début du mois d'août 1995, le registraire mettra au rôle de la session d'octobre 1995 tous les appels inscrits pour audition.
|
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 [1994] 3 S.C.R., Part 6
Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1100
Patterson v. Gallant, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1080
R. v. Bisson, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1097
R. v. Dikah, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1020
R. v. Laba, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 965
R. v. Pizzardi; R. v. Levis, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1018
Tolofson v. Jensen; Lucas (Litigation Guardian of) v. Gagnon, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022
|
|
Jugements publiés dans [1994] 3 R.C.S., partie 6
Apotex Inc. c. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 3 R.C.S. 1100
Patterson c. Gallant, [1994] 3 R.C.S. 1080
R. c. Bisson, [1994] 3 R.C.S. 1097
R. c. Dikah, [1994] 3 R.C.S. 1020
R. c. Laba, [1994] 3 R.C.S. 965
R. c. Pizzardi; R. c. Levis, [1994] 3 R.C.S. 1018
Tolofson c. Jensen; Lucas (Tutrice à l'instance de) c. Gagnon, [1994] 3 R.C.S. 1022
|
|
|
|