SUPREME COURT COUR SUPRÊME
OF CANADA DU CANADA
BULLETIN OF BULLETIN DES
PROCEEDINGS PROCÉDURES
This Bulletin is published at the direction of the Registrar and is for general information only. It is not to be used as evidence of its content, which, if required, should be proved by Certificate of the Registrar under the Seal of the Court. While every effort is made to ensure accuracy, no responsibility is assumed for errors or omissions. |
Ce Bulletin, publié sous l'autorité du registraire, ne vise qu'à fournir des renseignements d'ordre général. Il ne peut servir de preuve de son contenu. Celle‐ci s'établit par un certificat du registraire donné sous le sceau de la Cour. Rien n'est négligé pour assurer l'exactitude du contenu, mais la Cour décline toute responsabilité pour les erreurs ou omissions. |
Subscriptions may be had at $200 per year, payable in advance, in accordance with the Court tariff. During Court sessions it is usually issued weekly. |
Le prix de l'abonnement, fixé dans le tarif de la Cour, est de 200 $ l'an, payable d'avance. Le Bulletin paraît en principe toutes les semaines pendant les sessions de la Cour. |
The Bulletin, being a factual report of recorded proceedings, is produced in the language of record. Where a judgment has been rendered, requests for copies should be made to the Registrar, with a remittance of $10 for each set of reasons. All remittances should be made payable to the Receiver General for Canada. |
Le Bulletin rassemble les procédures devant la Cour dans la langue du dossier. Quand un arrêt est rendu, on peut se procurer les motifs de jugement en adressant sa demande au registraire, accompagnée de 10 $ par exemplaire. Le paiement doit être fait à l'ordre du Receveur général du Canada. |
October 18, 1996 1730 - 1756 le 18 octobre 1996
CONTENTS TABLE DES MATIÈRES
Applications for leave to appeal filed
Applications for leave submitted to Court since last issue
Oral hearing ordered
Oral hearing on applications for leave
Judgments on applications for leave
Motions
Notices of appeal filed since last issue
Notices of intervention filed since last issue
Notices of discontinuance filed since last issue
Appeals heard since last issue and disposition
Pronouncements of appeals reserved
Headnotes of recent judgments
Weekly agenda
Summaries of the cases
Cumulative Index ‐ Leave
Cumulative Index ‐ Appeals
Appeals inscribed ‐ Session beginning
Notices to the Profession and Press Release
Deadlines: Motions before the Court
Deadlines: Appeals
Judgments reported in S.C.R. |
1730 - 1731
1732 - 1739
-
1740
1741 - 1745
1746 - 1749
1750
-
1751
1752 - 1753
-
-
1754
-
-
-
-
-
1755
1756
- |
Demandes d'autorisation d'appel déposées
Demandes soumises à la Cour depuis la dernière parution
Audience ordonnée
Audience sur les demandes d'autorisation
Jugements rendus sur les demandes d'autorisation
Requêtes
Avis d'appel déposés depuis la dernière parution
Avis d'intervention déposés depuis la dernière parution
Avis de désistement déposés depuis la dernière parution
Appels entendus depuis la dernière parution et résultat
Jugements rendus sur les appels en délibéré
Sommaires des arrêts récents
Ordre du jour de la semaine
Résumés des affaires
Index cumulatif ‐ Autorisations
Index cumulatif ‐ Appels
Appels inscrits ‐ Session commençant le
Avis aux avocats et communiqué de presse
Délais: Requêtes devant la Cour
Délais: Appels
Jugements publiés au R.C.S. |
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FILED |
DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION D'APPEL DÉPOSÉES |
Rosemary (Rose-Marie) Burchill et al.
Frank Burchill
v. (25525)
Yukon Travel et al. (Yuk.)
Murray J. Leitch
FILING DATE 4.10.1996
Daniel Pelletier
Pierre Sylvestre
Sylvestre, Charbonneau
c. (25526)
Francine Hébert (Qué.)
Anne Tourigny
Doré, Tourigny, St-Onge, Fiset & Beauchesne
DATE DE PRODUCTION 4.10.1996
The Sault Ste. Marie Board of Commissioners of Police et al.
Michael S. O’Neill
Sarlo O’Neill
v. (25527)
Tom Makila (Ont.)
Joseph A. Bisceglia
Bisceglia & Assoc.
FILING DATE 4.10.1996
Jean Cloutier
Jean Cloutier
c. (25528)
Andre L. Monty et al. (Qué.)
Mondor Fournier
DATE DE PRODUCTION 4.10.1996
Nipissing Helicopters Inc. et al.
Kenneth Radnoff, Q.C.
Radnoff, Pearl, Slover, Swedko, Dwoskin
v. (25529)
Eagle Copters Maintenance Ltd. (Alta.)
Roger F. Smith
MacKimmie, Matthew
FILING DATE 8.10.1996
Budget Car Rentals Toronto Ltd. et al.
B.A. Percival, Q.C.
Benson Percival Brown
v. (25530)
Dwain Cummings (Ont.)
Chile Eboe-Osuji
Eboe-Osuji & Addunji
FILING DATE 4.10.1996
Gillis Quarries Ltd.
J. Barry Hughes, Q.C.
Inkster, Christie, Hughes, MacKay
v. (25531)
Her Majesty The Queen in right of the Province of Manitoba (Man.)
W. Glenn McFetridge
Dept. of Justice
FILING DATE 7.10.1996
Continental Bank Leasing Corp.
H. Lorne Morphy, Q.C.
Tory Tory DesLauriers & Binnington
v. (25532)
Her Majesty The Queen (F.C.A.)
Patricia Lee
Dept. of Justice
FILING DATE 4.10.1996
Dr. Murray A. Peglar et al.
James M. Lepp
Harper Grey Easton
v. (25533)
Donald Raymond Vance (B.C.)
Robert W. Smith
Robert W. Smith
FILING DATE 7.10.1996
James R. Ferguson
W.E. Code, Q.C.
Code Hunter Wittmann
v. (25535)
Her Majesty The Queen et al. (Alta.)
Dawne D. Creasser
Beresh DePoe & Cunningham
FILING DATE 2.10.1996
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE
|
DEMANDES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
OCTOBER 11, 1996 / LE 11 OCTOBRE 1996
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ. /
Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Gonthier et Iacobucci
Richard Baker
v. (25499)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Defences - Intoxication - Whether the trial judge erred in charging the jury on the two-step approach to the defence of intoxication - Whether the trial judge’s charge to the jury contained errors that should result in a new trial
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 10, 1992 Supreme Court of Newfoundland (Trial Division) (Riche J.) |
Conviction: Second degree murder, attempted murder |
March 20, 1996 Supreme Court of Newfoundland (Court of Appeal) (Mahoney, Steele, Cameron JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed |
September 24, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal and motion for the extension of time filed |
Reddy Rajagopal Chavali, Reddy Rajagopal Chavali, in Trust, Reddy Krishnaveni Chavali,
Reddy Krishnaveni Chavali in Trust, Reddy Venkata Subbarami Chavali, Reddy Venkata
Subbarami Chavali in Trust, 715048 Ontario Ltd., In Trust, Sadana Corporation Ltd., in Trust,
Vahini Holdings Ltd., in Trust, Meru Holdings Ltd., In Trust and 715040 Ontario Ltd., In Trust
v. (25421)
Royal Trust Corporation of Canada
- and -
Arthur Ault, Alicia Natividad, Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Scott &Aylen, Andridge
Capital Corporation, George Gaty, Chateau Royale Professional Building Inc.,
Cobit Corporation, Royal Trust Corporation of Canada, Nelligan/Power, David Chick,
Kanny Ng, Majestic Key Management Ltd., Roy Nandrum, 862908 Ontario Limited,
Majestic Key Construction Ltd., Majestic Key Holding Corporation, Majestic Key Development Inc.,
North American Trust Company, Peat Marwick Thorne Inc., Samuel Talbert, Collette Talbert,
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural law - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Civil Procedure - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the Applicants’ motion to remove and restrain the law firm Nelligan/Power as solicitor of record - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the Applicants’ motion to amend their counterclaim and for other ancilliary relief - Whether the Applicants’ rights under ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter were breached.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
September 5, 1995
Ontario Court (General Division)
(Roy J.)
Applicants’ motion dismissed; cross-motions to stay the counterclaim other than as against Royal Trust Corporation of Canada granted
April 29, 1996
Court of Appeal for Ontario
(Labrosse J.A)
Applicants’ motion for an order removing the law firm Nelligan/ Power as solicitor of record and restraining it from acting as counsel on the appeal dismissed
May 30, 1996
Court of Appeal for Ontario
(Morden, Brooke and Moldaver JJ.A)
August 30, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Applicants’ appeal dismissed
Applications for leave to appeal filed
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and L’Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier JJ. /
Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé et Gonthier
Georges Y. Boka, Rosette Leduc
c. (25398)
Michel Lavoie, Marianna Lavoie
et
Le Centre canadien d’expertise des peintures Ltée,
L’Officier de la publicité des droits de la
circonscription foncière de Terrebonne (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Code civil - Contrats - Vente - Preuve - Annulation - Erreur, dol, fraude - Témoignage d’expert - Achat par les intimés de deux tableaux attribués au peintre Marc-Aurèle Fortin - Absence de certificat d’authenticité - Preuve d’expert indiquant qu’il s’agit de faux - Action des intimés en annulation de la vente accueillie quant à un seul tableau - Appel des demandeurs rejeté - Appel incident des intimés quant au second tableau accueilli - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en considérant que le juge de première instance a conclu que la prépondérance de la preuve établissait la fausseté des tableaux? - En se prononçant sur la prépondérance de la preuve, la Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en substituant sa propre appréciation des faits à celle du juge de première instance?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 18 novembre 1991
Cour supérieure du Québec (Bergeron J.C.S.)
Action des intimés en annulation de vente accueillie en partie
Le 22 avril 1996
Cour d’appel du Québec (Michaud JCCA, Deschamps et Delisle JJ.C.A.)
Appel principal des demandeurs rejeté, appel incident des intimés accueilli
Le 21 juin 1996 Cour suprême du Canada |
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
Entreprises E.A. Bourque (Québec) Inc.,
c. (25456)
Corporation Municipale de la Ville de Hull
et
Communauté régionale de l’Outaouais (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit municipal - Municipalités - Droit fiscal - Législation - Interprétation - Textes réglementaires - Surtaxe - L’expression “...imposer et prélever annuellement” prévue à l’article 486 de la Loi sur les cités et villes, L.R.Q., chap. C-19, permet-elle à une ville de procéder par voie de règlements de modification? - Qu’advient-il d’un règlement adopté en vertu de l’article 486 de la loi lorsque la période pour laquelle il a été adopté est échue? - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en droit en statuant que les règlements en litige ne comportaient que des “informalités mineures”, qu’elle qualifie même d’erreurs d’écriture, qui ne sont pas susceptibles d’en affecter la légalité ni d’induire les contribuables en erreur? - Les règlements concernant l’imposition et le prélèvement de la surtaxe sur les terrains vagues sont-ils valides et légaux?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 5 mars 1992 Cour supérieure du Québec (Plouffe J.C.S.) |
Action de la demanderesse en annulation de règlements et en recouvrement de taxes accueillie |
Le 2 mai 1996 Cour d’appel du Québec (Beauregard, Otis et Forget JJ.CA) |
Jugement de première instance réformé et action de la demanderesse rejetée |
Le 30 août 1996 Cour suprême du Canada |
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
Les Maisons Arrowood Ltée\Arrowood Homes Ltd.,
c. (25457)
Corporation Municipale de la ville de Hull
et
Communauté régionale de l’Outaouais (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit municipal - Municipalités - Droit fiscal - Législation - Interprétation - Textes réglementaires - Surtaxe - L’expression “...imposer et prélever annuellement” prévue à l’article 486 de la Loi sur les cités et villes, L.R.Q., chap. C-19, permet-elle à une ville de procéder par voie de règlements de modification? - Qu’advient-il d’un règlement adopté en vertu de l’article 486 de la Loi sur les cités et villes lorsque la période pour laquelle il a été adopté est échue? - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en considérant que l’adoption par la ville intimée de règlements de modification rencontrait les exigences de l’expression “imposer et prélever annuellement” prévue à l’article 486 de la Loi sur les cités et villes? - En confirmant la validité des règlements de la ville intimée, la Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en prolongeant la période exécutoire d’un règlement au-delà de l’exercice financier pour lequel il a été adopté?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 19 février 1992 Cour supérieure du Québec (Plouffe J.C.S.) |
Action de la demanderesse en annulation de règlements et en recouvrement de taxes accueillie |
Le 2 mai 1996 Cour d’appel du Québec (Beauregard, Otis et Forget JJ.C.A) |
Renvoi du dossier en Cour supérieure pour qu’il soit décidé de la qualification des terrains; action en annulation rejetée |
Le 30 août 1996 Cour suprême du Canada |
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major JJ. /
Les juges La Forest, Cory et Major
Richard Bruce Watson
v. (25429)
Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission (N.S.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law - Judicial review - Prerogative writs - Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission - Whether the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that a plan as required by Section 25 of the Human Rights Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c.214 was in existence for the City of Dartmouth with respect to this selection process - Whether the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission met the criteria required at law to dismiss the complaint without investigation or an attempt to settle the complaint as required by Section 29.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 30, 1995 Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Goodfellow J.) |
Application for an order of mandamus |
May 14, 1996 Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (Clarke C.J., Bateman and Matthews JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed
|
August 30, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
Lloyd Roy Barrett
v. (25424)
Allen Waters, CHUM Ltd., Moses Znaimer, Quadrille
Investment Group, City T.V., Tony Young (Master “T”) alias
and John Gallagher
AND
CHUM Limited
- and -
Lloyd Roy Barrett (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural law - Civil Procedure - Did the motions judge err in striking out the statement of claim on the grounds that it was vexatious - Did the motions judge err in granting an order pursuant to s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O., c. C.43 - Did the motions judge err in granting orders prohibiting the Applicant from personally serving documents and attending at the Respondents’ business and homes of its employees.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 12, 1995 Ontario Court (General Division) (Chapnik J.) |
Respondents’ motion to strike Applicant’s statement of claim granted |
May 23, 1996 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Brooke, McKinlay, Osborne JJ.A.) |
Applicant’s appeal dismissed (first appeal) |
April 19, 1996 Ontario Court (General Division) (Cumming J.) |
Respondent CHUM’s application for an order pursuant to s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act granted; order also granted prohibiting the Applicant from personally serving documents on CHUM parties and from attending within a specified distance of certain premises |
June 17, 1996 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Osborne, Labrosse, Moldaver JJ.A.) |
Applicant’s application for leave to appeal dismissed (second appeal) |
August 6, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed (both) |
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ. /
Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et McLachlin
Salvatore Gramaglia
v. (25446)
Sunlife Trust Co. and Doug Vensel (Alta.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural law - Property law - Costs - Mortgages -Appeal - Security for costs - Foreclosure - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting the Respondents security for costs as against the Applicant - Whether the Court of Queen’s Bench judge erred in hearing matter of Applicant’s counterclaim de novo and striking out the counterclaim.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
September 20, 1995
Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta
(Waller M.C.Q.B.A.)
Order nisi declared and inter alia: Applicant’s defence to foreclosure action struck; amounts owing on the mortgage set and redemption period set
December 13, 1995
Court of Queen`s Bench of Alberta
(Cairns J.)
Appeal from Master Waller’s order dismissed; order affirmed and Applicant’s counterclaim struck pursuant to de novo appeal
February 14, 1996
Court of Appeal of Alberta
(Hunt J.A. in Chambers)
Order for security of costs
June 14, 1996
Court of Appeal of Alberta
(Kerans, Hetherington and McFadyen JJ.A.)
Appeal dismissed and motion to vacate Hunt J.A.’s order also dismissed
August 8, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
Ali Mohamed Holly
v. (25439)
Barbara Ann White (Alta.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural law - Civil Procedure - Judgments and orders - Rule 244 of the Alberta Rules of Court - Did the Court of Appeal err in dismissing an appeal from an order which dismissed an action for want of prosecution.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 29, 1994 Court of Queen’s Bench for Alberta (Master Breitkreuz)
December 16, 1994 Court of Queen’s Bench for Alberta (Bielby J.) |
Respondent’s motion for dismissal of the Applicant’s action for want of prosecution granted
Appeal dismissed |
September 21, 1995 Court of Appeal of Alberta (Belzil, Russell and Picard JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed |
July 26, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
Derrick Concrete Cutting & Coring Ltd.
v. (25425)
Central Oilfield Service Limited (Alta.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Contracts - Tender - Obligation to named subcontractors - Whether inclusion of a sub-contractor’s bid in a successful tender creates obligations on the part of the contractor - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a sub-contractor’s bid in a successful construction tender created only unilateral, not mutual or reciprocal, obligations - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the implied terms in “Contact A” in a construction tender.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 8, 1994 Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Dea J.) |
Action for breach of contract dismissed |
November 28, 1995 Court of Appeal of Alberta (Irving, Russell and Picard JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed |
July 4, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
OCTOBER 15, 1996 / LE 15 OCTOBRE 1996
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ. /
Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Gonthier et Iacobucci
Winnipeg Child and Family Services (Northwest Area)
v. (25508)
G. (D.F.) (Man.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Torts - Family law - Statutes - Interpretation - S. 56 of the Mental Health Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. M110 - Exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction - Foetal rights - Legal status of unborn child - Does a birth mother who has chosen to carry a foetus to full term owe a duty of care to the foetus? - If the answer of question 1 is “yes”, in what circumstances, if any, should the Court intervene to enforce compliance with the duty of care?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 13, 1996 Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba (Schulman J.) |
Application for order under s. 56 of the Mental Health Act and motion for an order exercising parens patriae jurisdiction: interim mandatory injunction granted; Director of Child and Family Services to have custody of the Respondent until she gives birth |
September 12, 1996 Court of Appeal of Manitoba (Scott, C.J.M., Huband, Twaddle, Helper and Monnin JJ.A.) |
Appeal allowed: order appealed from set aside and Applicant’s applications dismissed |
October 4, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
ORAL HEARING ON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE |
AUDIENCE SUR LES DEMANDES D’AUTORISATION |
October 11, 1996 / le 11 octobre 1996
CORAM: Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ. /
Les juges Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci et Major
Shawn Trevor Wesley Laverty
v. (24822)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.)
B. Rory B. Morahan, for the appellant.
Robert A. Mulligan, for the respondent (video conference).
DISMISSED / REJETÉE
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Defence - Statutes - Interpretation - Provocation - Self-defence - Whether the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury that the use of force to defend oneself is not ipso facto an unlawful act - Whether the trial judge erred in failing to ensure that the jury understood the onus was on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the intent referred to in s. 229(a)(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Code - Whether the trial judge erred in instructing that self-defence leads to an acquittal on all charges, including manslaughter, in all circumstances - Whether the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury with respect to s. 37 of the Criminal Code to clarify the defence of self-defence generally - Whether the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury that “the reasonable man test” was a reasonable man of the age and characteristics of the accused - Whether the trial judge erred when he failed to answer the question of the deliberating jury seeking clarification of s. 229(a)(i) and (ii).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 16, 1994 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Braidwood J.) |
Conviction: Second degree murder |
June 27, 1995 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (McEachern C.J., Southin J.A. [dissenting] and Hollinrake J.A.) |
Appeal against conviction dismissed |
July 25, 1995 Supreme Court of Canada |
Notice of appeal as of right filed |
JUDGMENTS ON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE |
JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION |
OCTOBER 17, 1996 / LE 17 OCTOBRE 1996
25299LES MESSAGERIES PUBLI-MAISON LTÉE c. LA SOCIÉTÉ CANADIENNE DES POSTES et LES MAGASINS KOFFLER DE L’EST INC. (Qué.)
CORAM: Le Juge en chef et les juges Gonthier et Iacobucci
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit administratif - Compétence - Contrôle judiciaire - Requête de la demanderesse en injonction permanente et en jugement déclaratoire portant que l’intimée n’a pas la capacité de conclure un contrat de distribution d’objets non adressés en l’absence d’un tarif de port établi par règlement - Requête déclinatoire de juridiction rationae materiae présentée par l’intimée - Requête de l’intimée accueillie - Appel de la demanderesse rejetée - Compétence de la Section de première instance de la Cour fédérale d’entendre le litige - Application de l’arrêt ITO International Terminal Operators c. Miida Electronics Inc., [1986] 1 R.C.S. 752.
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 1er mai 1995 Cour supérieure du Québec (Hurtubise J.C.S.) |
Requête déclinatoire de l’intimée accueillie, la Cour supérieure n’ayant pas compétence pour entendre le litige |
Le 27 février 1996 Cour d’appel du Québec (Baudoin, Fish et Forget JJ.C.A.) |
Appel rejeté |
Le 29 avril 1996 Cour suprême du Canada |
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
25323LAS VEGAS RESTAURANT & TAVERN LTD. AND LAS VEGAS STRIP LTD. v. ZANZIBAR TAVERN INC. AND THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF TORONTO (Ont.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs on the application and on the motion for a stay in the courts below.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée, avec dépens relativement à la demande et à la requête visant à obtenir un sursis d'exécution déposée devant les tribunaux d'instance inférieure.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Municipal law - Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, s. 34(9)(a) - Zoning by-laws - Adult entertainment parlour - Can a use of premises which is incidental or ancillary to another use be the basis for a legal non-conforming use - Did the trial judge err when determining whether a particular use was established, by failing to apply the use as defined in the City of Toronto by-law.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 1, 1995
Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)
(Lane J.)
Applicants’ action for a declaration that their operation is a legal non-conforming use, dismissed. Action for a declaration that the Applicant’s operation is a prohibited use: successful
April 23, 1996
Court of Appeal for Ontario
(Finlayson, McKinlay and Arbour JJ.A.)
Appeal dismissed
May 15, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
25220MYUNG KAP KWON AND 838603 ONTARIO INC. v. ALEC COOPER (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
Property law - Commercial law - Real property - Contracts - Failure of both parties to comply with the terms of an agreement of purchase and sale - Obligation on closing to accept a personal undertaking to discharge an encumbrance in lieu of the discharge required by an agreement of purchase and sale - Timing of objections to tender - Obligation of good faith in real estate transactions.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 4, 1995
Ontario Court (General Division) (Daudlin J.)
Judgment for applicant
January 17, 1996
Court of Appeal for Ontario
(Brooke, Robins and McKinlay JJ.A.)
Respondent’s appeal allowed and counterclaim allowed
March 18, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
25036CHARLES THOMAS BELOWITZ v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(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 - First degree murder - Evidence - Admissibility of evidence - Whether rope should have been admitted in evidence - Hearsay evidence - Whether evidence of one police officer as to findings of another officer should have been admitted into evidence.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 9, 1991 Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) (Thomas J.) |
Conviction : First degree murder |
November 3, 1993 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Blair, Goodman and Robins JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed |
May 22, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada (Cory J.) |
Motion for the extension of time granted |
May 31, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
August 9, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Motion to file a lengthy response granted |
25344DR. HACHMI HAMMAMI v. THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (B.C.)
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and Cory 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 - Procedural law - Appeal - Physicians and surgeons - Interlocutory motion for disclosure under the Medical Practitioners Act, R.S.B.C. 1970, c. 254 - Whether the proper interpretation of section 63(3) of the Medical Practitioners Act, Rule 49 of the Rules of Court and related sections, authorizes the granting of an order for disclosure of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia’s file to a doctor appealing a decision of the College - If yes, then whether the Court of Appeal erred in requiring evidence as a precondition to obtaining an order for disclosure - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that nothing short of personal animus constitutes bias - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that allegations of bias not evident on the face of the record must be dealt with by judicial review and cannot be dealt with on appeal.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 25, 1993
Supreme Court of British Columbia (Donald J.)
Motion for disclosure granted
March 25, 1996
Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Lambert, Southin, Cumming, Hollinrake and Rowles JJ.A.)
Appeal allowed
May 24, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
25407DR. JOHN KUNTZ v. THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (B.C.)
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and Cory JJ.
The motion for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law - Procedural law - Appeal - Physicians and surgeons - Interlocutory motion for disclosure under the Medical Practitioners Act, R.S.B.C. 1970, c. 254 - Whether the proper interpretation of section 63(3) of the Medical Practitioners Act, Rule 49 of the Rules of Court and related sections, authorizes the granting of an order for disclosure of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia’s file to a doctor appealing a decision of the College - If yes, then whether the Court of Appeal erred in requiring evidence as a precondition to obtaining an order for disclosure - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that nothing short of personal animus constitutes bias - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that allegations of bias not evident on the face of the record must be dealt with by judicial review and cannot be dealt with on appeal.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
September 12, 1991 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Oppal J.) |
Appeal from an order to produce documents dismissed |
March 25, 1996 British Columbia Court of Appeal (Lambert, Southin, Cumming, Hollinrake and Rowles JJ.A.) |
Appeal allowed |
June 27, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
25240DAMON GREGORY HORNE v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Alta.)
CORAM: Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci 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 - Procedural law - Appeal - Evidence - Majority of the Court of Appeal upheld the Applicant’s conviction on three counts of robbery - Whether Harradence J.A.’s dissent gives rise to an appeal as of right - Whether the dissent is entirely based on the sufficiency of the evidence of corroboration.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 25, 1994 Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Ritter J.) |
Conviction: impaired driving, failure to comply with demand for breath sample, operation of motor vehicle while disqualified, damaging property under $1,000 and 3 counts of robbery |
February 26, 1996 Court of Appeal of Alberta (Harradence J.A.[dissenting] and Foisy and Irving JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed |
March 27, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Notice of appeal as of right filed |
June 21, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Crown’s notice of motion to quash appeal as of right |
August 26, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
REVISED / RÉVISÉ
October 10, 1996 / le 10 octobre 1996
A.D.M. v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)(25209)
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.
The application for an extension of time is granted, and the motion to admit new evidence and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed.
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée, et la requête pour déposer de nouvelles preuves et la demande d’autorisation d’appel sont rejetées.
MOTIONS |
REQUÊTES
|
11.10.1996
Before / Devant: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER
Motion for additional time to present oral argument
Southam Inc. et al.
v. (24915)
The Director of Investigation and Research (Ont.)
Requête en prorogation du temps accordé pour la plaidoirie
Neil Finkelstein & Mark Katz, for the appellants.
Stanley Wong & André Brantz, for the respondent.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
1. The application is granted in part;
2. The time to argue the appeal is extended by 1/2 hour for each the appellants and the respondent.
15.10.1996
Before / Devant: IACOBUCCI J.
Motion to add the trial transcripts and abridge time to file the respondent’s factum
Hickman Motors Ltd.
v. (24994)
Her Majesty The Queen (Nfld.)
Requête visant à ajouter la transcription du procès et à réduire le délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l’intimée
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE The motion is granted with respect to the addition to the case on appeal of the transcript of the trial; and the time for serving and filing the respondent’s factum shall be up to and including October 23, 1996.
10.10.1996
Before / Devant: MAJOR J.
Motion for leave to intervene
BY/PAR:Alcan Aluminum Ltd., Repap Enterprises Inc., B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, B.C. Chamber of Commerce, B.C. Wildlife Federation, Business Council of British Columbia, Council of Forest Industries, Council of Tourist Associations, Fisheries Council of British Columbia, Guideoutfitters
Requête en autorisation d’intervention
Association of British Columbia, Mining Association of British Columbia, the Pacific Fishermen’s Defence Alliance, Chief George Guerin et al. (Musqueam), the First Nations Summit, God in the person of James Russell Sterritt and the Westbank First Nation
IN/DANS:Delgamuukw, also known as Earl Muldoe, suing on his own behalf and on behalf of all members of the Houses of Delgamuukw et al.
v. (23799)
Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia and the A.G. of Canada (B.C.)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Alcan Aluminum Ltd. is granted. The applicant may file a thirty page factum and is granted fifteen minutes for oral argument in the above appeal.
2. The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Repap Enterprises Inc. is granted. The applicant may file a twenty page factum and is granted fifteen minutes for oral argument in the above appeal.
3. The motion for leave to intervene of the applicants B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, B.C. Chamber of Commerce, B.C. Wildlife Federation, Business Council of British Columbia, Council of Forest Industries, Council of Tourist Associations, Fisheries Council of British Columbia, Guideoutfitters Association of British Columbia, Mining Association of British Columbia, and the Pacific Fishermen’s Defence Alliance is granted. The applicants may file a joint factum of twenty pages and are granted fifteen minutes for joint oral submissions in the above appeal.
4. The motion for leave to intervene of the applicants Chief George Guerin et al. (Musqueam) is granted. The applicants may file a twenty page factum and is granted fifteen minutes for oral argument in the above appeal.
5. The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant First Nations Summit is granted. The applicant may file a twenty page factum and is granted fifteen minutes for oral argument in the above appeal.
6. The motion for extension of time and for leave to intervene of the applicant Westbank First Nation is granted. The applicant may file a twenty page factum and is granted fifteen minutes for oral argument in the above appeal.
7. The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant “God, in the person of James Russell Sterritt” is denied.
16.10.1996
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent’s response
Jerry Lee Dunn
v. (25444)
Her Majesty The Queen (P.E.I.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer la réponse de l’intimée
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to November 15, 1996.
16.10.1996
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent’s response
Francis Joseph Godin
v. (25443)
Her Majesty The Queen (P.E.I.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer la réponse de l’intimée
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to November 15, 1996.
16.10.1996
Before / Devant: LE REGISTRAIRE
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer la réponse des intimés
Guy Fortin
c. (25426)
Ross Clarkson et al. (Qué.)
Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondents’ response
ACCORDÉE / GRANTED Délai prorogé au 4 octobre 1996.
16.10.1996
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion for acceptance of factum on appeal over 40 pages
Reference Re: Independence and Impartiality of the Judges of the Provincial Court of P.E.I. (P.E.I.)(24778)
and
Reference Re: Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court of P.E.I. (P.E.I.)(24508)
Requête en acceptation d'un mémoire d'appel de plus de 40 pages
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
AVIS D’APPEL DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
15.10.1996
Her Majesty The Queen
v. (25198)
Carmine Folino (Ont.)
15.10.1996
Sa Majesté La Reine
c. (25221)
Michel Cogger (Qué.)
NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
AVIS DE DÉSISTEMENT DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION
|
15.10.1996
Francesco Amato
c. (25387)
Ministre de la Justice du Canada et al. (Qué.)
(requête)
APPEALS HEARD SINCE LAST ISSUE AND DISPOSITION |
APPELS ENTENDUS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION ET RÉSULTAT
|
11.10.1996
CORAM:Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
Shawn Trevor Wesley Laverty
v. (24822)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.)
B. Rory B. Morahan, for the appellant.
Robert A. Mulligan, for the respondent (video conference).
GONTHIER J. (orally for the Court) -- Substantially for the reasons of McEachern C.J. and Hollinrake J.A., we are all of the view that this appeal as of right should be dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
LE JUGE GONTHIER (oralement au nom de la Cour) -- Essentiellement pour les raisons exposées par le juge en chef McEachern et le juge Hollinrake, nous sommes tous d’avis qu’il y a lieu de rejeter le présent pourvoi formé de plein droit. Le pourvoi est donc rejeté.
11.10.1996
CORAM:Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
Bernadette Mae Keshane
v. (25031)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.)
Bruce P. Ritter, for the appellant.
Douglas G. Curliss, for the respondent.
JUSTICE GONTHIER (orally) -- We need not hear from you Mr. Curliss. The Court is ready to hand down judgment now. Judgment of the Court will be given by our colleague, Mr. Justice Cory.
LE JUGE GONTHIER (oralement) -- Il ne sera pas nécessaire de vous entendre Me Curliss. La Cour est prête à rendre jugement séance tenante, lequel sera prononcé par notre collègue le juge Cory.
JUSTICE CORY (orally) -- Asuming without deciding that there was an infringement of s. 8 of the Charter in this case, we are nonethless all of the view that the evidence obtained as a result of the search was admissible pursuant to s. 24(2). It was real evidence that existed prior to the search. It was not elicited as a result of the compelled assistance of the accused. There was no bad faith demonstrated by the police. If there was a breach of s. 8 it could not be termed either flagrant or serious. The evidence discovered in the search was essential to prove the commission of a serious offence. It follows that the Court of Appeal was correct in setting aside the acquittal by the trial judge and in directing that the evidence be admitted.
LE JUGE CORY (oralement) -- À supposer sans en décider qu’il y a eu violation de l’art. 8 de la Charte en l’espèce, nous sommes néanmoins tous d’avis que la preuve obtenue grâce à la fouille était admissible conformément au par. 24(2). Il s’agissait d’une preuve matérielle qui existait avant la fouille. Elle n’a pas été obtenue grâce à l’aide forcée de l’accusée. La police n’a pas fait preuve de mauvaise foi. S’il y a eu violation de l’art. 8, cette violation ne pouvait pas être qualifiée de flagrante ou de grave. La preuve découverte au cours de la fouille était essentielle pour établir la perpétration d’une infraction grave. Il s’ensuit que la Cour d’appel a eu raison d’annuler l’acquittement prononcé par le juge du procès et d’ordonner l’admission de la preuve.
However the appellant did not have the opportunity to put forward a defence. There must therefor be a new trial with the evidence obtained in the search admitted. The order of the Court of Appeal is therefor varied to provide that a new trial is directed.
Cependant, l’appelante n’a pas eu l’occasion de soumettre une défense. Il doit donc y avoir un nouveau procès au cours duquel la preuve obtenue grâce à la fouille sera utilisée. En conséquence, l’ordonnance de la Cour d’appel est modifiée de manière à préciser qu’un nouveau procès est ordonné.
To the extent a new trial is directed, the appeal is allowed.
Dans la mesure où un nouveau procès est ordonné, le pourvoi est accueilli.
WEEKLY AGENDA |
ORDRE DU JOUR DE LA SEMAINE
|
AGENDA for the week beginning October 21, 1996.
ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 21 octobre 1996.
Date of Hearing/ Case Number and Name/
Date d'audition Numéro et nom de la cause
The Court is not sitting this week
La Cour ne siège pas cette semaine
NOTE:
This agenda is subject to change. Hearing dates should be confirmed with Process Registry staff at (613) 996-8666.
Cet ordre du jour est sujet à modification. Les dates d'audience devraient être confirmées auprès du personnel du greffe au (613) 996-8666.
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 : November 4, 1996
Service : October 28, 1996 Filing : October 21, 1996 Respondent : October 14, 1996 |
Audience du : 4 novembre 1996
Signification : 28 octobre 1996 Dépôt : 21 octobre 1996 Intimé : 14 octobre 1996
|
Motion day : December 2, 1996
Service : November 25, 1996 Filing : November 18, 1996 Respondent : November 11, 1996 |
Audience du : 2 décembre 1996
Signification : 25 novembre 1996 Dépôt : 18 novembre 1996 Intimé : 11 novembre 1996
|
DEADLINES: APPEALS
|
DÉLAIS: APPELS |
The winter session of the Supreme Court of Canada will commence September 30, 1996.
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 four 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 four 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
|
La session d'hiver de la Cour suprême du Canada commencera le 30 septembre 1996.
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 quatre 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 quatre 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. |
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE
CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME
- 1996 -
OCTOBER - OCTOBRE |
|
NOVEMBER - NOVEMBRE |
|
DECEMBER - DECEMBRE |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
29 |
m 30 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
1 |
m 2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
|
3 |
m 4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
13 |
h 14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
|
10 |
h 11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
|
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
|
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
|
22 |
23 |
24 |
h 25 |
h 26 |
27 |
28 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
- 1997 -
JANUARY - JANVIER |
|
FEBRUARY - FÉVRIER |
|
MARCH - MARS |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
|
|
h 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
|
2 |
m 3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
|
2 |
m 3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
|
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
|
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
|
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
|
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
|
|
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
h 28 |
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30 |
h 31 |
|
|
|
|
|
APRIL - AVRIL |
|
MAY - MAI |
|
JUNE - JUIN |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
|
1 |
m 2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
|
4 |
m 5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
|
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
|
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
20 |
m 21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
|
18 |
h 19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
|
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sittings of the court: Séances de la cour: |
|
|
Motions: Requêtes: |
M |
|
Holidays: Jours fériés: |
H |
18 sitting weeks / semaines séances de la cour 83 sitting days / journées séances de la cour 8 motion and conference days / journées requêtes, conférences 1 holidays during sitting days / jours fériés durant les sessions |
|
|
|
|
|
|