Bulletins

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 M^e 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 -

 

 

                                                                                                                 - 1997 -

 

 

 

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