Bulletins

          OF CANADA                                                              DU CANADA   

            BULLETIN  OF                                        BULLETIN DES

          PROCEEDINGS  PROCÉDURES

August 23, 1996                                             1285 - 1409                                               le 23 août 1996

CONTENTS                                                                                                              TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Wayne Alexander Perkin

                M.R. Hunt

                Hunt and Boan & Assoc.

                v. (25313)

Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)

                William F. Ehrcke

                Min. of the A.G.

FILING DATE 15.8.1996

Lloyd Roy Barrett

                Lloyd Roy Barrett

                v. (25424)

Allen Waters et al. (Ont.)

                C. William Hourigan

                Fasken Campbell Godfrey

FILING DATE 6.8.1996

Frank Shane Dorfer

                Dennis T.R. Murray, Q.C.

                v. (25432)

Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)

                Dirk Ryneveld, Q.C.

                Office of Crown Counsel

FILING DATE 22.7.1996

Her Majesty The Queen

                John Gordon

                Min. of the A.G.

                v. (25435)

Sidney Walwyn Wells (B.C.)

                Patrick D. Angley

FILING DATE 26.7.1996

Her Majesty The Queen

                Rick Libman

                Min. of the A.G.

                v. (25436)

Robert Scott Milne (Ont.)

                Paul Burstein

                Burstein & Paine

FILING DATE 26.7.1996

Stephen William Kenneth Fegol et al.

                Stephen William Kenneth Fegol

                v. (25437)

The Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corp. et al. (Man.)

                Edward Crane

                Inkster, Christie, Hughes, MacKay

FILING DATE 25.7.1996

Ali Mohamed Holly

                Ali Mohamed Holly

                v. (25439)

Barbraann White (Alta.)

                L.M. Alison Lees

                Brumlik Lees

FILING DATE 26.7.1996

Abdelmadjid Kerrar

                Benoit Emery

                Desjardins Ducharme Stein Monast

                c. (25441)

Houria Souyad (Qué.)

                Marie-Christine Laberge

                De Grandpré, Godin

DATE DE PRODUCTION 9.8.1996

Canadian Broadcasting Corp.

                W. Ian C. Binnie, Q.C.

                McCarthy Tétrault

                v. (25442)

Dr. Robert R. Ross et al. (Ont.)

                Cindy Wasser

FILING DATE 13.8.1996

Francis Joseph Godin

                John L. MacDougall, Q.C.

                MacLeod, MacDougall, Crane & Parkman

                v. (25443)

Her Majesty The Queen (P.E.I.)

                Valerie A. Moore

                Crown Prosecutor’s Office

FILING DATE 16.8.1996

Jerry Lee Dunn

                John L. MacDougall, Q.C.

                MacLeod, MacDougall, Crane & Parkman

                v. (25444)

Her Majesty The Queen (P.E.I.)

                Valerie A. Moore

                Crown Prosecutor’s Office

FILING DATE 16.8.1996

Salvatore Gramaglia

                Salvatore Gramaglia

                v. (25446)

Sunlife Trust Co. et al. (Alta.)

                Terrance T. McCaffery

                Clark Dymond McCaffery

FILING DATE 8.8.1996

Norman William Heckman

                Richard A. Stroppel, Q.C.

                Brimacombe, Stroppel & Finlayson

                v. (25447)

Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.)

                Paul Moreau

                A.G. of Alberta

FILING DATE 16.8.1996

Jeffrey Rose

                Keith E. Wright

                v. (25448)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

                James K. Stewart

A.G. of Ontario

FILING DATE 19.8.1996

Caroline Gauthier

                Jean-Laurier Demers

                Demers Bureau Borduas

                c. (25452)

Yvon Houle et al. (Qué.)

                Jacques Laverdure             

                Deveau, Lavoie & Assoc. 

DATE DE PRODUCTION 22.8.1996

JULY 29, 1996 / LE 29 JUILLET 1996

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

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Gonthier et Iacobucci  

                                                                                          Esau Tatatoapik

                                                                                                v. (25320)

                                                                    Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(N.W.T.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sexual assault - Charge to the jury - Reasonable doubt - Whether the trial judge’s charge to the jury regarding reasonable doubt was adequate given that he used the expression moral certainty to explain reasonable doubt - Whether the trial judge’s recharge to the jury on the issue of reasonable doubt was adequate in that it did not relate reasonable doubt to credibility.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

October 26, 1995

Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories (Richard J.)

Conviction: sexual assault

January 17, 1996

Court of Appeal for the Northwest Territories

(Tallis, Hudson, Schuler JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

May 15, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

                                                                     Locksley Washington Alphonso Senior

                                                                                                v. (25283)

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

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

                                                                                           Hector Simard

                                                                                                c. (25152)

                                                                          Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Ont.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit criminel - Procédure sommaire - Droits linguistiques - Langue de l’accusé et du procès - Dénonciation - Validité d’une dénonciation rédigée en anglais lorsque l’accusé francophone a obtenu une ordonnance à l’effet que son procès soit entendu par un juge qui parle sa langue officielle - Code criminel , L.R.C. 1985, ch. C-46, art. 530 , 530.1 , 789 , 801 , 839 , 841(3)  - Charte , art. 7 , 10(a) , 11(a) , 14 , 15(1) , (2) , 16(1) , (3)  19, 20(1), 21, 23, 27.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 26 novembre 1992

Cour de l’Ontario (division provinciale) (Khawley j.)

Jugement interlocutoire: Dénonciation rédigée en anglais seulement sur un formulaire bilingue déclarée nulle et sans effet

Le 30 mars 1994

Cour de l’Ontario (division générale) (Morin j.)

Appel de l’intimée accueilli

Le 19 décembre 1995

Cour d’appel de l’Ontario

(Lacourcière, Arbour et Labrosse jj.c.a.)

Appel rejeté; l’ordonnance  enjoignant le juge de première instance à reprendre le procès, suite à la production, sur demande du demandeur, d’une traduction écrite de la dénonciation

Le 2 mai 1996

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel et requête en prorogation de délai déposées

CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and L’Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier JJ. /

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé et Gonthier

                                                                                     Jean-Guy Bellegarde

                                                                                                c. (25305)

                                                         Bell Canada, Denis Ouellette, Serge Duquette (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail - Responsabilité civile - Recours - Dommages-intérêts - Tribunaux - Compétence - Action en dommages-intérêts intentée par le demandeur contre les intimés basée sur un prétendu complot ourdi par les contremaîtres Ouellette et Duquette dans le but de déposer une réprimande au dossier du demandeur - Cour supérieure concluant que le demandeur n’a pas réussi à prouver l’existence d’un complot - Refus de la Cour d’appel d’intervenir dans l’appréciation des faits et témoignages du premier juge tout en s’abstenant de trancher la question de savoir si la Cour supérieure était compétente pour se saisir du recours du demandeur - La Cour supérieure a-t-elle commis une erreur manifeste justifiant l’intervention de la Cour d’appel? - L’arbitre a-t-il compétence pour accorder des dommages? - La décision arbitrale annulant le congédiement du demandeur a-t-elle force de chose jugée? 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and L’Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka JJ. /

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé et Sopinka

                                                                                       Circo Craft Co. Inc.

                                                                                                c. (25289)

                                                                                      Divco Limited (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Code civil ‑ Droit commercial ‑ Créancier et débiteur ‑ Intérêts ‑ Action pour le solde du prix du contrat - Article 4  de la Loi sur l’intérêt , L.R.C. (1985), chap I-15  - Article 1078.1 C.c.B.-C. - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle commis une erreur en accordant à l’intimée l'indemnité additionnelle prévue à l'art. 1078.1 C.c.B.-C.?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 19 juin 1989

Cour supérieure du Québec (Meyer, J.C.S.)

Action sur compte de l’intimée accueillie en partie;  Demande reconventionnelle de la demanderesse accueillie en partie

Le 27 février 1996

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Chouinard, Tourigny et Deschamps, JJ.C.A.)

Appel de la demanderesse accueilli aux seules fins de remplacer l’intérêt composé par l’intérêt simple et de faire rétroagir l’indemnité additionnelle de 1078.1 C.c.B.-C. au 1^er avril 1983

Le 26 avril 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

                                                                                           Lily Kampman

                                                                                                v. (25317)

                                                             The Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Duty to act fairly - Whether a duty to act fairly arises when an administrative decision maker makes a recommendation when there is the potential for significant adverse consequences for the person concerned - Whether a duty of fairness arose in the context of a recommendation to release under s.31  of the Public Service Employment Act , R.S.C. 1985, c.P-33 , as rep. S.C. 1992, c.94 - If there was a duty of fairness, whether it was breached - Whether the right to procedural fairness was fully protected by the inquiry and hearing held pursuant to s.31 of the Public Service Employment Act - Whether the internal grievance procedures prescribed by s.91 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act served to rectify or cure the breach.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et McLachlin

                                                                            Gordon Edward Allan Waddell

                                                                                                v. (25213)

                                                                Minister of Justice for Canada (Crim.)(B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Extradition - Procedure - Oaths - Whether Applicant should have been required to swear affidavit - Whether counsel should have been assigned pursuant to Criminal Code  s. 684 .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                              Graphic Communications International Union Local 255-C and

                                      Doran Allen, Wayne Fitness, Tim Gardiner, Eric Grey, Lorna Hamilton

                               Richard Lipscombe, Diane Maskell, Rich McLeod, John Meron, Mel Osadchuk,

                                 Stewart Robertson, Alfred Roch, Terry Simpson, Sherill Straus, Donald Turn,

                                                              Ben Verhoff, Tom Wheatcroft, Craig Zawada

                                                                                                v. (25288)

                                                            Unisource Canada Inc. and Coast Paper Limited

                                                                                                    - and -

                                                           Reginald James Stanton and Aspen Holdings Ltd.

                                                                                                    - and -

                                       Reliable Printing Ltd., Lace Properties Ltd. and James Wallace (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Receivership - Property law - Trusts and trustees - Fiduciary duty - Does an employer owe a fiduciary duty to its employees when that employer enters into a collective agreement which imposes an obligation to make severance payments to employees terminated without cause - Does the Court have the power to give priority to the severance payment claims of the employees, ahead of the claims of other unsecured creditors of the employer, as a remedy for the breach of that duty?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

AUGUST 2, 1996 / LE 2 AOÛT 1996

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

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Gonthier et Iacobucci

                                                                        Les Messageries Publi-Maison Ltée

                                                                                                c. (25299)

                                                                           La Société canadienne des postes

                                                                                                     - et -

                                                                   Les Magasins Koffler de l’Est Inc. (Qué.)

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

                                                                                          Sidney M. Oland

                                                                                                v. (25338)

                                    Karl Adamson, Andre Brossard, Joseph W. Courtright, A.F. D’Entremont,

                                   Neville Grant, William A. Kennett, Donald M. MacPherson, Marc Lalonde,

                                     Michael Wilson, Barbara J. McDougall, Elizabeth Roscoe, Gerald Bouey

                                                                                and Bank of Canada (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Limitation of actions - prescription - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Applicant’s claims for contribution and indemnity from the Respondents were barred by the Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.A. 1980, c.L-15 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred when it concluded that the Limitation of Actions Act prevented the Applicant from seeking contribution and indemnity from the Respondent - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to determine that the discovery or discoverability of facts relating to the commencement of any limitation period and the concealment of material facts are triable issues.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                    L’Association québécoise des pharmaciens propriétaires,

                                                                                                                Jean-Paul Laliberté,        Pierre Bélanger,                François Traversy et Viateur Crête,

                                                                                                c. (25291)

                                                                    Régie de l’assurance-maladie du Québec

                                                                                                        et

                                                                     Le procureur général du Québec (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Services de santé et services sociaux - Enquête par échantillonnage - Qualification des pouvoirs conférés à la Régie de l’assurance-maladie aux termes de l’alinéa 2 de l’article 22.2 de la Loi sur l’assurance-maladie - L.R.Q., chap. A-29 - Application de la règle “audi alteram partem” et des règles de justice fondamentale - Remboursement de médicaments à des pharmaciens par la Régie de l’assurance-maladie - Réclamation par la Régie de sommes versées en trop tenant compte du prix réel d’acquisition - Nature de l’enquête et du processus décisionnel - La Régie exerce-t-elle des pouvoirs judiciaires ou quasi judiciaires? - A-t-elle respecté les règles de justice fondamentale?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 13 février 1992

Cour supérieure de Québec (Grenier J.C.S.)

Requête en révision judiciaire accueillie en partie

Le 4 mars 1996

Cour d’appel de Québec (Bisson, Deschamps et

Philippon [suppléant] JJ.C.A.)

Appel accueilli

Le 30 avril 1996

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation déposée

CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and L’Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier JJ. /

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé et Gonthier

                                                   Claude Beaudoin, ès qualité d’exécuteur testamentaire à la

                                                                        succession de feu Wilfrid Beaudoin

                                                                                                c. (25331)

                                                                       Dame Yvette Senechal Charbonneau

                                                                                       Gilles Charbonneau

                                                                                      André Charbonneau

                                                                                     Louise Vachon (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit des biens - Biens meubles - Succession - Exécuteurs et administrateurs - Donations d’un bien mobilier - Procuration bancaire - Un transfert bancaire fait par mandataire peut-il constituer un don manuel?- Un transfert bancaire fait par procuration générale peut-il constituer un don manuel?- Un transfert bancaire fait par procuration bancaire générale peut-il constituer un don manuel si le donataire est le détenteur de la procuration bancaire générale? - Un transfert bancaire fait par procuration bancaire générale peut-il constituer un don manuel si la preuve révèle l’autorisation spécifique et expresse du donateur? - Art. 776 du Code civil du Bas-Canada.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 5 avril 1989

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

Action du demandeur en annulation de donation accueillie en partie

Le 19 mars 1996

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Beauregard [dissident], Gendreau et Fish jj.c.a.)

Appel accueilli

Le 21 mai 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

                                                                   Downtown King West Development Corp.

                                                                                                v. (25327)

                                                                 Massey Ferguson Industries Limited (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Property law - Leases - Contracts - Remedies - Damages - Rectification of a contract where there has been a unilateral mistake on the part of one of the parties or its solicitor - Application of contractual rights of first refusal to purchase one parcel of property when it is being sold as part of a sale en bloc.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

July 23, 1993

Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)

(Rosenberg J.)

Judgment for the Applicant

March 20, 1996

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Robins, Labrosse, and Abella JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed

May 16, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

                                                                                         Irving Paper Inc.

                                                                                                v. (25319)

                             Communications, Energy and Paperworkers’ Union of Canada, Local 601N (N.B.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Patently Unreasonable - Whether reviewing judge properly concluded Arbitration Board’s decision was reasonable.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                           Marenco Ltd., a body corporate and Alex Constas

                                                                                                v. (25306)

The Province of New Brunswick, Sheldon Lee in his capacity as

Minister of Transportation for the Province of New Brunswick and

The City of Fredericton, a municipal corporation (N.B.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Real Property - Real Rights - Remedies - Damages - Whether the trial judge erred in finding that the Applicants had no legal right or interest in the connection road - Whether the trial judge failed to consider evidence in making a provisional assessment of damages -  Whether there was a violation of s. 7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

June 10, 1994

Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick (Savoie J.)

Applicants’ action for damages from the closing of a connection road dismissed

February 20, 1996

Court of Appeal of New Brunswick

(Rice, Turnbull and Bastarache JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

April 22, 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

                                                                                                 Peter Lo

                                                                                                v. (25322)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Statutes - Statutory interpretation - Whether the Engineers and Geoscientists Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 109, s.24.5(1)(a) requires the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of British Columbia to consider anew whether a criminal conviction entered against a certificate holder was correctly entered.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

November 29, 1995

Supreme Court of British Columbia (Esson J.)

Application for stay of judgment dismissed

March 18, 1996

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(MacFarlane, Newbury and Proudfoot JJ.A)

Application to vary or discharge dismissed

May 14, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

                                                                   Tu-Ell Leasing Ltd. and Griffin C. Layne

                                                                                                v. (25341)

                                                           Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Motor vehicles - Insurance - Statutes - Whether the Respondent had a duty to consult the Applicants prior to settling a third party action against the Applicants for which the Respondent would require indemnification under the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, R.S.B.C., 1979, c. 204 - Whether the onus was on the Applicants to prove they had been prejudiced by the settlement.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

January 9, 1995

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Hardinge J.)

Application to dismiss the Respondent’s claim for want of prosecution, dismissed: application for summary judgment granted, judgment for Respondent

March 13, 1996

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Goldie, Prowse and Newbury JJ.A.)

Application for leave to appeal the application to dismiss action for want of prosecution, dismissed: Appeal dismissed

May 10, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

                                                       Charles Kieling, Security Holder and Grain Producer

                                                                                                v. (25315)

                                    The Attorney General for Saskatchewan, The Members of the Legislature

                                          of Saskatchewan, Robert Mitchell A.G. M.L.A. of Saskatchewan and

                             The Attorney General for Canada, The Members of Parliament of Canada (Sask.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural Law - Pre-trial procedure - Whether Motions Judge properly applied discretion to strike out Statement of Claim and dismiss claim for failing to disclose reasonable cause of action, as an abuse of process and because the Court of Queen’s Bench of Saskatchewan lacked jurisdiction to grant some of the remedies specified in the Statement of Claim. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

AUGUST 9, 1996 / LE 9 AOÛT 1996

CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Gonthier et Iacobucci

                                                                  Consolidated Maybrun Mines Limited and

                                                                                       J. Patrick Sheridan

                                                                                                v. (25326)

                                                                             Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Environmental law - Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 141 - Collateral attack - Whether an administrative order is immune from collateral attack in the context of proceedings for failure to comply with an administrative order - Whether a defendant charged with refusing to obey an administrative order is deprived of making full answer and defence and of fundamental justice contrary to s. 7  of the Charter  by being precluded from challenging the validity of the administrative order - Whether an administrative order ought to be accorded the same deference as a court order - Whether the administrative principle of adequate alternative remedy as a bar to collateral attack should be applicable where a defendant is charged with failing to obey an administrative order.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ontario Court (Provincial Division) sitting as a Provincial Offences Court (Donald P.C.J.)

Motion to challenge the constitutionality of s. 17 of the Environmental Protection Act dismissed

February 24, 1992

Ontario Court (Provincial Division) sitting as a Provincial Offences Court (Fraser P.C.J.)

Conviction: non-compliance with Director’s orders; acquittal: 3 counts of non-compliance with Director’s orders

November 30, 1993

Ontario Court (General Division) (Kurisko J.)

Crown appeal allowed;

Applicant’s cross-appeal dismissed

November 6, 1995

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Galligan, Doherty, and Laskin JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

May 14, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

                                                                   Las Vegas Restaurant & Tavern Ltd. and

                                                                                      Las Vegas Strip Ltd.

                                                                                                v. (25323)

                                                                                     Zanzibar Tavern Inc.

                                                                                                    - and -

                                                              The Corporation of the City of Toronto (Ont.)

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

CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and L’Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier JJ. /

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé et Gonthier

                                                                                            To Hang Dam

                                                                                                c. (25266)

                                                                                    Gilles A. Daoust (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédures - Procédure civile - Action sur compte de l’intimé accueillie et demande reconventionnelle de la demanderesse rejetée en Cour supérieure - Appel de la demanderesse - Requête de l’intimé en rejet d’appel fondée sur le paragraphe 501(5) du Code de procédure civile accueillie en Cour d’appel - Appel de la demanderesse rejetée - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle commis une erreur en accueillant la requête de l’intimé en rejet d’appel fondée sur le paragraphe 501(5) du Code de procédure civile et en rejetant l’appel de la demanderesse? 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 24 juillet 1995

Cour supérieure du Québec (Rousseau J.C.S.)

Action sur compte de l’intimée accueillie; Demande reconventionnelle de la demanderesse rejetée

Le 9 février 1996

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Proulx, Otis et Nuss, JJ.C.A.)

Requête de l’intimé en rejet d’appel accueillie; Appel rejeté

Le 10 avril 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

                                                                                              Randy Misir

                                                                                                v. (25330)

                                                                    William J. McCormack, Chief of Police               

                                                                  Metropolitan Toronto Police Force (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Summary dismissal of Applicant’s action - Whether Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in failing to admit the fresh evidence tendered by the Applicant - Whether lower courts erred in concluding that there was no genuine issue for trial - Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to apply principles of equity in the circumstances of this case.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                         Chief Cheri Noble, on her own behalf and on behalf

                                                             of all the members of the Klahoose First Nation

                                                                                                v. (25335)

                                                The Minister of Forests for the province of British Columbia,

                                                                         International Forest Products Ltd.,

                                                                       and Weldwood of Canada Ltd. (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Prerogative writs - Quashing Minister’s consent - Whether the Court of Appeal for British Columbia erred in law in failing to find that the Chambers Judge at first instance erred: in misconstruing his discretion to decline to grant a remedy on the basis of a “balance of prejudice” test; in failing to give adequate weight to the prejudice to the Applicant caused by the Minister’s breach of his promise and his duty to act fairly; in assigning undue weight to the risk of prejudice to the Respondents.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

September 21, 1995

Supreme Court of British Columbia (MacKenzie J.)

Petition to quash Minister of Forests’s consent to transfer of tree farm licence dismissed

March 20, 1996

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Hinds, Prowse and Newbury JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

May 21, 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

                                                                                           Dr. John Kuntz

                                                                                                v. (25407)

                                           The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (B.C.)

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

                                                                                    Dr. Hachmi Hammami

                                                                                                v. (25344)

                                           The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (B.C.)

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

AUGUST 16, 1996 / LE 16 AOÛT 1996

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

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Gonthier et Iacobucci

                                                                                         Douglas Heaman

                                                                                                v. (25347)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Directed verdict - Sufficiency of evidence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Société de gestion du Bief (Montréal) 1991, société en commandite

et 143344 Canada Inc., commanditée

                                                                                                c. (25324)

                                                                        Jean Fortin & Associés Syndics Inc.

                                                                                                        et

                                                                           Le Bief des Seigneurs Inc. (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit des biens - Droit fiscal - Faillite - Biens du failli - Acceptation par le syndic de l’offre d’achat des demanderesses du patrimoine de la débitrice faillie - Taxe de vente fédérale - Remboursement - Le remboursement de la taxe de vente fédérale pour habitation neuve est-il la propriété des demanderesses? - L’article 67 de la Loi sur la faillite, L.R.C. (1985), ch. B-3 , constitue-t-il une dérogation expresse à l’article 67  de la Loi sur la gestion des finances publiques , L.R.C. (1985), ch. F-11 ? - Les demanderesses ont-elles acquis valablement les sommes d’argent représentant le remboursement susmentionné concurremment avec le patrimoine de la débitrice faillie? - Marzetti c. Marzetti, [1994] 2 R.C.S. 765.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 13 mars 1992

Cour supérieure du Québec (en matière de faillite)

(Gomery j.c.s.)

Requête des demanderesses aux fins de se faire déclarer propriétaires d’un bien accueillie

Le 19 mars 1996

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Chouinard, Gendreau et Proulx jj.c.a.)

Appel accueilli

Le 17 mai 1996

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and L’Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier JJ. /

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé et Gonthier

                                                                      Terminaux portuaires du Québec Inc.

                                                                                                c. (25336)

                                                                     Association des employeurs maritimes

                                                                                                        et

                      Procureur général du Canada et Conseil Canadien des relations du Travail (C.A.F.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail - Relations de travail - Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Compétence - Législation - Interprétation - Article 34  du Code canadien du travail , L.R.C. (1985), chap. L-2  - Pouvoir du représentant patronal - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle commis une erreur en confirmant la décision du Conseil de reconnaître à l’Association des employeurs maritimes, à titre de représentant patronal désigné par le Conseil aux termes du paragraphe 34(4)  du Code canadien du travail , le pouvoir de déterminer et de réclamer aux employeurs visés par l’accréditation géographique une participation financière aux coûts engendrés par l’exercice de ses fonctions de représentant patronal?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

                                                                      Terminaux portuaires du Québec Inc.

                                                                                                c. (25337)

                                                                     Association des employeurs maritimes

                                                                                                     - et -

                                                                           Procureur général du Canada et       Conseil canadien des relations du travail (C.A.F.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail - Relations de travail - Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Compétence - Législation - Interprétation - Article 34  du Code canadien du travail , L.R.C. (1985), chap. L-2  - Pouvoir de l’Association des employeurs maritimes, à titre de représentant patronal, d’établir et de réclamer une cotisations pour les frais inhérents aux services fournis aux employeurs du port de Trois-Rivières\Bécancour.- Ordonnance du Conseil canadien des relations du travail imposant à la demanderesse de payer la cotisation établie et réclamée par l’intimée - Compétence du Conseil canadien des relations du travail en matière de réparation - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle erré en droit en concluant que le Conseil n’a pas violé la règle audi alteram partem lorsqu’il a condamné la demanderesse au paiement d’une somme précise de deniers sans lui permettre d’être entendue sur le bien-fondé du montant réclamé et sur le détail des dépenses ayant servi à son établissement?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major JJ. /

Les juges La Forest, Cory et Major

                                                                                    Her Majesty the Queen

                                                                                                v. (25435)

                                                                        Sidney Walwyn Wells (Crim.)(B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Confessions - Whether confession made to father of complainant was made to “person in authority” - Who should bear onus of showing that person was a “person in authority” - What is the nature of the onus

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                     Pacific Press Limited

                                                                                                v. (25364)

                                   Communications, Energy and Paper Workers Union of Canada, Local 226

                                                                                                    - and -

                                                                     Stephen F.D. Kelleher, Arbitrator  and

                                                                      Attorney General of British Columbia

                                                                                                    - and -

                                                     The Labour Relations Board of British Columbia (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by formulating an alternative basis for the arbitrator’s decision and relying upon such alternative to set aside the trial judge’s decision - Whether it is constitutionally valid for a provincial legislature to give one provincial administrative tribunal the right to review another provincial administrative tribunal for errors of jurisdiction and, if so, whether the Labour Relations Code, S.B.C. 1992, c. 82 gave such authority to the Labour Relations Board - Whether the trial judge properly exercised the superior court’s jurisdiction to review the arbitrator’s decision for errors of jurisdiction.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

February 22, 1995

Supreme Court of British Columbia (Cohen J.)

Application to set aside arbitrator’s decision, allowed

April 9, 1996

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Gibbs, Prowse and Proudfoot JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed; application for judicial review dismissed

June 6, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

July 17, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada (Major J.)

Motion to intervene by the Labour Relations Board, granted

                                                                            Offshore Leasing Incorporated

                                                                                                v. (25318)

                                                                        Adelaide Capital Corporation (N.S.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Commercial law - Loan - Mortgages - Guaranty/suretyship - Construction of a guarantee agreement - Effect of mortgage renewal agreement on guarantee - Whether a guarantor is released from liability when a renewal agreement is signed without the guarantor’s consent - Whether the renewal agreements were a new debt such that novation applied - Whether the trial judge erred in determining that there was no enforceable agreement to release the guarantor - Whether the trial judge erred in determining that the elements of promissory estoppel were not established - Whether the trial judge erred in determining that estoppel by acquiescence was not established.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et McLachlin

                                                                                 Charles Thomas Belowitz

                                                                                                v. (25036)

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

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

                                                                                                Guay Inc.

                                                                                                c. (25296)

                                                                                Ville de Sainte-Julie (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit municipal - Municipalités - Tribunaux - Appel - Compétence - Quels sont les pouvoirs d’intervention d’une Cour d’appel sur l’interprétation des faits et leur qualification par le juge de première instance? - L’art. 227 de la Loi sur l’aménagement et l’urbanisme, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. A-19.1, accorde-t-il au juge de première instance un pouvoir discrétionnaire et, dans l’affirmative, quels sont les critères d’intervention d’une Cour d’appel en ce qui a trait aux pouvoirs discrétionnaires accordés spécifiquement au juge de première instance par cet article? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en déclarant que le juge de première instance n’avait pas exercé sa discrétion de façon judiciaire?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 8 octobre 1991

Cour supérieure du Québec

(Reeves j.c.s.)

Requête pour l’émission d’une ordonnance enjoignant la demanderesse de cesser l’occupation et l’usage d’un terrain rejetée

Le 11 mars 1996

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Chouinard, Tourigny et Deschamps jj.c.a.)

Appel accueilli

Le 29 avril 1996

Cour d’appel du Québec

Requête en sursis d’exécution accordée

Le 3 mai 1996

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

AUGUST 8, 1996 / LE 8 AOÛT 1996

25122GABRIEL GLADUE v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.) (Alta.)

CORAM:               La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

                La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Aboriginal treaty rights - Commercial fishing rights - Whether Natural Resources Transfer Agreement, Constitution Act, 1930 extinguished aboriginal treaty right to fish commercially - Whether provincial fishing regulations interfere with aboriginal treaty right to fish commercially - R. v. Horseman, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 901.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

August 5, 1992

Provincial Court of Alberta (Hopkins J.)

Conviction: selling fish without a commercial fishing licence

October 27, 1993

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Roslak J.)

Summary conviction appeal dismissed

December 5, 1995

Alberta Court of Appeal

(McFadyen, O’Leary and Russell JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

January 29, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25156EDWARD MICHAEL SWEREDA v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.) (Alta.)

CORAM:               La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.

                The application for extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

                La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law - Defences - Provocation - Whether  defence of provocation properly not left with jury - Whether evidence met threshold test for defence of provocation - Criminal Code , R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s. 232 .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

25247BETTY ALEXANDRA SKOKE and ROSEANNE SKOKE v. STEVEN EDWARD RYAN, KAREN RYAN and LARRY RYAN - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NOVA SCOTIA (N.S.)

CORAM:               La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

                LA demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family law - Unmarried parents - Access - Whether child of unmarried parents discriminated against under ss 27, 23, 11, 9, 2(c), 2(d), 2(f), 2(l), 18(1), 18(2), and 18(5) of the Family Maintenance Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c.160 in violation of ss 7 and 15 of the Charter  - Whether mother can be considered a "dependant child" affording her a right to a "fresh start" - Whether Court of Appeal erred in applying law relevant to children of divorced couples to unmarried teenage parents - Whether Court of Appeal failed to distinguish between the law applicable pursuant to the Divorce Act  and law pursuant to provincial statute - Whether Court of Appeal erred in granting access and in applying proper burden of proof -  Whether Court of Appeal erred in granting legal standing to paternal grandparents of child and in granting them access to child.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

December 23, 1994

Family Court for the Province of Nova Scotia

(Hubley, J.)

Respondents’ action for reasonable access granted

June 7, 1995

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (MacLellan J.)

Repsondents’ Motion to Quash Grounds of Appeal granted in part

September 8, 1995

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (MacLellan, J.)

Applicants’ appeal dismissed with costs

February 1, 1996

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

(Chipman, Roscoe, and Finn JJ.A.)

Applicants’ appeal dismissed with costs

March 29, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25061MOUNT ALLISON UNIVERSITY v. MOUNT ALLISON FACULTY ASSOCIATION (N.B.)

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 - Judicial Review - Labour Law - Arbitration - Collective Agreement - Use of correctness test or  patent unreasonableness test on judicial review of  an Arbitration Board’s decision that a grievance is arbitrable - Distinction between determining arbitrability and determining jurisdiction - Scope of guarantee of  academic freedom in collective agreement - Scope of guarantees of freedom from reprisals for union activity in collective agreement - Subjectivity to collective agreement of appointments to non-union positions of employment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

April 20, 1995

Court of Queen’s Bench (Creaghan J.)

Arbitration award quashed on judicial review

December 19, 1995

Court of Appeal of New Brunswick

(Hoyt, C.J.N.B., Rice and Bastarache JJ.A)

Appeal allowed

December 22, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25079JANICE WOODS v. BRENDA HUBLEY and MICHAEL HUBLEY (N.S.)

CORAM:               La Forest, Cory and Major JJ

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Courts - Judicial review - Torts - Damages - Commercial law - Agency - mandate - Whether appropriate deference was shown to the trial judge; whether the relationship between lost earnings capacity and earnings history for young plaintiffs was appropriately construed; whether the requirement for a plaintiff to incur costs or medical and domestic care prior to trial is appropriate; whether an insurance adjuster is the agent of an insured and, if so, whether the insured, as principal, can be made liable for punitive damages for the agent’s conduct.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

June 20, 1995

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Nathanson J.)

Applicant’s action allowed

November 7, 1995

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

(Jones, Flinn, and Chipman JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed

January 8, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal

25201GHASSAN SLEIMAN v. MADELEINE SLEIMAN (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

Family law - Custody and access - Mobility rights - Parental abduction - Removal of children from habitual place of residence by one parent to another province - Principles which ought to apply to interim custody orders and proper jurisdiction for determination of  issues - Distinction between abduction and mobility rights.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

June 8, 1995

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Fraser J.)

Respondent’s application for interim custody and transfer to Ontario granted

January 18, 1996

Court of Appeal of Alberta

(Harradence, Foisy, O’Leary JJ.A.)

Applicant’s appeal dismissed

March 13, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25167HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. DANTE TORTONE (Crim.) (Ont.)

CORAM:               La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.

                The application for extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

                La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Order for new trial - Defence of autrefois acquit - This Court ordered a new trial on a global charge encompassing discrete charges of which the Respondent was acquitted - Whether trial judge can accept plea of autrefois acquit on global charge where this Court has ordered a new trial.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

25170DANTE TORTONE v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.) (Ont.)

CORAM:               La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

                La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Unreasonable verdict - Whether there was sufficient evidence before the trial judge to lead him to reach a verdict of guilty - Whether the trial judge can rely on circumstantial evidence and evidence of surreptitious behaviour where accused offers explanation for behaviour.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

April 8, 1994

Ontario Court (Provincial Division)

(Mercer J.)

Conviction: conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine and trafficking in cocaine

December 11, 1995

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Houlden, Robins and Abella JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

Feb 29, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

AUGUST 15, 1996 / LE 15 AOÛT 1996

25041THE BANKRUPT, NsC DIESEL POWER INCORPORATED, AND THE SHAREHOLDER/A CREDITOR, NsC CORPORATION LIMITED, BY THEIR OFFICER v. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF BANKRUPTCY (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 - Representation of corporation by officer - Federal Court Rules, Rule 300(2) - Reasons for decision.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

25153THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY, DR. MURRAY FRASER, DR. D.A. SEASTONE, DR. N. WAGNER, DR. A.W. RASPORICH , DR. P.J. KRUEGER, DR. EUNG-DO COOK, THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY FACULTY ASSOCIATION CARRYING ON BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF “TUCFA” AND DR. ALAN CAHOON v. DR. RAMASWAMI RADHAKRISHNAN (Alta.)

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

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural Law - Evidence - Labour Law - Arbitration - Implied undertaking not to use document released during discovery for collateral purposes - Jurisdiction of Court to determine the validity of an agreement to settle grievances proceeding under a collective agreement.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

25223BORIS NETUPSKY v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (F.C.A.)(B.C.)

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

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in Law and in Fact in ruling that the Minimum Tax, Division E.1 of the Income Tax Act is valid, enforceable and constitutional.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

October 14, 1994

Tax Court of Canada (Kempo J.)

Appeal dismissed

February 6, 1996

Federal Court of Appeal

(Marceau, Robertson, and McDonald JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

March 26, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25248HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. JAMES STEWART TYHURST (Crim.)(B.C.)

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

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sexual assault - Indecent assault - Similar fact evidence - Whether the similar fact evidence met the threshold test of contextual completeness upon which the jury could determine its reliability - Whether there was a reasonable certainty that the verdict would have been the same if the jury were properly instructed.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

December 14, 1993

Supreme Court of British Columbia (Bouck J.)

Acquittal: indecent assault (2 counts) sexual assault (1 count)

February 7, 1996

Court of Appeal of British Columbia

(Hinkson, Rowles and Donald JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

April 2, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25250GERALD GERVASONI v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Crim.)(B.C.)

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

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Extradition -Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Minister of Justice did not err in issuing an unconditional warrant of surrender without first obtaining formal written assurances from that the requesting country would not seek the death penalty, pursuant to Article 6 of the Extradition Treaty - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister is not required to disclose the form or content of informal assurances form the requesting country to the Court of Appeal, the Applicant or the Applicant’s counsel.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

25246WMI WASTE MANAGEMENT OF CANADA INC. v. THE CITY OF EDMONTON (Alta.)

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

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Municipal Law - Expropriation - Expropriation of goodwill - Authority of municipality to pass bylaw requiring municipality to collect and dispose of waste previously collected and disposed of by private company - Compensation for loss of business caused by passing of bylaw.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

July 28, 1995

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (O’Byrne J.)

Application dismissed

January 29, 1996

Court of Appeal for Alberta

(Belzil, O’Leary, and Picard JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

March 29, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25251AMASS INVESTMENTS LIMITED v. JOSEPH A. CHIAPPETTA, Q.C. AND HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES OF ONTARIO (Ont.)

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

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Company law - Procedural law - Limitation of actions - Civil procedure - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that no genuine issue was raised for trial - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that Chiappetta was not in a conflict of interest - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that action against Chiappetta was statute barred - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that Chiappetta did not breach his fiduciary duty to the Applicant - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the indoor management rule protected the Crown from liability - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Crown’s blindness to irregularities in the sale of the land did not result in liability on its part- Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Chiappetta had no interest in the corporation which mortgaged the property sold to the Applicant.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

January 9, 1995

Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) (Lane J.)

Action dismissed on motion for summary judgment

February 1. 1996

Court for Appeal for Ontario

(McKinlay, Doherty and Weiler JJ.A.)

Action dismissed

April 1, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

AUGUST 22, 1996 / LE 22 AOÛT 1996

25037ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA v. ENRIQUE HOEFELE (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

Taxation -  Statutes - Interpretation - Assessment - Employment benefits - Whether a mortgage interest subsidy received by an employee required to relocate to a more expensive housing area is taxable under  paragraph 6(1)(a) or section 80.4 of the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, as amended - The Queen v. Savage, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 428.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

August 18, 1994

Tax Court of Canada (Sobier T.C.C.J.)

Appeal allowed

October 11, 1995

Federal Court of Appeal (MacGuigan, Linden, Robertson JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

December 11, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

JUNE 11, 1996 / LE 11 JUIN 1996

24889YVES LAPERRIÈRE v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN  (QUÉ.)

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

                The application for leave to appeal is granted.

                La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

24.7.1996

Before / Devant: SOPINKA J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:A.G. of Alberta

IN/DANS:William Wayne Dale Stillman

                                                v. (24631)

Her Majesty The Queen (N.B.)

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

24.7.1996

Before / Devant: SOPINKA J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:A.G. of Manitoba

IN/DANS:Andrew Sim Katz

                                                v. (25014)

Vancouver Stock Exchange et al. (B.C.)

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE  

24.7.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time to file a motion to quash

Damon Gregory Horne

   v. (25240)

Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.)

Requête en prorogation de délai imparti pour déposer une requête en annulation

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to June 21, 1996.

24.7.1996

Before / Devant: SOPINKA J.

Motion to state a constitutional question

Air Canada

   v. (24851)

Liquor Control Board of Ontario et al. (Ont.)

Requête pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

Are the Liquor Control Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.18, ss. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8; the Liquor Licence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.19, ss. 1, 2 ,5, 6, 11, 12, 22, 27, 42 and 62 and Ontario Regulations, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 717, 718, 719, 720, ultra vires or constitutionally inapplicable to the Appellant airlines’ liquor provisioning system?

Les articles 1, 2, 3, 5 et 8 de la Loi sur les alcools, L.R.O. 1990, ch. L.18, les art. 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 22, 27, 42 et 62 de la Loi sur les permis d’alcool, L.R.O. 1990, ch. L.19, et les règlements 717, 718, 719 et 720 des Règlements de l’Ontario, R.R.O.1990, sont-ils ultra vires ou constitutionnellement inapplicables au système d’approvisionnement en alcool des lignes aériennes appelantes?

25.7.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file the case on appeal and the appellant’s factum

Raymond Roy Izony

   v. (25042)

Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer un dossier d’appel et le mémoire de l’appelant

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time is extended to file the case on appeal to June 28, 1996 and the appellant’s factum to July 11, 1996.

26.7.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

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

Delmain Aiken Cuthbert

   v. (25230)

Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)

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

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to August 31, 1996.

29.7.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file an intervener’s factum

BY/PAR:Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and The Law

IN/DANS:Brant County Board of Education

                                                v. (24668)

Carol Eaton et al. (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire d’un intervenant

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to September 2, 1996.

30.7.1996

Before / Devant: SOPINKA J.

Motion for leave to intervene

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

IN/DANS:William Wayne Dale Stillman

                                               v. (24631)

Her Majesty The Queen (N.B.)

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

30.7.1996

Before / Devant: SOPINKA J.

Motion for an order that this appeal is to be not deemed abandoned

Shaunee Gaelene Geary

   v. (24939)

Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)

Requête en déclaration que le présent appel est censé ne pas avoir été abandonné

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   on condition that the appeal is heard during the 1997 Winter session.

31.7.1996

Before / Devant: LE JUGE CORY

Requête en réexamen de l’ordonnance du juge Cory du 28 mai 1996

Michel Gagné

   c. (25267)

Léon Lacelle (Qué.)

Motion to reconsider Cory J.’s order of May 28, 1996  

REJETÉE / DISMISSED   

31.7.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file the case on appeal and the appellant’s factum

Frances Ellen MacDonnell

   v. (25165)

Her Majesty The Queen (N.S.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le dossier d’appel et le mémoire de l’appelante

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to June 10, 1996 for the case on appeal and to July 26, 1996 for the appellant’s factum.

31.7.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

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

Stephen Biscette

   v. (24787)

Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time is extended to September 3, 1996.

9.8.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

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

Charles Thomas Belowitz

   v. (25036)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

13.8.1996

Before / Devant: IACOBUCCI J.

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

Gerald James Phillips

   v. (25075)

Her Majesty The Queen (N.S.)

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

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to August 2, 1996.

16.8.1996

Before / Devant: IACOBUCCI J.

Motion to extend the time in which to file the appellants’ factum

Alfred Goodswimmer et al.

   v. (24737)

The Attorney General of Canada et al. (Alta.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire des appelants

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to August 26, 1996.

16.8.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file an intervener’s factum

BY/PAR:Ontario Public School Boards’ Association

IN/DANS:Brant County Board of Education

   v. (24668)

Carol Eaton et al. (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire d’un intervenant

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to August 16, 1996.

19.8.1996

Before / Devant: GONTHIER J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:Easter Seal Society

IN/DANS:Brant County Board of Education

                                                v. (24668)

Carol Eaton et al. (Ont.)

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE 

1.  The application for an extension of time and for leave to intervene is granted;

2.  Leave is granted to file a factum not to exceed 20 pages;

3.  Oral argument of 15 minutes is allowed;

4.  Factum to be filed by September 9, 1996.

14.8.1996

Before / Devant: LA FOREST J.

Motion for leave to intervene

IN THE MATTER OF a Reference Regarding the Remuneration of Judges in the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island and the Jurisdiction of the Legislature in Respect Thereof (P.E.I.)(24508)

                - and -

IN THE MATTER OF a Reference Regarding the Independence and Impartiality of Judges of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.)(24778)

- and -

Percival Dean Lowther  v. Her Majesty The Queen (P.E.I.)(24735)

                - and -

The Judges of the Provincial Court of Manitoba as represented by the Manitoba Provincial Judges’ Association et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of Manitoba as represented by Rosemary Vodrey et al. (Man.)(24846)

                - and -

Her Majesty The Queen v. Shawn Carl Campbell    - and between - Her Majesty The Queen v. Ivica Ekmecic - and between - Her Majesty The Queen            v. Percy Dwight Wickman (Alta.)(24831)

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the Applicant Alberta Provincial Judges’ Association, the Applicant Canadian Bar Association / L’Association du Barreau Canadien (“CBA”), the Applicant Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges, the Applicant Saskatchewan Provincial Court Judges’ Association, the Applicants Ontario Judges Association / L’Association des juges de l’Ontario, the Ontario Family Law Judges Association / Association ontarienne des juges du droit de la famille, and the Ontario Provincial Court (Civil Division) Judges Association, the Applicant Federation of Law Societies of Canada, the Applicant Canadian Judges Conference / Conférence canadienne des juges for leave to intervene in the above appeals;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

It is hereby ordered that:

1.  The motion for leave to intervene of the Applicant Alberta Provincial Judges’ Association is granted.  One factum limited to 20 pages and oral argument limited to 15 minutes in the above appeals.

2.  The motion to extend time and for leave to intervene of the Applicant Canadian Bar Association / L’Association du Barreau Canadien (“CBA”) is granted.  One factum limited to 20 pages and oral argument limited to 15 minutes in the above appeals.

3.  The motion to extend time and for leave to intervene of the Applicant The Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges is granted.  One factum limited to 20 pages and that oral argument limited to 15 minutes in the above appeals.

4.  The motion to extend time and for leave to intervene of the Applicant Saskatchewan Provincial Court Judges’ Association is granted.  One factum limited to 20 pages and that oral argument limited to 15 minutes in the above appeals.

5.  The motion to extend time and for leave to intervene of the Applicants Ontario Judges Association / L’Association des juges de l’Ontario, the Ontario Family Law Judges Association / Association ontarienne des juges du droit de la famille, and the Ontario Provincial Court (Civil Division) Judges Association is granted.  One factum limited to 20 pages and that oral argument limited to 15 minutes in the above appeals.

6.  The motion to extend time and for leave to intervene of the Applicant Federation of Law Societies of Canada is granted.  One factum limited to 20 pages and that oral argument limited to 15 minutes in the above appeals.

7.  The motion for leave to intervene of the Applicant Canadian Judges Conference / Conférence canadienne des juges is granted.  One factum limited to 20 pages and that oral argument limited to 15 minutes in the above appeals.

15.8.1996

Before / Devant: LA FOREST J.

Motion for an order fixing dates

IN THE MATTER OF a Reference Regarding the Remuneration of Judges in the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island and the Jurisdiction of the Legislature in Respect Thereof (P.E.I.)(24508)

                - and -

IN THE MATTER OF a Reference Regarding the Independence and Impartiality of Judges of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.)(24778)

- and -

Requête en vue de fixer des dates

Percival Dean Lowther  v. Her Majesty The Queen (P.E.I.)(24735)

                - and -

The Judges of the Provincial Court of Manitoba as represented by the Manitoba Provincial Judges’ Association et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of Manitoba as represented by Rosemary Vodrey et al. (Man.)(24846)

                - and -

Her Majesty The Queen  v. Shawn Carl Campbell

- and between - Her Majesty The Queen v. Ivica Ekmecic - and between - Her Majesty The Queen

v. Percy Dwight Wickman (Alta.)(24831)

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General of Prince Edward Island for an Order fixing dates for filing of factums and fixing hearing dates.

AND HAVIND READ the material filed;

It is hereby ordered that:

1.  the appellant’s factum in Lowther 24735 be served and filed forthwith; that the draft factums of the appellants’ represented by Peter C. Ghiz be given to the Attorney General of Prince Edward Island forthwith and that the final version be served and filed with the Court by August 30, 1996.

2.  the respondents’ factums be served and filed by October 9, 1996.

3.  the interveners’ factums be served and filed by November 6, 1996.

4.  the appeals be heard during the week of December 2, 1996.

19.8.1996

Before / Devant: GONTHIER J.

Motion for leave to intervene

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

IN/DANS:Corey David Paternak

                                                v. (24877)

Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.)

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

With the consent of the parties.

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

19.8.1996

Before / Devant: GONTHIER J.

Motion to extend the time for leave to intervene and for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:A.G. of Ontario

IN/DANS:William Wayne Dale Stillman

                                                v. (24631)

Her Majesty The Queen (N.B.)

Requête en prorogation du délai pour la demande d'autorisation et demande d'autorisation d'intervention

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

20.8.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file an intervener’s factum

BY/PAR:A.G. of Québec

IN/DANS:Brant County Board of Education

                                                v. (24668)

Carol Eaton et al. (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire d’un intervenant

With the consent of the parties. / Avec le consentement des parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Délai prorogé au 8 août 1996.

21.8.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file an intervener’s factum

BY/PAR:Down Syndrome Assoc. of Ontario