Bulletins

Erreur ! Signet non défini.

OF CANADA                                           DU CANADA   Erreur ! Signet non défini.

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

          PROCEEDINGS   PROCÉDURESErreur ! Signet non défini.

Erreur ! Signet non défini.Erreur ! Signet non défini.

October 4, 1996                                              1540 - 1670    le 4 octobre 1996Erreur ! Signet non défini.

CONTENTS                                                                                                               TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Rita Mary Dyck

                James H. Johnson

                Johnson McClelland

                v. (25498)

Wilfred Dyck (Alta.)

                Ajaje Yaggey

                Joseph Doz 1994 Professional Corp.

FILING DATE 23.9.1996

Richard Baker

                Jerome P. Kennedy

                Jerome P. Kennedy Law Office

                v. (25499)

Her Majesty The Queen (Nfld.)

                Wayne Gorman

                Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 24.9.1996

René Gastonguay

                Louis Masson

Joli-Coeur, Lacasse, Lemieux, Simard, St-Pierre

                c. (25500)

Le Groupe commerce compagnie d’assurances (Qué.)

                André Bois

                Tremblay, Bois, Mignault & Lemay

DATE DE PRODUCTION 24.9.1996

George Chadjideris et al.

                Henry M. Lang, Q.C.

                v. (25502)

The Toronto-Dominion (Ont.)

                Sean Dewart

                Blaney, McMurtry, Stapells, Friedman

FILING DATE 23.9.1996

Allen Wade Spidell

                Mark F. Dempsey

Power, Dempsey & Cooper

                v. (25384)

Her Majesty The Queen (N.S.)

                Kenneth W. Fiske

                A.G. of N.S.

FILING DATE 26.9.1996

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE 

SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE

DEMANDES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION

SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 / LE 30 SEPTEMBRE 1996

                                                CORAM:  Chief Justice Lamer and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ. /

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Gonthier et Iacobucci

                                                                                     Robert Douglas Worth

                                                                                                v. (25382)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Defence - Mental disorder - Whether trial judge erred in instructing jury that they could draw an adverse inference from Applicant’s refusal to allow Crown psychiatrists to interview him - Jury selection - Challenge for cause - Whether challenge for cause procedure was improperly conducted in that Crown was allowed to admit challenges for cause.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                           Cam Hoa Huynh

                                                                                                v. (25379)

                                                                      Her Majesty The Queen (F.C.A.)(Man.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Administrative law - Judicial review - Appeal - Whether section 83 of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, as amended, contravenes sections 7  or 15  of the Charter .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

June 24, 1993

Federal Court Trial Division (Rothstein J.)

Application for judicial review dismissed

November 24, 1994

Federal Court Trial Division

(Cullen J.)

On motion for preliminary determination of questions of law: section 83 of the Immigration Act found not to contravene ss. 7  or 15  of the Charter 

April 15, 1996

Federal Court of Appeal

(Hugessen, Stone and MacGuigan JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

June 14, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application 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

                                                                                            Wilfried Koch

                                                                                                c. (25395)

                                                            La Commission hydro électrique du Québec (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial -  Procédures - Actions - Preuve - Jugements et ordonnances - Dommages et intérêts - Droits sur terrain adjacent - Pacte de préférence conclu dans un bail - Conclusion de jugement - Preuve testimoniale - L’entente conclue avec l’intimée accordait-elle aussi un privilège de premier acheteur en plus du privilège de location? - Le demandeur a-t-il droit aux dommages de 133 000 $ et aux dommages 250 000 $ pour l’avenir?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 6 mars 1989

Cour supérieure du Québec (Trudeau j.c.s.)

Action du demandeur rejetée

Le 19 avril 1996

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Beauregard et Otis jj.c.a., et Biron j.c.a. (ad hoc))

Appel accueilli;  action accueillie en partie

Le 17 juin 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

                                                                                              Alain Savard

                                                                                                v. (25367)

                                                                   Attorney General of Canada (Crim.)(Yuk.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Appointment of counsel - Criminal Code , s. 672.24  - Whether Court can order that Attorney General pay fees of counsel appointed pursuant to s. 672.24  of Criminal Code .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

August 20, 1993

Territorial Court of the Yukon (Stuart T.C.J.)

Order appointing counsel pursuant to s. 672.24  Criminal Code 

September 10, 1993

Territorial Court of the Yukon (Stuart T.C.J.)

Order for counsel’s fees to be paid by Attorney General of Canada

June 15, 1994

Supreme Court of the Yukon Territory (Maddison J.)

Petition for an order in the nature of certiorari and prohibition dismissed

April 10, 1996

Court of Appeal for the Yukon Territory

(Wood [dissenting], Rowles and Ryan JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed

June 10, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

                                                               Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union,

                                                                              Local 544 and Marcella Peters

                                                                                                v. (25366)

                                                          Battlefords and District Co-operative Limited (Sask.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Arbitration - Collective agreement - Interpretation - Judicial review - Standard of review - Part-time employee - Grievance by Applicant alleging breach of collective agreement - Reduction in hours of work constituting lay-off - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the decision of the Board was patently unreasonable.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

June 18, 1993

Arbitration Board

(Whelan, Chair, MacPherson,  Cymbalisty, Members)

Applicants’ grievance allowed: declaration that terms of collective agreement breached and lay-off occurred

September 30, 1993

Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan

(Matheson J.)

Respondent’s application for judicial review dismissed

April 4, 1996

Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

(Cameron, Vancise and Lane JJ.A.)

Respondent’s appeal allowed

June 7, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

                                                               Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union,

                                                                                 Local 454 and Kelly Hardy

                                                                                                v. (25356)

                                                                            Canada Safeway Limited (Sask.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Arbitration - Collective agreement - Interpretation - Judicial review - Standard of review - Part-time employee - Grievance alleged breach of “most available hours clause” of collective agreement - Reduction in scheduled hours of work - “Constructive lay-off” - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the decision of the Board was patently unreasonable.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

November 29, 1994

Arbitration Board (Rasmussen, Chair, Cymbalisty,

Carroll (dissenting), Members)

Applicants’ grievance allowed: declaration that terms of collective agreement breached and constructive lay-off occurred

May 2, 1995

Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan (Scheibel J.)

Respondent’s application for judicial review dismissed

March 26, 1996

Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

(Vancise, Wakeling and Gerwing JJ.A.)

Respondent’s appeal allowed

May 27, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

CORAM:   L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ. /

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et McLachlin

                                                                                                Nancy Law

                                                                                                v. (25374)

                                                     Minister of Human Resources Development (F.C.A.)(B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Civil - Civil rights - Discrimination on the basis of age - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in finding that sections 44(1)(d) and 58 of the Canada Pension Plan discriminate against widows and widowers under the age of 45 on grounds of age contrary to section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - If the provisions are discriminatory, whether the provisions are justified as a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society pursuant to section 1  of the Charter  - If the age distinctions violate the Charter , what remedy is appropriate?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

March 20, 1995

Pension Appeals Board (Rutherford, Dureault and Angers JJ.)

Applicant’s appeal de novo dismissed

April 17, 1996

Federal Court of Appeal

(Isaac C.J., Stone and McDonald JJ.A.)

Applicant’s application for judicial review dismissed

June 17, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

                                                                                    James Cecil Johnstone

                                                                                                v. (25401)

                                               British Columbia Maritime Employers Association (F.C.A.)(B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural Law - Pre-trial Procedure - Motion to appoint counsel denied by Federal Court of Appeal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                             Margaret Hill

                                                                                                v. (25380)

                                                                                William Melville Hill (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

International - Conflict of Laws - Procedural Law - Appeal - Appeal of summary judgment - Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments - Whether genuine issues for trial were raised by an application for reciprocal enforcement of a judgment issued in Florida?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

June 11, 1992

Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Florida (Broome J.)

Dissolution of marriage granted

October 15, 1993

Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Florida

Final Money Judgment

May 25, 1995

Ontario court ( General Division) (MacDougall J.)

Summary judgment enforcing foreign judgment

April 17, 1996

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(McKinlay, Rosenberg, Robins, J.J.A.)

Appeal granted: Summary judgment set aside

June 17, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed.

OCTOBER 1, 1996 / LE 1 OCTOBRE 1996

CORAM: Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ. /

Les juges Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci et Major

                                                                                     Damon Gregory Horne

                                                                                                v. (25240)

                                                                       Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.)

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

OCTOBER 3, 1996 / LE 3 OCTOBRE 1996

25022DAVID ALLEN GAUTHIER  c.  CORPORATION MUNICIPALE DE VILLE DE LAC BRÔME, MARIO BEAUMONT ET ALYRE THIREAULT (Qué.)

CORAM:               Le Juge en chef et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé et Gonthier

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est accordée.

                The application for leave to appeal is granted.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Responsabilité civile - Délits intentionnels - Responsabilité du fait d’autrui - Employeur et employé - Police - Droit municipal - Municipalités - Libertés publiques - Dommages-intérêts - Procédure - Actions - Prescription - Action en dommages-intérêts intentée par le demandeur contre les intimés pour les sévices subis lors d’un interrogatoire policier - Le délai de prescription de six mois prévu à l’art. 586 de la Loi sur les cités et villes, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. C-19, a-t-il été suspendu au motif que le demandeur se trouvait dans “l’impossibilité absolue” d’agir au sens de l’art. 2232 du Code civil du Bas-Canada? - Est-ce que ce délai de prescription de six mois s’applique également au recours en dommages basé sur la  Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. C-12?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 21 février 1990

Cour supérieure du Québec

(Boily j.c.s.)

Action en dommages-intérêts rejetée au motif qu’elle est prescrite

Le 4 octobre 1995

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Michaud j.c.q., Proulx et Trudel jj.c.a.)

Pourvoi rejeté

Le 30 novembre 1995

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

24990VILLE DE LONGUEUIL  c.  MICHÈLE GODBOUT (Qué.)

CORAM:               Le Juge en  et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé et Gonthier

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel et la demande d’autorisation d’appel incident sont accordées.

                The application for leave to appeal and the application for leave to cross-appeal are granted.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Code civil - Droit municipal - Municipalités - Droit du travail - Employeur et employé - Contrats - Dommages-intérêts - Procédure - Jugements et ordonnances - Congédiement - Politique générale de la demanderesse visant à favoriser l’embauche de citoyens résidant dans la municipalité - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en décidant que la condition d’emploi reliée au lieu de résidence habituelle acceptée par l’intimée était contraire à l’ordre public judiciaire, et ce, au surplus, sans tenir compte des conditions de l’art. 1437 du Code civil du Québec, L.Q. 1991, ch. 64, qui constituent l’ordre public législatif applicable en l’espèce? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en faisant en sorte que le “droit” au travail et la liberté de chacun d’établir sa résidence où bon lui semble ne peuvent faire l’objet de renonciation? - Subsidiairement, la Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en déclarant nulles les résolutions du Comité exécutif et du Conseil municipal de la Ville qui sont relatives à la déclaration de lieu de résidence habituelle? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en refusant d’accorder des dommages-intérêts pour la période postérieure au 2 décembre 1988 au motif que l’intimée ne les avait pas actualisés? - Pouvoir de la Cour d’appel de rectifier son jugement à cet égard.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 31 mars 1989

Cour supérieure du Québec (Turmel j.c.s.)

Action directe en nullité de l’intimée rejetée

Le 14 septembre 1995

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Gendreau, Baudouin et Fish jj.c.a.)

Pourvoi accueilli; résolutions contestées annulées; réintégration de l’intimée dans son poste ordonnée; demanderesse condamnée à verser 10 763,47$ à titre de dommages

Le 10 novembre 1995

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

Le 15 novembre 1995

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Gendreau, Baudouin et Fish jj.c.a.)

Jugement du 14 septembre rectifié aux fins de rejeter, parce qu’inexécutoire, la conclusion de l’avis d’appel de l’intimée visant à se faire indemniser des dommages postérieurs au 2 décembre 1988

Le 7 décembre 1995

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel incident déposée à l’encontre des deux décisions de la Cour d’appel sur la question des dommages

Le 12 janvier 1996

Cour suprême du Canada

Requête pour permission d’amender la demande d’autorisation d’appel et demande d’autorisation amendée déposées

25177JOHN DAVID LUCAS AND JOHANNA ERNA LUCAS  v.  HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Sask.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal is granted.

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Defamation - Whether Criminal Code s. 300 (defamation) violates Charter s. 2 (b) - What is the mens rea of the offence of defamation -  Does a “non-violent” offence merit a prison sentence.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

April 12, 1995

Court of Queen’s Bench (Hrabinsky J.)

Conviction: defamation

January 12, 1996

Court  of Appeal for Saskatchewan

(Tallis, Vancise and Lane JJ.A)

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed

25179BRIAN WILLIAM FREDERICK ALLENDER  v.  HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(B.C.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal is granted.

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - First degree murder - Expert evidence - Whether the trial judge erred in allowing testimony by Crown psychiatrist to rebut anticipated defence of intoxication - Whether the trial judge erred in instructing jury on the common sense inference that a sane and sober person intends the natural consequences of his actions where there was evidence that Applicant was intoxicated - Whether trial judge erred in his charge on the defence of intoxication - Whether the trial judge erred in relating intoxication to planning and deliberation.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

September 28, 1993

Supreme Court of British Columbia (Braidwood, J.)

Conviction: First degree murder

February 6, 1996

Court of Appeal of British Columbia

(Wood J.A. [dissenting] and Ryan and Hollinrake JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

March 4, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Notice of appeal as of right filed

April 9, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25166TNT CANADA INC. c.o.b. ALLTRANS EXPRESS  v.  HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Ont.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour Law - Labour Relations - Right to severance pay if engaged in lawful strike at time of termination and plant closure - Canada Labour Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, s. 235 .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

February 25, 1994

Ontario Court (Provincial Division) (Ready J.)

Charges re: Labour Code dismissed

October 24, 1994

Ontario Court (General Division) (Langdon J.)

Appeal dismissed

January 15, 1996

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Robins, Finlayson and Laskin JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed

March 11, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25198HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN  v.  C.C.F. (Crim.)(Ont.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal is granted.

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Touching a child for a sexual purpose - Videotaped evidence - Criminal Code  R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 715.1  -  Whether a complainant adopts the contents of an earlier videotaped statement for purposes of its substantive admissibility under s. 715.1  of the Criminal Code  even where the complainant gives evidence in her viva voce testimony that is not perfectly consistent with the evidence offered in the videotaped statement.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

July 22, 1993

Ontario Court (Provincial Division) (Lane J.)

Conviction: touching a child for a sexual purpose

January 19, 1996

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Finlayson, Carthy and Labrosse JJ.A.)

Conviction set aside; new trial ordered

April 2, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25215SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE  c.  TERRY C. COBB ET MARK CUNNINGHAM (Crim.)(Qué.)

CORAM:               Le Juge en chef et les juges Gonthier et Iacobucci

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit criminel - Application de la Charte canadienne  sur un navire étranger - Éléments de preuve obtenus à bord d’un navire américain - Droit à l’assistance d’un avocat - Équité du procès - Exclusion de la preuve - Officiers américains mandataires de la police canadienne - La Charte canadienne  s’applique-t-elle sur un navire étranger? - Bien que les officiers militaires américains aient collaboré et recueilli des preuves sur demande des policiers québécois, étaient-ils des mandataires de ceux-ci au point de rendre le droit canadien applicable sur un navire de guerre étranger? - En supposant que la Charte canadienne  s’applique, le juge du procès a-t-il commis une erreur en excluant la preuve en vertu du paragraphe 24(2)  de la Charte compte tenu de l’ensemble des circonstances? - L’admission de la preuve recueillie rend-elle le procès inéquitable?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 22 mars 1993

Cour du Québec (Polak J.C.Q.)

Acquittement: Agression sexuelle (art. 271(1) a) C.cr .) et contacts sexuels (art. 151  C.cr .)

Le 24 janvier 1996

Cour d’appel de Québec (Beauregard, Brossard et

Biron [suppléant], JJ.C.A.)

Appel rejeté

Le 25 mars 1996

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

25285DELWIN VRIEND AND GALA-GAY AND LESBIAN AWARENESS, SOCIETY OF EDMONTON AND GAY AND LESBIAN COMMUNITY, CENTRE DE EDMONTON SOCIETY AND DIGNITY CANADA DIGNITE FOR GAY CATHOLICS AND SUPPORTERS  v.  HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA AND HER MAJESTY’S ATTORNEY GENERAL IN AND FOR THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA (Alta.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal and the application for leave to cross-appeal are granted.

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel et la demande d’autorisation d’appel incident sont accordées.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Civil - Civil rights - Human rights legislation - Does the failure of the legislature to include homosexuals as a protected group amount to the drawing of a distinction between that group and other victims of discrimination who have been afforded protection under the Individual Rights Protection Act, S.A. 1980, c.I-2? - If yes, does that distinction constitute a violation of s.15(1)  of the Charter? - If yes, what is the appropriate remedy?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

April 12, 1994

Court of Queen’s Bench (Russell, J.)

Declaration that ss.2(1), 3, 4, 7(1), 8(1) and10 of the Individual Rights Protection Act infringe s.15(1) of the Charter and are to be interpreted, applied and administered as though they contained the words “sexual orientation”; declaration stayed for 30 days; specific remedy for Applicant Vriend denied.

February 23, 1996

Court of Appeal of Alberta

(McClung, O’Leary and Hunt, JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed

April 22, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25283LOCKSLEY WASHINGTON ALPHONSO SENIOR  v.  HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Alta.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal is granted.

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sentencing - Consecutive sentences - Criminal Code  s. 717  - Whether the Applicant was “convicted” while under sentence for another offence as required by s. 717.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

25400HUDSON & COMPANY INSOLVENCY TRUSTEE INC., TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD WILLIAM CHRISTENSEN  v.  EDWARD WILLIAM CHRISTENSEN, IN BANKRUPTCY (Alta.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial Law - Bankruptcy - Statutes - Interpretation - Bankrupt holds an interest in that portion of an annuity which will arise after a designation of his spouse as beneficiary for part of the term expires - Whether section 265 of the Insurance Act,  R.S.A. 1980, c. I‑5 prevents trustee-in-bankruptcy from seizing bankrupt’s interest in the annuity.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

25343THE SASKATCHEWAN MEDICAL POSTGRADUATE COMMITTEE, REPRESENTING AN ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN, THE SASKATOON DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD CORPORATION, THE REGINA DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD CORPORATION AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SASKATCHEWAN DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD CORPORATIONS  v.  THE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS OF SASKATCHEWAN (Sask.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Labour law - Arbitral award interpreting collective agreement - Is the role of the Court of Appeal to retry the issue heard and determined by the Arbitrator, or to ask itself the question: did the learned Chambers Judge properly exercise his discretion in hearing and disposing of  the application before him? - Did Court of Appeal properly perform its appellate function by (a) interpreting the operative words in a collective agreement according to its own conclusions or meaning, which words included “satisfactorily settled”?; (b) interpreting the collective agreement so as to determine which party or parties is entitled to make use of the arbitration provisions of the agreement when this was the function of the learned Arbitrator, and considering and determining the issue based on the respective submissions and positions of the parties?; Did the Court of Appeal err in imposing a rigid collective bargaining labour model on an academic program and its students?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

June 29, 1995

Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan

(Barclay J.)

Application for judicial review of arbitration award dismissed

April 2, 1996

Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

(Tallis, Cameron and Jackson JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed

May 23, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25334MAISON L'INTÉGRALE INC.  c.  LE TRIBUNAL DU TRAVAIL, M. LE JUGE CLAUDE SAINT-ARNAUD, LE COMMISSAIRE GÉNÉRAL DU TRAVAIL, M. MICHEL MARCHAND, SYNDICAT CANADIEN DE LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE, SECTION LOCALE 313  et  HÔPITAL RIVIÈRE-DES-PRAIRIES  et entre  HÔPITAL RIVIÈRE-DES-PRAIRIES  c.  LE TRIBUNAL DU TRAVAIL, M. LE JUGE CLAUDE SAINT-ARNAUD, LE COMMISSAIRE GÉNÉRAL DU TRAVAIL, M. MICHEL MARCHAND, SYNDICAT CANADIEN DE LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE, SECTION LOCALE 313  et  MAISON L'INTÉGRALE INC. (Qué.)

CORAM:               Le Juge en chef et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé et Gonthier

                Les demandes d'autorisation d'appel sont rejetées.

                The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail - Accréditation - Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Compétence -  Transmission des droits et obligations aux termes de l’art. 45 du Code du travail, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. C-27 - Norme de contrôle applicable à la décision du commissaire du travail - Critères servant à déterminer une concession d’entreprise - Services de santé et services sociaux - Bénéficiaires de l’Hôpital transférés à L’Intégrale dans un processus de désinstitutionnalisation - Contrat de services précisant les obligations des parties, les programmes et services visés et le per diem versé par l’Hôpital pour chaque bénéficiaire hébergé par L’Intégrale - Commissaire du travail concluant à une concession partielle d’entreprise - Décision confirmée par le Tribunal du travail, la Cour supérieure et la Cour d’appel - Compte tenu de la modification législative apportée à l’art. 46 du Code du travail suite à l’arrêt U.E.S., local 298 c. Bibeault, [1988] 2 R.C.S. 1048, la question de l’aliénation ou de la concession d’une entreprise relève-t-elle maintenant de la compétence stricto sensu du commissaire du travail? - Dans l’affirmative, les décisions du commissaire du travail et du Tribunal du travail sont-elles manifestement déraisonnables?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

25354GEORGES BALKAN  c.  COMMISSION DES TRANSPORTS DU QUÉBEC (Qué.)

CORAM:               Le Juge en chef et les juges Gonthier et Iacobucci

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Compétence - Functus officio - Renouvellement de permis -  Rapport d’un inspecteur de la Commission des transports recommandant d’entreprendre des procédures aux fins de révoquer le permis de taxi du demandeur au motif qu’il a loué son permis contrairement à l’art. 33.1 de la Loi sur le transport par taxi, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. T-11.1 - Demandeur avisé de la tenue d’une audition - Renouvellement du permis autorisé par le vice-président de la Commission avant l’audition - Permis du demandeur révoqué par la Commission suite à l’audition de sa cause - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que le principe du functus officio ne trouvait aucune application dans la présente cause puisque le vice-président n’était pas saisi de la question de savoir si le permis du demandeur devait être révoqué et qu’il n’a pas statué définitivement sur cette question? - Chandler c. Alberta Association of Architects, [1989] 2 R.C.S. 848.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 30 juillet 1991

Commission des transports du Québec

Permis de transport par véhicule-taxi du demandeur révoqué

Le 15 avril 1996

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Fish, Deschamps et Biron [ad hoc] jj.c.a.)

Appel rejeté

Le 3 juin 1996

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

25023TERENCE LAWRENCE CASLAKE v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Man.)

CORAM:               La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal is granted but only on the issues regarding the search, namely whether the power of search incident to arrest extends to vehicles and whether the delay between the arrest and the search was such that the search could no longer be considered an incident to the arrest.

                La demande d’autorisation d’appel n’est accordée qu’en ce qui concerne les questions relatives à la fouille ou perquisition, notamment la question de savoir si le pouvoir de fouiller ou de perquisitionner relié à une arrestation s’applique à des véhicules et celle de savoir si le délai écoulé entre l’arrestation et la fouille ou perquisition fait en sorte que cette fouille ou perquisition ne pouvait plus être considérée comme reliée à l’arrestation.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Evidence - Narcotics - Police - Search incidental to arrest - Residual evidence - Whether the arrest of the Applicant was a lawful arrest - Whether a warrantless search violated s. 8  of the Charter -  Whether the evidence was admissible despite a s. 8  Charter violation - Whether the Applicant was in possession of marijuana - Whether the trial judge erred on the elements required to establish possession - Whether the Applicant had control of the marijuana -  Whether probative value of evidence went beyond establishing propensity - Applicability of s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985 c. C-46 .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

24999PAULA LEEANN LEWIS and SHANNON LEE LEWIS, Infants by their Guardian Ad Litem Diana Holt, and LEELAND GORDON JAMES HOLT, BOBBI-JO HOLT, and SHAYNE CALVERT HOLT, Infants by their Guardian Ad Litem Gail Nachbar, and the said DIANA HOLT and JEFFREY DAVID HOLT v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (B.C.)

CORAM:               La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal is granted on the issue regarding non‑delegable duty only.

                La demande d’autorisation d’appel n’est accordée qu’en ce qui concerne la question relative à une responsabilité qui ne peut être déléguée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence - Vicarious Liability - Master/Servant - Vicarious or absolute nature of Crown liability for negligence of independent contractor who failed to remove a rock from the face of a cliff beside a provincial highway before it fell and killed a driver.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

February 11, 1994

Supreme Court of British Columbia (Smith J.)

Action allowed

September 18, 1995

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(McEachern, Southin, and Ryan JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed

November 17, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25006HEINRICH MARTIN v. ARTYORK INVESTMENTS LTD. (Ont.)

CORAM:               La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal is granted.

                La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Company law - Statutes - Interpretation - Whether a person who provides funds intended for a corporation to an officer and director of the corporation can rely on the Ontario Business Corporations Act, S.O. 1982, c.4, s. 19 to recover the funds from the corporation without demonstrating that the corporation in fact received the funds from its officer/director.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

October 28, 1991

Ontario Court of Justice (Hollingworth J.)

Applicant’s action allowed, Respondent’s counterclaim dismissed

September 28, 1995

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(McKinlay, Abella and Lacourcière JJ.A.)

Respondent’s appeal allowed

November 22, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25080RANDY SMITH, WESLEY EBANKS, MARK HOLLOWELL and LARA HOLM on behalf of the class of CANADIAN TIRE ACCEPTANCE LTD. CARD HOLDERS (CARD HOLDERS) v. CANADIAN TIRE ACCEPTANCE LTD. (Ont.)

CORAM:               La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial ‑ Interest ‑ Equivalent annual rate ‑ Annual nominal rate ‑ Effective annual rate ‑ Credit card agreements providing for monthly payments of interest ‑ Agreements not stating effective annual rate of interest ‑ Agreements interpreted as stating annual nominal rate of interest ‑ Compliance with s. 4  of Interest Act  ‑ Interest Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I‑15, s. 4 .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

August 22, 1994

Ontario Court (General Division) (Winkler J.)

Applicant’s action dismissed

November 7, 1995

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(McKinlay, Catzman, Abella JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

January 8, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25113CANADIAN AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. ALBERT BELLONI and CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (F.C.A.)

CORAM:               La Forest, 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 - Hearing within a reasonable time ‑ Delay of four years and eight months in bringing matter to tribunal hearing ‑ Delay resulting chiefly from institutional problems ‑ Whether right to natural justice infringed? ‑ Whether complaint of refusal to employ can proceed as complaint against employment policy or practice? - Ss. 7  and 10  of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6 .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

25221SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE c. MICHEL COGGER (Crim.)(Qué.)

CORAM:               Les juges La Forest, Gonthier et Iacobucci

                La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

                The application for leave to appeal is granted.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Preuve - Mens rea - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en statuant que la preuve, faite hors de tout doute raisonnable, de chacun des éléments constitutifs de l’actus reus, de la connaissance de leur existence par l’accusé ainsi que du caractère intentionnel de la conduite de l’accusé, ne suffit pas à entraîner une condamnation aux termes de l’article 121(1) (a) du Code criminel du Canada ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en imposant à la Couronne l’obligation supplémentaire et non requise par la loi ou la jurisprudence, de prouver que l’accusé a eu le sentiment ou la volonté de mal agir, de se conduire de façon répréhensible ou d’enfreindre la loi?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 17 juin 1993

Cour du Québec (Chambre criminelle)

(Falardeau j.c.s.)

Acquittement:  avoir accepté des honoraires du gouvernement pour une compagnie privée alors qu’il exerçait la profession d’avocat et de sénateur

Le 6 février 1996

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Rothman, Proulx et Deschamps jj.c.a.)

Appel rejeté

Le 21 mars 1996

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

25225KIRKFIELD PARK & ARTHUR OLIVER RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INC. v. THE CITY OF WINNIPEG, WESTFAIR PROPERTIES LTD., & 2514141 MANITOBA LTD. (Man.)

CORAM:               La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.

                The application for 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 - Injunctions - Prerogative writs - Statutes - Interpretation - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in denying leave to address new issues on appeal - Whether a municipal council had a statutory duty to state reasons for a decision - If that duty exists, then whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to enforce the duty - If that duty exists, then whether the decision of the municipal council is null and void as a result of the failure to observe the duty - Whether there was a failure to disclose a relevant document to the Applicant - If there was a failure, whether the failure violates a duty of fairness and/or certain statutory provisions - Whether a representation was made to a planning committee - If there was a representation, whether allowing the representation violates a duty of fairness - Whether this Court can consider a new legal issue, specifically whether sending a notice which relies on an invalid by-law and which conflicts with the empowering statute.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

25190CODY STILES v. STANLEY BECKETT and ROWENA BECKETT and YUKON HONDA LTD. and HONDA CANADA INC. and HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD. (HONDA GIKEN KOGYO K.K.) and HONDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.  and  HONDA CANADA INC., and HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD. (HONDA GIKEN KOGYO K.K.) and HONDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS CO. LTD. (B.C.)

CORAM:               La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.

                The application for 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

Torts - Negligence - Duty to warn - Product liability - The extent of the duty to warn owed by manufacturers of high risk or adventure products to all foreseeable users of their product.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

January 4, 1993

Supreme Court of British Columbia (Finch J.)

Appellant’s action dismissed

January 9, 1996

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Legg, Prowse and Donald JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

March 8, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25172PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA v. NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION, MARCEL BEAUDRY and JOHN D.V. HOYLES (F.C.A.)

CORAM:               La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Labour law - Collective agreement - Judicial review - Standard of review - No privative clause -  Public Service Staff Relations Act - “Statutory freeze” - Contracting out.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

October 16, 1995

Public Service Staff Relations Board

Complaints under sections 21 and 23 alleging a violation of sections 52 and 8 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act dismissed

January 18, 1996

Federal Court of Appeal

(Hugessen, Stone and Décary JJ.A.)

Application for judicial appeal dismissed

March 1, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25125BUMPER DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD. v. THE UNION OF INDIA, THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, THIRU R. SADAGOPDAN, ARUL THIRU VISWANATHA SWAMY TEMPLE and SHIVA LINGAM (A Juristic Entity Under Indian Law) in Arul Thiru Viswanatha Swamy Temple (Alta.)

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

International law - Conflict of laws - Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment - Public policy - Procedural law - Judgments and orders - Whether the trial judge erred in granting an application for summary judgment for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

April 19, 1995

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta

(Fraser J.)

Application by Respondents for summary judgment granted; Applicant’s counterclaim dismissed, set-off for costs allowed

December 4, 1995

Court of Appeal of Alberta

(Harradence, Hetherington and Foisy JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

March 14, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Amended application for leave to appeal filed

25200CIBC TRUST CORP. v. DR. LAWRENCE NASH (Ont.)

CORAM:               La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

                La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Bankruptcy - Proceeding by creditor where trustee fails to act - Whether proposed defendant has standing to appeal order appointing creditor to commence proceeding - Whether order subject to judicial review - Whether proposed defendant is a “person dissatisfied” entitled to appeal order - Sections 38 , 192(4)  Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

25218WILLIAM OPPONG v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION (F.C.A.)

CORAM:               La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

                La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Immigration - Humanitarian and compassionate grounds - Judicial review - Procedural fairness - Marriage to permanent resident of Canada - Bona fides of marriage.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

December 8, 1994

Federal Court of Canada (Trial Division) (Rothstein J.)

Application for judicial review allowed; matter to be redetermined

January 18, 1996

Federal Court of Canada (Appeal Division)

(Strayer, Linden and McDonald JJ.A)

Appeal allowed

March 18, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25219MARIA JACKIE DASENT v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION (F.C.A.)

CORAM:               La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

                La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Immigration law - Humanitarian and compassionate grounds - Judicial review - Procedural fairness - Marriage to permanent resident of Canada - Bona fides of marriage.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

December 8, 1994

Federal Court of Canada (Trial Division) (Rothstein J.)

Application for judicial review allowed; matter to be redetermined

January 18, 1996

Federal Court of Canada (Appeal Division)

(Strayer, Linden and McDonald JJ.A)

Appeal allowed

March 18, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

24998GENERAL ACCIDENT ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (N.B.)

CORAM:               L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal is granted.

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Insurance - Motor vehicles - Statutes - Interpretation - Lack of ownership by motor vehicle insurance applicant - Effect of Insurance Act, R.S.N.B., c. I-12, s. 250.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

September 22, 1995

Court of Appeal of New Brunswick (Hoyt C.J.N.B., Rice, Ayles, Ryan and Bastarache JJ.A)

Decision answering question in stated case and requiring Applicant to reimburse Respondent

November 17, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25114YANG TUNG CHIU v. KWOK WOON KUNG (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

Property law - Real property - Remedies - Damages - Whether there is an obligation to mitigate damage in an action for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale, where the plaintiff elects damages in lieu of specific performance -Whether there an obligation to account for mitigation that does, in fact, occur.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

October 29, 1991

Ontario Court (General Division) (Somers J.)

Respondent awarded damages

November 23, 1995

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Finlayson, Carthy and Austin JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed in part

January 24, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25064JEFFREY LORNE GOLD v. PRIMARY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED AND THE TORONTO DOMINION BANK (Ont.)

CORAM:               L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal is granted.

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Estates - Trusts and Trustees - Commercial law - Company law - Directors’ resolutions - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning a finding of a dishonest and fraudulent scheme by a trustee - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the beneficiary of an estate and director of an estate company consented to a breach of trust when he signed a directors’ resolution authorizing the act which breached the trust - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the beneficiary of the estate had sufficient information to consent to the breach of trust - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying Air Canada v. M & L Travel, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 787 when the third party was not the agent of the trustee.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

December 9, 1993

Ontario Court (General Division)

(Haley J.)

Finding of fraudulent and dishonest scheme by trustee and knowing assistance by Respondent; constructive trust imposed on Respondent; security held by Respondent not enforceable; law firm liable for damages.

May 3, 1994

Ontario Court (General Division) (Haley J.)

Judgment on costs

October 24, 1995

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Dubin, Abella, and Laskin JJ.A.)

Finding of fraudulent and dishonest scheme overturned, appeal dismissed

December 27, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25194HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. C.J.S. (Crim.)(P.E.I.)

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 - Incest - Presumption of innocence - Whether the trial judge presumed the Respondent guilty and reversed the onus upon him - Evidence - Whether the trial judge improperly considered literature and psychological evidence that was not in evidence before the Court - Whether the trial judge failed to properly consider the reliability of the complainants’ evidence when assessing the credibility of the complainants - Whether the trial judge erred in applying the rules of similar fact evidence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

25195DALE BAKER 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 - Procedure - Pre-trial - Refusal of trial judge to sever counts - Trial judge undertaking to charge jury in accordance with R. v. Simpson, 35 C.C.C. (2d) 337 (Ont.C.A.) - Whether Court of Appeal erred in not ordering a new trial.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

January 25, 1994

Ontario Court (General Division) (Cosgrove J.)

Convictions: sexual interference and sexual assault

January 11, 1996

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Houlden, McKinlay and Abella JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

March 11, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25150FRIENDS OF THE ISLAND INC. v. MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS, MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION, MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND AND SCI PARTNERSHIP (F.C.A.)(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

Procedural law - Judgments & orders - Costs - Judicial review proceedings - Federal Court Rule 1618 - What constitutes “special reasons”.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

25173VELUPPILLAI PUSHPANATHAN v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

CORAM:               L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal is granted.

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Immigration - Statutes - Interpretation - Did the Federal Court of Appeal err in interpreting paragraph 1F(c) of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (incorporated into Canadian law by the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985 c. I-2, s. 2) to exclude from refugee status an individual guilty of possession of heroin for the purposes of trafficking in Canada?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

September 3, 1993

Federal Court Trial Division (McKeown J.)

Applicant’s application dismissed

December 20, 1995

Federal Court of Appeal

(Stone, Strayer and Linden JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

February 19, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25189THE CITADEL GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY AND THE CITADEL LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY v. LLOYDS BANK OF CANADA AND HONG KONG BANK OF CANADA (Alta.)

CORAM:               L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal is granted.

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Trusts and trustees - Liability of strangers to a trust for knowing receipt - Whether Air Canada v. M & L Travel Limited, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 787 applies to “knowing receipt” cases - Whether shutting ones eyes in circumstances which should have caused one to inquire is sufficient to ground a constructive trust - Whether the Defendant must justify its conduct once facts have been proven which would allow the Court to infer the requisite knowledge or notice - Whether a significant change in the law between trial and appeal demands a new trial.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

June 3, 1993

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta

(Marshall, J.A.)

Judgment for Applicant; constructive trust and breach of the constructive trust found; decision on prejudgment interest reserved

June 21, 1993

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Marshall, J.A.)

Prejudgment interest awarded to the Applicant

January 8, 1996

Court of Appeal of Alberta

(Kerans, Belzil and Hetherington JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed

March 7, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25193R. WEST & ASSOCIATES INC. and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA v. TELECOM LEASING CANADA (TLC) LIMITED (B.C.)

CORAM:               L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal is granted.

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitution - Commercial law - Statutes - Property law - Division of powers - Bankruptcy - Interpretation - Leases -  Whether there is an operational conflict between section 20(b)(i) of the Personal Property Security Act, R.S.B.C. 1989, c. 36 and the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3  - Whether failure by a lessor to register its security interest pursuant to the Personal Property Security Act results in a transfer of title of the leased item to a trustee in bankruptcy or results in a lower priority for the lessor vis-à-vis the creditors of the bankrupt - Whether property that does not belong to a bankrupt can be distributed among the bankrupt’s creditors.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

April 15, 1994

Supreme Court of British Columbia (Hood J.)

Applicant trustee’s action allowed

January 12, 1996

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Macfarlane, Wood and Finch JJ.A)

Appeal allowed

March 12, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25143LYNN OCTAVIA GOERTZ and OTTO P. GOERTZ v. PEAT, MARWICK THORNE INC. (Sask.)

CORAM:               L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal is granted.

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Bankruptcy - Settlement of property - Jointly owned farm and homestead properties transferred from husband and wife to wife - Husband having no income at time of transfer and large outstanding judgment against him - Husband making assignment in bankruptcy thirteen months later - Whether husband insolvent on date of transfer - Whether transfer to wife a settlement - Whether transfer void as against trustee - Whether homestead is exempt property where property transferred from debtor to wife - Does debtor lose exemption - Whether homestead lands exigible for division amongst creditors - Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act,  R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, ss. 67 , 91  - The Homesteads Act, 1989-90, c. H-5.1 - The Exemptions Act,  R.S.S. 1978, c. E-14 - The Saskatchewan Farm Securities Act, S.S. 1988-89, c. S-17.1, ss. 2(1)(h), 66(k).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

25192CANADIAN EGG MARKETING AGENCY v. PINEVIEW POULTRY PRODUCTS LTD. and THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES AS REPRESENTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES  and between  CANADIAN EGG MARKETING AGENCY v. FRANK RICHARDSON OPERATING AS NORTHERN POULTRY and THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES AS REPRESENTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES (N.W.T.)

CORAM:               L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.

                The motion for leave to intervene to the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories, as represented by the Attorney General of the Northwest Territories and the application for leave to appeal are granted.

                La demande visant à autoriser l’intervention du commissaire des territoires du Nord-Ouest, représenté par le procureur général des territoires du Nord-Ouest et la demande d’autorisation d’appel sont accordées.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional - Mobility Rights - Freedom of Association - Discrimination - Place of Residence - Challenge to the exclusion of the Northwest Territories from Interprovincial and Export Egg Marketing - Standing of corporations to claim remedy under s. 6(2) (b) of the Charter - Public Interest Standing - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , ss. 1 , 2(d) , 6(2)(b) , 15(1) .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

August 22, 1995

Supreme Court of Northwest Territories (de Weerdt J.)

Declaratory relief granted in favour of Respondents

January 10, 1996

Court of Appeal of the Northwest Territories

(Bracco, Picard and Hunt JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

March 11, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25259B.C. GAS UTILITY LTD., WESTCOAST ENERGY INC., NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA v. CONSUMERS’ GAS COMPANY LTD. and CONSUMERS’ ASSOCIATION OF CANADA (F.C.A.)(B.C.)

CORAM:               L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal is granted.

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional law - Statutes - Administrative law - Jurisdiction - Division of powers - Interpretation - Reference - Whether the Respondent Westcoast Energy Inc.’s gathering and processing facilities for  natural gas constituted part of a federal undertaking under the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada through the combined effect of sections 91(29) and 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1987, (U.K.), 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3  - Whether the processing facilities fall within the definition of “pipeline” under the National Energy Board Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-7.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

25375VICTOR DANIEL WILLIAMS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(B.C.)

CORAM:               L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal is granted.

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Trial - Procedure - Juries - Jury selection - Challenge for cause - Whether prospective jurors can be questioned with respect to racial bias against aboriginal persons - R. v. Parks (1993), 84 C.C.C. (3d) 353 (Ont. C.A.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

25.9.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent’s response

Brian Jeffries

   v. (25460)

Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)

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 1, 1996.

25.9.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent’s factum

Henry Lewis Bramwell

   v. (25211)

Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l’intimée

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to September 23, 1996.

25.9.1996

Before / Devant: IACOBUCCI J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse

IN/DANS:Brant County Board of Education

                                                v. (24668)

Carol Eaton et al. (Ont.)

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

1.  La demande visant à proroger le délai pour produire une demande en intervention est accueillie;

2.  La demande visant à autoriser la requérante à intervenir est accueillie;

3.  L’autorisation de déposer un mémoire de 20 pages est accordée.  Le mémoire doit être déposé au plus tard le 1^er octobre 1996.

4.  Une plaidoirie de 15 minutes est autorisée.

25.9.1996

Before / Devant: IACOBUCCI J.

Motion for a stay of execution

Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd.

   v. (25475)

Forest Protection Ltd.  (N.B.)

   and between

Sumitomo Canada Ltd.

   v. (25496)

Forest Protection Ltd. (N.B.)

   and between

Chemagro Ltd. et al.

   v. (25479)

Forest Proctection Ltd. (N.B.)

Requête en vue de surseoir à l'exécution

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that that part of the order of Creaghan J., dated May 10, 1996, which provides for the production of documents and information in the possession of the Director of Investigation and Research under the Competition Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. C-34  and for the examination of David M. Gilkes, is stayed until such time as the Court has dealt with the application for leave to appeal submitted by the Applicants and, if leave is granted, until the matter is finally disposed of by the Court.

25.9.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time to file the intervener’s factum

BY/PAR:A.G. of B.C.

IN/DANS:Brant County Board of Education

                                                v. (24668)

Carol Eaton et al. (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l’intervenant

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to September 6, 1996.

25.9.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent’s factum

Robert William Latimer

   v. (24818)

Her Majesty The Queen (Sask.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l’intimée

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE  Time extended to September 20, 1996.

25.9.1996

Before / Devant: LE REGISTRAIRE

Requête en acceptation d'un mémoire d'appel de plus de 40 pages

Réjean Hinse

   c. (24320)

Sa Majesté La Reine (Qué.)

Motion  for acceptance of factum on appeal over 40 pages

ACCORDÉE / GRANTED

27.9.1996

Before / Devant: IACOBUCCI J.       

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:Société des alcools du Québec

IN/DANS:Air Canada et al.

                                                v. (24851)

Régie des Alcools de l’Ontario et al. (Ont.)

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

1.  La demande visant à autoriser la requérante à intervenir est accueillie;

2.  L’autorisation de déposer un mémoire de 20 pages est accordée.

3.  Une plaidoirie de 15 minutes est autorisée.

27.9.1996

Before / Devant: LE REGISTRAIRE

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l’intimée

Réjean Hinse

   c. (24320)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)

Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent’s factum

ACCORDÉE / GRANTED     Délai prorogé au 25 septembre 1996.

30.9.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file the appellant’s factum

Her Majesty The Queen

   v. (24891)

Ossie Sylvester (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l’appelante

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to September 16, 1996.

30.9.1996

Before / Devant: LE REGISTRAIRE

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l’intimée

Allen Pelletier

   c. (25073)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)

Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent’s factum

Avec le consentement des parties.

ACCORDÉE / GRANTED     Délai prorogé au 16 septembre 1996.

30.9.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent’s response

Dancorp Developments Ltd.

   v. (25355)

Seaboard Life Insurance Co. (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer la réponse de l’intimée

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to September 18, 1996.

30.9.1996

Before / Devant: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER

Motion for additional time to present oral argument

Brant County Board of Education

   v. (24668)

Carol Eaton et al. (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du temps accordé pour la plaidoirie

R.E. Charney and Robert Houston, Q.C., for the A.G. for Ontario.

Julie Dagenais-Blackburn, for the appellant and for the intervener OPSBA.

Janet Budgell, for the respondents.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION of the Attorney General of Ontario for extra time for oral argument at the hearing of the appeal scheduled to take place on October 8, 1996;

AND UPON THE APPLICATION of the intervener, the Ontario Public School Boards Association (the “OPSBA”), for five minutes additional time to make oral submissions at the hearing of the appeal;

HAVING READ the material filed and having heard submissions from counsel on behalf of the parties and the interveners, the Attorney General of Ontario and the Ontario Public School Boards Association;

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1.  The Attorney General for Ontario is hereby added as an appellant, and accordingly, will be allowed one hour to make submissions at the hearing of the appeal.

2.  The Respondents will be allowed two hours to make submissions at the hearing of the appeal.

3.  The motion of the intervener, the Ontario Public School Boards Association, is granted and it will be allowed fifteen minutes to make submissions at the hearing of the appeal.

4.  The hearing of the appeal will commence at 9:15 a.m. on October 8, 1996.

30.9.1996

Before / Devant: MAJOR J.

Motion for an order maintaining confidentiality of certain documents

Southam Inc. et al.

   v. (24915)

The Director of Investigation & Research (Ont.)

Requête visant à obtenir une ordonnance préservant la confidentialité de certains documents

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

It is ordered that all documents and other materials included in the case on appeal and the supplementary cases on appeal of the parties, that are subject to confidentiality orders of the Competition Tribunal, shall be marked “Confidential” and not form part of this Honourable Court’s public record.

1.10.1996

Before / Devant: MAJOR J.

Motion for a stay of execution

Edward J. Kasha et al.

    v. (25480)

Scurry-Rainbow Oil Ltd. (Man.)

Requête en vue de surseoir à l'exécution

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

1.10.1996

Before / Devant: MAJOR J.

Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent’s response and the applicants’ reply

Edward J. Kasha et al.

   v. (25480)

Scurry-Rainbow Oil Ltd. (Man.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer la réponse de l’intimée et la réplique des requérants

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to file the respondent’s response to Oct. 31, 1996 and the applicants’ reply to November 15, 1996.

1.10.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Miscellaneous motion on appeal accepting intervener's factum without marginal numbering

Brant County Board of Education

   v. (24668)

Carol Eaton et al. (Ont.)

Autre requête en appel visant à accepter le mémoire de l'intimée sans numérotation dans la marge

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

30.9.1996

CORAM:Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

Motion to quash

Damon Gregory Horne

   v. (25240)

Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.)

Reequête en annulation

Paul L. Moreau, for the motion.  (Edmonton)

Damon Gregory Horne, in person.

DISMISSED /  REJETÉE

30.9.1996

CORAM:  Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

Motion to adduce new evidence

Gerald James Phillips et al.

   v. (25075)

Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.)

Requête visant à produire de nouveaux éléments de preuve

J. David Eaton and Frank DeMont, for Roger James Parry.

Gordon Kelly and Kent Clarke, for Gerald James Phillips.

Craig Garson and Andrew Macdonald, for the respondent.

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

1.10.1996

CORAM:Chief Justice Lamer and La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

Motion to adduce new evidence

Mark Donald Benner

   v. (23811)

Secretary of State et al. (F.C.A.)(B.C.)

Requête visant à produire de nouveaux éléments de preuve

Mark M. Yang, for the appellant. (Video conference)

Neil R. Wilson, for the intervener the Federal Superannuates National Association.

Roslyn J. Levine, Q.C. and Debra M. McAllister, for the respondents.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

2.10.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Motion for acceptance of memorandum of argument on leave to appeal of over 20 pages

Gaetan Masson

   v. (25462)

The Lieutenant Governor in Council et al. (Ont.)

Requête en acceptation d'un mémoire de demande d'autorisation de plus de 20 pages

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

2.10.1996

Before / Devant: MAJOR J.

Motion to extend the time in which to file the notice of appeal

Carol Lawrence et al.

   v. (25507)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer l’avis d’appel

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to September 30, 1996.

24.9.1996

Ernest Richard Greyeyes

   v. (25501)

Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.)

AS OF RIGHT

24.9.1996

Belmoaris Gilberto Coreas

   v. (25503)

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

AS OF RIGHT

26.9.1996

Brian Gordon Jack

   v. (25505)

Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Man.)

AS OF RIGHT

30.9.1996

Carol Lawrence et al.

   v. (25507)

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

AS OF RIGHT

30.9.1996

DÉCRET C.P. 1996-1497

Attendu que le gouvernement du Québec a fait connaître sa position à l'effet que l'Assemblée nationale ou le gouvernement de cette province aurait le droit de procéder unilatéralement à la sécession du Québec du reste du Canada;

                Attendu que le gouvernement du Québec a fait connaître sa position à l’effet que ce droit de procéder unilatéralement à la sécession du Québec pourrait être acquis lors d’un référendum;

                Attendu que plusieurs Québécois et autres Canadiens sont incertains quant à la situation constitutionnelle et internationale qui prévaudrait dans l’éventualité d’une déclaration unilatérale d’indépendance du gouvernement du Québec;

                Attendu que les principes d’autodétermination, de volonté populaire, des droits et libertés fondamentales, et de la primauté du droit ont été soulevés dans plusieurs contextes par rapport à la sécession du Québec du Canada;

                Attendu que le gouvernement du Canada juge opportun de soumettre ces question à la Cour suprême du Canada,

                À ces causes, sur recommandation du ministre de la Justice et en vertu de l’article 53  de la  Loi sur la Cour suprême , Son Excellence le Gouverneur général en conseil soumet à la Cour suprême du Canada pour audition et examen, les questions énoncées ci-dessous:

                1.  L’Assemblée nationale, la législature, ou le gouvernement du Québec peut-il, en vertu de la Constitution du Canada, procéder unilatéralement à la sécession du Québec du Canada?

                2.  L’Assemblée nationale, la législature, ou le gouvernement du Québec possède-t-il, en vertu du droit international, le droit de procéder unilatéralement à la sécession du Québec du Canada?  À cet égard, en vertu du droit international, existe-t-il un droit à l’autodétermination qui procurerait à l’Assemblée nationale, la législature, ou le gouvernement du Québec le droit de procéder unilatéralement à la sécession du Québec du Canada?

                3.  Lequel du droit interne ou du droit international aurait préséance au Canada dans l’éventualité d’un conflit entre eux quant au droit de l’Assemblée nationale, de la législature ou du gouvernement du Québec de procéder unilatéralement à la sécession du Québec du Canada?

--------------------------

30.9.1996

ORDER-IN-COUNCIL P.C. 1996-1497

                Whereas the Governement of Quebec has expressed its view that the National Assembly or governement of that province has the right to cause Quebec to secede from Canada unilaterally;

                Whereas the Governement of Quebec has expressed its view that this right to cause Quebec to secede unilaterally may be acquired in a referendum;

                Whereas many Quebecers and other Canadians are uncertain about the constitutional and international situation in the event of a unilateral declaration of independence by the government of Quebec;

                Whereas principles of self-determination, popular will, democratic rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, have been raised in many contexts in relation to the secession of Quebec from Canada;

                And whereas the Government of Canada sees fit to refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada;

                Therefore, His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, pursuant to section 53  of the Supreme Court Act , hereby submits to the Supreme Court of Canada for hearing and consideration the following questions:

                1.  Under the Constitution of Canada, can the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?

                2.  Does international law give the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?  In this regard, is there a right to self-determination under international law that would give the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?

                3.  In the event of a conflict between domestic and international law on the right of the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally, which would take precedence in Canada?

APPEALS HEARD SINCE LAST ISSUE AND DISPOSITION

APPELS ENTENDUS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION ET RÉSULTAT

1.10.1996

CORAM:Chief Justice Lamer and La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

Mark Donald Benner

   v. (23811)

Secretary of State et al. (F.C.A.)(B.C.)

Mark M. Yang, for the appellant. (Video conference)

Neil R. Wilson, for the intervener the Federal Superannuates National Association.

Roslyn J. Levine, Q.C. and Debra M. McAllister, for the respondents.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Immigration - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Statutes - Interpretation - Appellant, born in the U.S. to a Canadian mother and an American father, applying for Canadian citizenship under s. 5(2) (b) of the Citizenship Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29  - Appellant charged with second degree murder and application for citizenship rejected pursuant to s. 22  of the Citizenship Act  - Whether s. 22 of the Citizenship Act , to the extent that it refers to s. 5(2)(b) of the Act, is inoperable because it is inconsistent with ss. 7 , 11 (d) and 15  of the Charter - Whether the requirement of taking the oath of citizenship under s. 20 of the Citizenship Regulations, C.R.C. 400, by those in the Appellant's class who claim citizenship under s. 5 (2)(b) of the Act, infringes the Appellant's right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law under s. 15  of the Charter.

Nature de la cause:

Immigration - Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Lois - Interprétation - L'appelant, qui est né aux États-Unis d'une mère canadienne et d'un père américain, a demandé la citoyenneté canadienne en vertu de l'art. 5(2) b) de la Loi sur la citoyenneté , L.R.C. (1985), ch. C‑29  - L'appelant a été accusé de meurtre au deuxième degré et sa demande de citoyenneté a été rejetée conformément à l'art. 22  de la Loi sur la citoyenneté  - Dans la mesure où il renvoie à l'art. 5(2) b) de la Loi sur la citoyenneté , l'art. 22 de la Loi est‑il inopérant vu qu'il n'est pas compatible avec les art. 7 , 11 d )  et 15  de la Charte? - L'obligation de prêter le serment de citoyenneté en vertu de l'art. 20 du Règlement sur la citoyenneté, C.R.C. 400, pour ceux qui se trouvent dans la catégorie de l'appelant et qui réclament la citoyenneté en vertu de l'art. 5(2)b) de la Loi contrevient‑elle au droit de l'appelant à l'égalité de bénéfice et à la protection égale de la loi en vertu de l'art. 15  de la Charte?

1.10.1996

CORAM:Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci et Major.

Réjean Hinse

   c. (24320)

Sa Majesté La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

Jean-François Longtin, Josée Ferrari et Eve-Stéphanie Sauvé, pour l’appelant.

Pierre Sauvé, pour l’intimée.

AUDITION REPORTÉE AU 30 OCTOBRE 1996, dépens de la journée adjugés contre la Couronne. /

HEARING ADJOURNED TO OCTOBER 30, 1996, costs of the day awarded against the Crown.

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel - Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Nouvelle preuve -Articles 686(1) a) et 686(2)  du Code criminel  - Pouvoir discrétionnaire résiduel d'une cour d'appel d'ordonner un arrêt des procédures.

Nature of the case:

Criminal law - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Fresh evidence - Sections 686(1) (a) and 686(2)  of the Criminal Code  - Residual discretion of an appellate court to order a stay of proceedings.

2.10.1996

CORAM:La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

Comeau’s Sea Foods Ltd., a body corporate

   v. (24682)

Her Majesty The Queen in right of Canada (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

Stewart McInnes, Q.C. and David S. MacDougall, for the appellant.

David Sgayias, Q.C. and Michael F. Donovan, for the respondent.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Torts - Administrative Law - Statutes - Negligence - Judicial Review - Jurisdiction - Fisheries - Interpretation - Sections 7  and 9  of the Fisheries Act , R.S.C. 1985, c.F-14  - Whether the Minister owed no duty of care in negligence to the Appellant because the Appellant had an administrative remedy by way of an application for judicial review - Whether an ultra vires decision of a Minister can be protected from a claim in negligence due to the common law exemption from negligence of public authorities’ “policy” decisions - Whether a contractual relationship existed between the Appellant and the Respondent with respect to the issuance of the licences.

Nature de la cause:

Délits - Droit administratif - Lois - Négligence - Contrôle judiciaire - Compétence - Pêcheries - Interprétation - Articles 7  et 9  de la Loi sur les pêches , L.R.C. (1985), ch. F-14  - Il faut déterminer si le ministre ne possédait pas d'obligation de diligence fondée sur la négligence envers l'appelante parce que celle-ci disposait d'un recours en droit administratif par voie de demande de contrôle judiciaire -  Une décision ultra vires prise par un ministre peut-elle être protégée contre une revendication fondée sur la négligence du fait que la common law soustrait les décisions «politiques» des autorités publiques à l'application des principes en matière de négligence? - Existait-il un lien contractuel entre l'appelante et l'intimée en ce qui concerne l'octroi de permis?

2.10.1996

CORAM:La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

A.M.

   v. (24612)

Clive Ryan et al. (B.C.)

Brian J. Wallace, Q.C. and Carolyn McCool, for the appellant.

Christopher E. Hinkson, Q.C. and William S. Clark, for the respondent.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Torts - Procedural law - Civil procedure - Evidence - Assessment - Damages - Privilege - Appellant bringing action for damages alleged to have occurred because of sexual abuse - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Appellant had failed to claim privilege with respect to the Respondent Dr. Parfitt's records - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to balance the Appellant’s constitutional right to privacy with respect to her psychiatric records against Dr. Ryan’s right to discovery in a civil action - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that counselling records arising from therapy for sexual assault are protected by privilege.

Nature de la cause:

Délits -- Procédure -- Procédure civile -- Preuve -- Évaluation -- Dommages-intérêts  -- Privilège -- L'appelante a engagé des procédures en dommages-intérêts relativement à un préjudice qui lui aurait été causé par un comportement sexuel abusif -- La Cour d'appel s'est-elle trompée en concluant que l'appelante avait omis de réclamer son privilège à l'égard des dossiers de l'intimée D^r Parfitt? -- La Cour d'appel s'est-elle trompée en omettant de faire une appréciation comparative du droit constitutionnel de l'appelante à la vie privée en ce qui concerne son dossier psychiatrique par rapport au droit du D^r Ryan à la divulgation dans une procédure civile? -- La Cour d'appel s'est-elle trompée en omettant de conclure que les dossiers de counseling constitués lors d'une thérapie pour agression sexuelle sont protégés par un privilège?