Bulletins

Decision Information

Decision Content

Erreur ! Signet non défini.

 
SUPREME COURT           COUR SUPRÊME

          OF CANADA                                 DU CANADA   Erreur ! Signet non défini.

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

          PROCEEDINGS   PROCÉDURESErreur ! Signet non défini.

This Bulletin is published at the direction of the Registrar and is for general information only.  It is not to be used as evidence of its content, which, if required, should be proved by Certificate of the Registrar under the Seal of the Court.  While every effort is made to ensure accuracy, no responsibility is assumed for errors or omissions.

Ce Bulletin, publié sous l'autorité du registraire, ne vise qu'à fournir des renseignements d'ordre général.  Il ne peut servir de preuve de son contenu.  Celle‑ci s'établit par un certificat du registraire donné sous le sceau de la Cour.  Rien n'est négligé pour assurer l'exactitude du contenu, mais la Cour décline toute responsabilité pour les erreurs ou omissions.

 

Subscriptions may be had at $200 per year, payable in advance, in accordance with the Court tariff.  During Court sessions it is usually issued weekly.

Le prix de l'abonnement, fixé dans le tarif de la Cour, est de 200 $ l'an, payable d'avance.  Le Bulletin paraît en principe toutes les semaines pendant les sessions de la Cour.

 

The Bulletin, being a factual report of recorded proceedings, is produced in the language of record.  Where a judgment has been rendered, requests for copies should be made to the Registrar, with a remittance of $10 for each set of reasons.  All remittances should be made payable to the Receiver General for Canada.

Le Bulletin rassemble les procédures devant la Cour dans la langue du dossier.  Quand un arrêt est rendu, on peut se procurer les motifs de jugement en adressant sa demande au registraire, accompagnée de 10 $ par exemplaire.  Le paiement doit être fait à l'ordre du Receveur général du Canada.

 

 

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

May 24, 1996                                                    877 - 935         le 24 mai 1996Erreur ! Signet non défini.


CONTENTS                                                                                                               TABLE DES MATIÈRES

 

 

Applications for leave to appeal

filed

 

Applications for leave submitted

to Court since last issue

 

Oral hearing ordered

 

Oral hearing on applications for

leave

 

Judgments on applications for

leave

 

Motions

 

Notices of appeal filed since last

issue

 

Notices of intervention filed since

last issue

 

Notices of discontinuance filed since

last issue

 

Appeals heard since last issue and disposition

 

Pronouncements of appeals reserved

 

 

Headnotes of recent judgments

 

Weekly agenda

 

Summaries of the cases

 

Cumulative Index ‑ Leave

 

Cumulative Index ‑ Appeals

 

Appeals inscribed ‑ Session

beginning

 

Notices to the Profession and

Press Release

 

Deadlines: Motions before the Court

 

Deadlines: Appeals

 

Judgments reported in S.C.R.

877

 

 

878 - 899

 

 

-

 

900

 

 

901 - 911

 

 

912

 

 913

 

 

-

 

 

-

 

 

914 - 915

 

 

916 - 924

 

 

 -

 

925

 

 926 - 933

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

 

-

 

 

934

 

935

 

-

         Demandes d'autorisation d'appel

         déposées

 

         Demandes soumises à la Cour depuis la          dernière parution

 

         Audience ordonnée

 

         Audience sur les demandes d'autorisation

 

        

         Jugements rendus sur les demandes                         d'autorisation

 

         Requêtes

 

         Avis d'appel déposés depuis la dernière          parution

 

         Avis d'intervention déposés depuis la                      dernière parution

 

         Avis de désistement déposés depuis la          dernière parution

 

         Appels entendus depuis la dernière

         parution et résultat

 

         Jugements rendus sur les appels en

         délibéré

        

         Sommaires des arrêts récents

 

         Ordre du jour de la semaine

 

         Résumés des affaires

 

         Index cumulatif ‑ Autorisations

 

         Index cumulatif ‑ Appels

 

         Appels inscrits ‑ Session

         commençant le

 

         Avis aux avocats et communiqué

         de presse

        

         Délais: Requêtes devant la Cour

 

         Délais: Appels

 

         Jugements publiés au R.C.S.


APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FILED

DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION D'APPEL DÉPOSÉES

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  


Miriam Fox, Executrix of the Estate of Ralph Fox, deceased, and in her personal capacity et al.

                Larry J. Levine, Q.C.

                Levine, Sherkin, Boussidan

 

                v. (25314)

 

Walter Fox (Ont.)

                Bernard L. Eastman, Q.C.

               

 

FILING DATE 7.5.1996

 

 

Charles Kieling

                Charles Kieling

               

 

                v. (25315)

 

The Attorney General for Saskatchewan et al. (Sask.)

                D.A. McKillop, Q.C.

                A.G. of Saskatchewan

 

FILING DATE 6.5.1996

 

 

Allain Joseph Lebras

                Z. Ian Garber

               

 

                v. (25316)

 

Her Majesty The Queen (Man.)

                Robert Maertens

                Dept. of Justice

 

FILING DATE 9.5.1996

 

 

Lily Kampman

                Sean T. McGee

                Nelligan - Power

 

                v. (25317)

 

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

                Mylene Bouzigon

                A.G. of Canada

 

FILING DATE 13.5.1996

 

 

Offshore Leasing Inc.

                Robert G. Belliveau, Q.C.

                McInnes Cooper & Robertson

 

                v. (25318)

 

Adelaide Capital Corp. (N.S.)

                Darlene Jamieson

                Flinn, Merrick

 

FILING DATE 13.5.1996

 

 

Irving Paper Inc.

                J. Gordon Petrie, Q.C.

                Petrie Richmond Goss

 

                v. (25319)

 

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

                Robert D. Breen

                Pink Breen Larkin

 

FILING DATE 14.5.1996

 


Esau Tatatoapik

                Alison Wheeler

                Greenspan and Associates

 

                v. (25320)

 

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

                Louise Charbonneau

                Dept. of Justice (Yellowknife)

 

FILING DATE 15.5.1996

 

 

Frank D. D’Andrade

                Frank D. D’Andrade

               

 

                v. (25310)

 

The Government of Canada et al. (Ont.)

                Harley Nott

                A.G. of Canada

 

FILING DATE 25.4.1996

 

 



APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE 

SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE

 

DEMANDES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION

 

MAY 17, 1996 / LE 17 MAI 1996

 

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

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Gonthier et Iacobucci

 

                                                                                               Fred Oczko

 

                                                                                                v. (25126)

 

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

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Criminal law - Charge to the jury - Whether the trial judge’s charge to the jury was adequate concerning “planning and deliberation” - Whether charge to jury was confusing - Whether trial judge erred in responding to jury’s question by repeating a portion of his charge - Incomplete disclosure.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


March 3, 1993

Court of Queen’s Bench for Alberta (Cooke J.)


Conviction: first degree murder


 


August 15, 1995

Court of Appeal for Alberta

(Kerans, Bracco and Hetherington JJ.A.)


Appeal dismissed


 


March 14, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

 

                                                                                    Her Majesty The Queen

 

                                                                                                v. (25187)

 

                                                                       Mark Anthony Andrews (Crim.)(Alta.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Criminal law - Impaired driving - R. v. Stellato, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 478 - R  v. McKenzie (1995), 111 C.C.C. 317 (Alta. D.C.) - Whether accused must show marked departure from normal conduct to constitute proof of impairment.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


September 9, 1994

Provincial Court  (Criminal Division) (Marshall P.C.J.)


Conviction: Impaired Driving


 


December 15, 1994

Court of Queen’s Bench (Perras J.)


Appeal dismissed


 


January 8, 1996

Court of Appeal for Alberta (Harradence, and Conrad JJ.A., Hetherington J.A. [dissenting])


Appeal dismissed


 


March 6, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

 

                                                                                      Schenley Canada Inc.

 

                                                                                                c. (25070)

 

                                                               Le Procureur général du Québec (Crim.)(Qué.)

 

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

 

Droit cirminel - Procédure - Appel - Compétence - Législation - Interprétation - Prétendue immixtion de la part de la Cour d’appel, ainsi que de la part de la Cour supérieure, dans une question de faits ou mixte de faits et de droit, pour maintenir le renversement de l’acquittement de la demanderesse, chose pour laquelle elle n’avait pas de juridicition - La Cour d’appel devait-elle se prononcer sur l’interprétation des mots “to ship” et “expédier” contenus à l’article 26 de la Loi sur la Société des alcools du Québec, L.R.Q. ch. S-13? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en imposant un code d’obligations d’expéditeur?

 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

 

Le 10 décembre 1987

Cour des sessions de la paix (Tarasofsky j.c.s.p.)

Acquittement:  Vente de boissons alcooliques à une personne autre que la Société des alcools du Québec

 

Le 22 juin 1989

Cour supérieure du Québec (Chambre criminelle)

(Greenberg j.c.s.)

Appel par voie d’exposé de cause accueilli; demanderesse trouvée coupable

 

 

Le 7 novembre 1995

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Beauregard, Rothman et Chamberland jj.c.a)

Appel rejeté

 

Le 5 janvier 1996

Cour suprême du Canada

 

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

 

 

                                                                                         Marianne Lisenko

 

                                                                                                c. (25072)

 

                               Comité de déontologie policière du Québec et Procureur général du Québec (Qué.)

 

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

 

Procédure - Appel - Législation - Interprétation - Cour du Québec et Cour supérieure concluant que la décision du Comité de déontologie policière qui dispose d’une demande de révision de la décision du Commissaire à la déontologie policière ne peut faire l’objet d’un appel compte tenu des art. 78 et 147 de la Loi sur l’organisation policière, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. O-8.1 - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en refusant la requête pour permission d’appel de la demanderesse? 

 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

 


Le 15 septembre 1993

Comité de déontologie policière


Demande de révision de la décision du Commissaire à la déontologie policière rejetée


 


Le 18 novembre 1994

Cour du Québec, chambre civile (Mailloux j.c.q.)


Requête pour rejet d’appel accordée


 


Le 2 mai 1995

Cour du Québec, chambre civile (Boissonneault j.c.q.)


Requête en prorogation de délai et requête en rétractation de jugement rejetées


 


Le 18 septembre 1995

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


Requête en évocation de la décision du 18 novembre 1994 rejetée


 


Le 6 novembre 1995

Cour d’appel du Québec (Beauregard j.c.a.)


Demande pour permission d’appeler rejetée


 


Le 4 janvier 1996

Cour sûpreme du Canada


Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée


 

 

 

                                                   Syndicat canadien de la Fonction publique, section locale 301

 

                                                                                                c. (25105)

 

                                                                                    Transport Cordeau Inc.

 

et

 

Ville de Montréal (Qué.)

 

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

 

Droit administratif - Injonction - Procédures - Jugements et ordonnances - Le demandeur, intervenant lors de la demande d’injonction interlocutoire présentée par l’intimée et accueillie par la Cour supérieure, interjette appel de cette décision - Appel du demandeur rejeté en Cour d’appel - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en confirmant l’ordonnance d’injonction interlocutoire accordée par le juge de première instance, les effets de cette injonction suspendant d’autres décisions judiciaires finales et non contestées? - Conditions d’obtention d’une injonction interlocutoire.

 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

 

Le 27 janvier 1995

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

Requête de l’intimée en injonction interlocutoire accordée

 

 

Le 20 novembre 1995

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Vallerand, Chouinard, Nuss, JJ.C.A.)

Appel du demandeur rejeté

 

 

 

Le 18 janvier 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

 

                                                          Monsieur Mario Hudon, Monsieur Roger Patenaude,

Monsieur Daniel Pelletier, Monsieur Benoît Rhéaume

 

c. (25110)

 

                                                 Monsieur Stephen J. Frishling et Monsieur Irving L. Adessky,

es-qualité d’exécuteur à la succession de Feu Isidore Frishling (Qué.)

 

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

 

Droit commercial -  Droit des compagnies - Droit du travail - Employeur et employé - Indemnisation - Législation - Interprétation - Responsabilité personnelle des administrateurs envers les employés - Plaintes de congédiement illégal pour activités syndicales accueillies - Commissaire du travail ordonnant à l’employeur de réintégrer les demandeurs dans leur emploi avec tous leurs droits et privilèges et de leur verser, à titre d’indemnité, l’équivalent du salaire et des autres avantages dont les a privé le congédiement, conformément à l’art. 15 du Code du travail, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. C-27 - L’indemnité fixée par le commissaire du travail constitue-t-elle une dette dont les administrateurs intimés sont responsables aux termes de l’art. 119 de la Loi sur les sociétés par actions, L.R.C. 1985, ch. C-44 ? - Barrette c. Crabtree (Succession de), [1993] 1 R.C.S. 1027.

 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

 


Le 10 janvier 1992

Cour du Québec, chambre civile (Lachapelle j.c.q.)


Action formée en vertu de l’art. 119 de la Loi sur les sociétés par actions rejetée


 


Le 23 novembre 1995

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Proulx, Chamberland et Philippon jj.c.a.)


Pourvoi rejeté


 


Le 19 janvier 1996

Cour suprême du Canada


Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée


 

 

 

Dans la faillite de  Jean-Marie Burnett

et Jean-Marie Burnett

 

c. (25101)

 

St-Georges, Hébert Inc., ès qualités, syndic à la

faillite de Jean-Marie Burnett

et

Caisse Populaire Desjardins de St-Zénon (Qué.)

 

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

 

Procédure - Procédure civile - Appel - Certificat d’appel déserté - Article 503.1 du Code de procédure civile, L.R.Q., c. C-25 - Défaut de produire un mémoire d’appel dans le délai imparti - Pouvoirs de la Cour d’appel du Québec en vertu de l’art. 523 C.p.c. 

 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

 

Le 28 mars 1995

Cour supérieure du Québec

(Hébert j.c.s)

Requête de l’intimée, Caisse Populaire Desjardins de St-Zénon, en vue de suspendre la libération du failli accueillie

 

Le 15 novembre 1995

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Beauregard, Chamberland et Philippon jj.c.a.)

 

Le 15 janvier 1996

Cour suprême du Canada

Requête du demandeur visant la suspension ou le rejet du certificat de désertion de l’appel et, subséquemment, la prorogation du délai pour produire le mémoire rejetée

 

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

 

 

 

CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major JJ. /

Les juges La Forest, Cory et Major

 

                                                                                            Nu-Pharm Inc.

 

                                                                                                v. (25136)

 

                                  Hoffmann-La Roche Limited and Syntex Pharmaceuticals International Limited

                                                                                                      and   The Minister of National Health and Welfare (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Property Law - Patents - medicine - Statutes - Interpretation - Do the Patent Regulations apply to composition or form only claims?

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


June 28, 1995

Federal Court of Canada (Noël J.)


Injunction against Appellants


 


December 5, 1995

Federal Court of Appeal

(MacGuigan, Robertson and McDonald JJ.A.)


Appeal dismissed with costs


 


February 5, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

 

                                                                        Canadian Airlines International Ltd.

 

                                                                                                v. (25113)

 

                                                                                            Albert Belloni

 

- and -

 

 Canadian Human Rights Commission (F.C.A.)(B.C.)

 

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

 

December 23, 1993

Federal Court (Trial Division) (Denault, J.)

Application for prohibition allowed

 

 

 

November 24, 1995

Federal Court of Appeal

(Pratte, Décary, Chevalier, JJA.)

Appeal allowed

 

 

 

January 23, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

                                                                                         Carole L. Barrons

 

                                                                                                v. (25102)

 

                                                          Ken Simard Sales Inc. o/a “Ontario Hyundai” (Ont.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Constitutional - Division of Powers - Canadian Charter  - Procedural Law - Costs - Courts - Do appointments of Deputy Judges to Small Claims Court division of Ontario Court (General Division) violate Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , Constitution Act, 1867 , or Constitution Act, 1982 ? - Is order to transfer an action to Small Claims Court final or interlocutory?- Do limitations on costs awarded to unrepresented litigants violate Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ? - Jurisdiction of Small Claims Court division of Ontario Court (General Division) to grant equitable relief. 

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

April 26, 1994

Ontario Court (General Division) (Lane J.)

Action transferred to Small Claims Court

 

July 11, 1995

Ontario Court (Divisional Court) (O’Leary J.)

 

March 6, 1995

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Houlden, Carthy, McKinlay JJ.A.)

Appeal quashed

 

 

 

Application for leave to appeal denied

 

January 25, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 

                                                                               Harvard Investments Limited

 

                                                                                                v. (25067)

 

                                                                                The City of Winnipeg (Man.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Municipal law - Expropriation - Whether a designation of a building as historical and subsequent refusal to delist the building constitutes a taking or expropriation of property rights that, at law, requires the designating authority to pay compensation.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


November 23, 1994

Court of Queen’s Bench in Manitoba (Hirschfield J.)


Applicant’s action dismissed


 


November 16, 1995

Court of Appeal for Manitoba

(Philp, Twaddle, and Kroft JJ.A.)


Appeal dismissed


 


January 2, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

                                                                                              Ellen Labelle

 

                                                                                                v. (25137)

 

                                                                                Shirley O’Connor, Bencher

                                                                           The Law Society of Upper Canada

                                                                                    Paul Lamek, Treasurer

                                                                      The Law Society of Upper Canada (Ont.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Procedural Law - Appeal and Judicial Review - Appropriateness of an application for judicial review of a custody award granted by the District Court of Ontario - Judicial Review of a decision by the Law Society of Upper Canada not to grant compensation under s. 51 of the Law Society Act - Scope of discretion of a Complaints Review Commissioner of the Law Society of Upper Canada - Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L8, ss. 51, 62 - Rules of the Law Society, Rules 27, 37A, 46B.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

May 9, 1995

Ontario Court (Divisional Court)

(Southey, Bell and Feldman JJ.)

Application dismissed

 

February 1, 1996

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Goodman, McKinley and Carthy JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

 

February 5, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 

                                                                                           Margaret Kaban

 

                                                                                                v. (25108)

 

                                                                                    Sikhor Nath Sett (Man.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Torts - Negligence - Professional negligence - Evidence - Admissibility of nurses’ notes and their use as evidence - Admissibility of business records when witness available to testify - Ares v. Venner, [1970] S.C.R. 608 - Expert evidence - Weight to be given to delusional evidence from emotionally upset plaintiff - Admissibility of expert evidence - Introducing new evidence at appellate level.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

December 7, 1993

Court of Queen’s Bench Manitoba (Beard J.)

Applicant’s claim dismissed

 

 

October 4, 1994

Court of Appeal of Manitoba

(Scott C.J.M. and Lyon and Kroft JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

 

March 30, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

 

 November 28, 1995

Court of Appeal for Manitoba

(Scott, Lyon, and Kroft JJ.A.)

Motion to adduce new evidence dismissed

 

January 23, 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

 

                                                                                            Emad Elguindy

 

                                                                                                v. (25238)

 

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

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Criminal law - Sentencing - Probation - Obstruction of justice - Proper interpretation of an Order of the Court - Motion to stay probation order.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


September 22, 1993

Ontario Court (General Division) (Chapnik J.)

 

November 24, 1993

Ontario Court (General Division) (Chapnik J.)


 


Applicant convicted of willfully attempting to obstruct justice

 

 

Applicant sentenced to 18 months imprisonment  and probation for two years


October 31, 1994

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Grange, Abella and Laskin JJ.A.)

 

February 26, 1996

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Morden A.C.J.O., Houlden and Catzman JJ.A.)


 


Appeal against conviction dismissed; application for leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against the sentence allowed

 

Application to set aside the Court’s Order, dismissed


March 1, 1996

Court of Appeal for Ontario (Laskin J.A.)

 

March 8, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada


 


Motion to stay the Applicant’s probation order, dismissed

 

 

Application for leave to appeal and motion to extend time filed


 

 

 

                                                                                     Craig William Ryback

 

                                                                                                v. (25206)

 

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

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Criminal law - Offences - Harassment - Whether Applicant denied effective counsel at trial.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


January 4, 1995

Provincial Court (British Columbia) (Devitt J.)


Conviction: criminal harassment


 


March 23, 1995

Supreme Court of British Columbia (Lander J.)


Summary conviction appeal dismissed


 


February 15, 1996

British Columbia Court of Appeal

(Legg, Finch and Newbury JJ.A.)


Appeal dismissed


 


March 20, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

 

                                                                                    Her Majesty the Queen

 

                                                                                                v. (25194)

 

                                                                                       C.J.S. (Crim.)(P.E.I.)

 

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

 

March 3, 1994

Prince Edward Island Supreme Court (Trial Division)

(MacDonald C.J.)

Conviction : Two counts of incest and one count of indecent assault

 

January 10, 1996

Prince Edward Island Supreme Court

(Appeal Division) (Carruthers C.J.P.E.I. and Mitchell and McQuaid JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed and new trial ordered

 

March 11, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 

                                                    Charles Douglas Stuart Horrey, Delchris Enterprises Ltd.,

                                                                     otherwise known as 401604 Alberta Ltd.

 

                                                                                                v. (25127)

 

                                                                                        Joycie Fay Litterst,

                                                                 formerly known as Joycie Fay Horrey (Alta.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Procedural law - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Contempt of court - Ex parte contempt proceedings - Requirement for viva voce evidence with conflicting affidavits - Inadmissibility of hearsay evidence - Impartiality of a tribunal.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


April 13, 1995

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta

(Veit J.)


Order declaring Applicants in contempt of Court and enjoining Applicants from filing or taking legal proceedings with respect to a certain mortgage or against the Respondent


 


May 11, 1995

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


Order confirming that Applicants are in contempt of Court


 


May 12, 1995

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta

(Cawsey J.)


Order sanctioning individual Applicant to 4 months incarceration; to be stayed if Applicant removed the mortgage from the property within 45 days


 


November 30, 1995

Court of Appeal of Alberta

(Fraser C.J.A., Côté, and O’Leary JJ.A.)


Appeal dismissed


 


January 29, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

 

                                                                First Royal Enterprises and 351726 B.C. Ltd.

 

                                                                                                v. (25082)

 

                                                                                   Wing Lee Cheong (B.C.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Commercial law - Fraudulent preferences and conveyances - Grant of general security agreement over assets of company to one creditor who is also majority shareholder in the company at a time company unable to meet financial obligations - Claims of other unsecured creditors effectively foreclosed by the transaction - Was the grant of the general security agreement a fraudulent conveyance ?- Is the intent to prefer one creditor over another inconsistent with actual intent to defraud?

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


 

July 26, 1994

Supreme Court of British Columbia (Saunders J.)


 

Judgment for Applicants


 


November 10, 1995

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Lambert, Cumming, and Finch JJ.A.)


Appeal allowed; judgment varied


 


January 8, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

 

                                                                                      Gordon Lonny Jacobs

 

                                                                                                v. (25263)

 

                                                                               Carole Francis Jacobs (Ont.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Family law - Maintenance - Dependant wife and two children - Husband claiming inability to pay support as ordered - Order striking his pleadings for failure to comply with interim support order - Whether partial compliance with interim order sufficient to ensure that Applicant has the right to participate in trial on the merits - Whether order striking pleadings is constitutionally valid - Whether Toronto Family Case Management Rules violate Charter  and principles of natural justice - Whether objectives of ss. 15(5)  and (7)  of the Divorce Act  require reinforcement - Whether an upper limit on child and spousal support should be established under the Divorce Act .

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


 

April 27, 1995

Ontario Court (General Division) (Walsh J.)


 

Respondent’s motion for interim spousal and  child support granted with costs


 


August 30, 1995

Ontario Court (General Division)

(Walsh J.)


Applicant’s motion for review of interim order denied; Respondent’s motion to strike Applicant’s pleadings adjourned


 


October 17, 1995

Ontario Court (General Division) (Walsh J.)


Respondent’s motion to strike out Applicant’s pleadings granted with costs


 


February 13, 1996

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Finlayson, Abella, and Rosenberg JJ.A.)


Applicant’s appeal from judgment striking out  pleadings dismissed with costs


 


April 10, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 


May 9, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada (Sopinka, J.)


Motion for stay of proceedings dismissed


 

 

 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION / REHEARING

DEMANDE DE RÉEXAMEN / NOUVELLE AUDITION

 

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

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Gonthier et Iacobucci

 

 

Albert Manley et al. v. Sheldon Clarfield, et al. (Ont.)(24476)

 

 

 

APRIL 30, 1996 / LE 30 AVRIL 1996

 

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

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Gonthier et Iacobucci

 

                                                                                      Lawrence Melnichuk

 

                                                                                                v. (25071)

 

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

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Criminal law - Fraud - Abuse of process - Whether the complainant was trying to enforce a civil debt through criminal proceedings, and, in doing so, was abusing the court’s process - Adequacy of trial judge’s reasons - Whether trial judge’s reasons disclosed a misapprehension of the evidence thus rendering his verdict unreasonable.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

July 22, 1993

Ontario Court (General Division) (Hogg J.)

 

December 19, 1995

Court of Appeal of Ontario (Griffiths J.A., Doherty J.A. [dissenting], and Weiler J.A.)

 

February 19, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Conviction: fraud

 

 

 

Appeal dismissed

 

 

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 

                                                                                         Roshan Ali Tejani

 

                                                                                                v. (25147)

 

                                Her Majesty The Queen; Attorney General for Ontario (Intervenor) (Crim.)(Ont.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Proceeds of crime- Laundering - Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 42 - Whether Narcotic Control Act laundering provisions violate s. 7  of the Charter  as being too vague

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


February 24, 1993

Ontario Court (General Division) (Allen J.)


Conviction laundering proceeds of crime contrary to ss. 19.1(2) and 19.2(2) of the Narcotic Control Act


 


December 15, 1995

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Houlden, Robins and Abella JJ.A)


Appeal allowed; new trial ordered


 


January 21, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

 

                                                                                               Paul Butler

 

                                                                                                v. (25161)

 

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

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Right to counsel - Whether Applicant should have been informed of right to consult counsel in private - Self-defence - Excessive force - Whether trial judge erred in instructing jury that self-defence not available when excessive force used - Whether trial judge erred in failing to instruct jury to disregard outburst made by unidentified spectator from the gallery.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


June 22, 1994

Supreme Court of British Columbia (Meiklem J.)


Conviction: second degree murder


 


December 21, 1995

British Columbia Court of Appeal

(Southin, Prowse and Williams JJ.A.)


Appeal dismissed


 


February 21, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

 

                                                                                              Lois Schultz

 

                                                                                                v. (25068)

 

                                                                                    Her Majesty The Queen

 

 

AND BETWEEN:

Thomas M.G. Schultz

 

v.

 

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

 

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Taxation - Assessment - Income splitting - Whether, having reassessed the Applicants on the basis that they were agent and principal, the Respondent can plead the alternative position before the Tax Court of Canada, after the expiry of the statutory limitation period for reassessments, that the Applicants were partners or joint venturers - Whether, in determining whether the Minister of National Revenue has failed to exercise his statutory duty pursuant to paragraph 165(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, as amended, a court may consider circumstances which took place prior to the taxpayer filing his notice of objection - In computing income from a partnership, is a taxpayer entitled to deduct losses and expenses from closing one leg of a hedge position, as they were incurred, or must the taxpayer wait to deduct them only when the second leg of the hedge position is closed out?

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


July 5, 1993

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


Appeals allowed


 


November 2, 1995

Federal Court of Appeal

(Stone, Linden, and McDonald JJ.A)


Appeals dismissed, cross-appeals allowed


 


January 2, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

                                                                                             René Rottiers

 

                                                                                                c. (25020)

 

                                                         Le ministère de la Justice de la Saskatchewan (Sask.)

 

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

 

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit constitutionnel - Législation - Interprétation - Droit criminel - Procès - Droits linguistiques - Droit à la tenue d’un procès en français seulement - Pouvoir de la Saskatchewan d’abroger l’art. 110 de l’Acte des Territoires du Nord-Ouest, S.R.C. 1886, chap. 50 (mod. S.C. 1891, chap. 22, art. 18) - Loi sur la Saskatchewan, S.C. 1905, chap. 42 - Loi linguistique, S.S. 1988, chap. L-6.1 - R. c. Mercure, [1988] 1 R.C.S. 234 - Bilodeau c. P.g. Manitoba, [1986] 1 R.C.S. 449 - Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc. et al. c. Association of Parents for Fairness in Education, Grand Falls District 50 Branch, [1986] 1 R.C.S. 549 - MacDonald c. Ville de Montréal, [1986] 1 R.C.S. 460.  

 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

 


Le 20 juillet 1994

Cour provinciale de la Saskatchewan

(Smith J.C.P.)


Arrêt des procédures


 


Le 19 janvier 1995

Cour du Banc de la Reine de la Saskatchewan

(Kyle J.)


Appel de l’intimé accueilli


 


Le 2 juin 1995

Cour d’appel de la Saskatchewan

(Vancise, Sherstobitoff et Jackson JJ.C.A.)


Appel du demandeur rejeté


 


Le 6 novembre 1995

Cour suprême du Canada


Demande d’autorisation d’appel et de prorogation de délai déposée


 

 

 

CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major JJ. /

Les juges La Forest, Cory et Major

 

                                                                                   Edward Michael Swereda

 

                                                                                                v. (25156)

 

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

 

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

 

May 13, 1994

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

 

November 1, 1995

Court of Appeal of Alberta

(Hetherington, Russell and Trussler JJA.)

Conviction of two second degree murders

 

 

 

Appeal dismissed

 

February 19, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 

                                                                 Betty Alexandra Skoke and Roseanne Skoke

 

                                                                                                v. (25247)

 

                                                    Steven Edward Ryan and Karen Ryan and Larry Ryan (N.S.)

 

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


 

 

 

                                                                                   Mount Allison University

 

                                                                                                v. (25061)

 

                                                                    Mount Allison Faculty Association (N.B.)

 

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


 

 

 

                                                                                             Janice Woods

 

                                                                                                v. (25079)

 

                                                                    Brenda Hubley and Michael Hubley (N.S.)

 

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 filed


 

 

 

                                                                                          Ghassan Sleiman

 

                                                                                                v. (25201)

 

                                                                                  Madeleine Sleiman (Alta.)

 

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


 

 

 

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et McLachlin

 

                       Price Waterhouse Limited, Trustee of The Estate of Standard Trustco Limited, A Bankrupt

 

                                                                                                v. (25050)

 

                                                                             Standard Trust Company (Ont.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Commercial law - Bankruptcy - Statutes - Interpretation - Reviewable transaction -  Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act , R.S.C., 1985 c. B-3 , as am., s. 100 - Existence or extent of court's discretion under s. 100(2) - Role of regulator.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


April 20, 1993

Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)

(Farley J.)


Respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissed


 

June 22, 1993

Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)

(Saunders J.)


 

Leave to appeal denied


 

June 28, 1994

Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)

(Farley J.)


 

Order on Applicant’s motion for order to determine certain matters before trial


 

October 20, 1995

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Weiler and Abella JJ.A.; Doherty J.A. dissenting)


 

Respondents’ appeal from order of June 28, 1994 allowed; order of June 28, 1994 varied


December 19, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

 

                                                                            Century 21 Direct Courtier Inc.

 

                                                                                                c. (25028)

 

                                                                                            Michel Mailhot

 

                                                                                                        et

 

                                                                                        Robert Côté (Qué.)

 

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

 

Droit des professions - Avocats et procureurs - Conflits d’intérêts - Un cabinet d'avocat peut-il représenter et poursuivre le même client simultanément en l'absence d'un consentement exprès? - Effet du retrait en cours d'instance du procureur visé par une requête en déclaration d’inhabileté? -  Application de l’arrêt Succession MacDonald c. Martin, [1990] 3 R.C.S. 1235.

 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

 


Le 20 avril 1995

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


Requête de la demanderesse en déclaration d’inhabileté rejetée


 


Le 6 octobre 1995

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Proulx, Fish et Deschamps JJ.C.A.)


Appel rejeté


 


Le 5 décembre 1995

Cour suprême du Canada


Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée


 

 

                                                                                        Jeffrey Lorne Gold

 

                                                                                                v. (25064)

 

                                         Primary Developments Limited and The Toronto Dominion Bank (Ont.)

 

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


 

 

 

Darcy Graham Holdsworth

 

                                                                                                v. (25066)

 

                                                                                      Shena Dickson (Ont.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Property law - Wills - Estates - Personal property - Ambiguity - Whether a testatrix’s reference to her “personal estate” included real property as well as personal property - Admissibility of extrinsic evidence of intention.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


April 3, 1995

Ontario Court (General Division)

(Gotlib J.)


Motion to strike affidavit evidence granted; Application seeking direction on the  interpretation of the will and declaration of an interest in land, dismissed


 


November 3, 1995

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Robins, Finlayson, and Galligan JJ.A.)


Appeal allowed


 


January 2, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

 

                                                                                             Michal Pniak

 

                                                                                                v. (25094)

 

                                                          London Psychiatric Hospital and Dr. E. Ralyea (Ont.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Statutes - Administrative Law - Whether the Psychiatric Review Board was justified in certifying the Applicant for involuntary admission to a psychiatric hospital under the Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990. c.M-7 - Whether the Psychiatric Review Board was correct in determining that the Applicant was not competent to consent to psychiatric or other related treatment under the Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990. c.M-7.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


June 24, 1994

London Psychiatric Hospital

(Dr. E.P. Ralyea, attending physician)


Certificate of Involuntary Admission issued for the Applicant


 


June 29, 1994

London Psychiatric Hospital

(Dr. E.P. Ralyea, attending physician)


Certificate that the Applicant was not mentally competent to consent to treatment


 


July 7, 1994

Psychiatric Review Board

(Sommerfreund, Galbraith, Colbert)


Certification of the Applicant as an involuntary patient confirmed; patient found not competent to consent to psychiatric or other related treatment


 


November 17, 1994

Ontario Court of Justice (Flinn J.)


Appellant’s appeal of Review Board decision dismissed


 


November 14, 1995

Court of Appeal for Ontario

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


Appeal dismissed


 


January 11, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION / REHEARING

DEMANDE DE RÉEXAMEN / NOUVELLE AUDITION

 

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et McLachlin

 

Dr. Atef Nassar v. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba (Man.)(24893)

 

 

 


ORAL HEARING ON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE

AUDIENCE SUR LES DEMANDES D’AUTORISATION

 

 

MAY 22, 1996 / LE 22 MAI 1996

 

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

Les juges Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci et Major

 

                                                                                                        

 

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL ON ADDITIONAL GROUND

 

 


Hardip Singh Rarru

 

    v. (24865)

 

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


S.R. Chamberlain, Q.C., for the appellant.

 

 

 

John M. Gordon, for the respondent.


 



ALLOWED / ACCUEILLIE

 


Nature of case:

 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Defence - Evidence - Disclosure - Similar fact evidence.


Nature de la cause:

 

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit criminel - Défense - Preuve - Communication - Preuve de faits similaires.


 

 

 


JUDGMENTS ON APPLICATIONS

FOR LEAVE

JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

 

MAY 23, 1996 / LE 23 MAI 1996

 

25133MICHAEL ELKINS  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

 

Criminal law - Defence - Trial - Self-defence - Instruction to the jury -  Did the Court of Appeal err in its conclusion that the s. 686(1)(b)(iii) Criminal Code , R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46  proviso should be applied, despite its holding that the trial judge had erred in his direction to the jury on the Applicant’s defence of self-defence under s. 34(2)  of the Criminal Code  - Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that questions about the Applicant’s subsequent lack of concern for the two men he shot were relevant to his state of mind at the time of the shooting - Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the trial judge did not err in his direction to the jury regarding evidence of consciousness of guilt.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


June 26, 1992

Ontario Court (General Division) (Taliano J.)


Conviction: Second degree murder and attempted murder


 


October 3, 1995

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Brooke, Griffiths and Doherty JJ.A.)


Appeal dismissed


 


February 2, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

 

25087HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN  v.  TIMOTHY GEORGE WELDON (Crim.)(Ont.)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.

 

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

 

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.  Aucune ordonnance ne sera rendue quant aux dépens.

 

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Criminal law - Evidence - Verdict of first degree murder quashed and verdict of not criminally responsible substituted - Whether Court of Appeal ered in finding verdict unreasonable and contrary to the evidence - Whether uncontradicted expert evidence must be accepted by jury.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


February 19, 1993

Ontario Court (General Division) (Smith J.)


Conviction: first degree murder


 


November 15, 1995

Court of Appeal for Ontario

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


Appeal allowed; conviction quashed and verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder substituted


 


January 10, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

 

24904/24905DARA MAXWELL WILDER  v.  HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Man.)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.

 

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

 

                La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée  et les demandes d'autorisation d'appel sont rejetées.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Criminal law - Abuse of process.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


 

August 31, 1994

The Court of Queen’s Bench for Manitoba

(Schulman J.)


 

Conviction: Attempted fraud s.338(1) (a) Criminal Code 


 

May 24, 1995

Court of Appeal for Manitoba

(Scott C.J.M., Huband and Philp JJ.A.)


 

Application by Respondent to strike appeal for want of prosecution granted


May 24, 1995

Court of Appeal for Manitoba

(Scott C.J.M., Huband and Philp JJ.A.)


Application for writ of habeas corpus denied


 

October 2, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada


 

Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

 

25071LAWRENCE MELNICHUK  v.  HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.

 

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

 

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Criminal law - Fraud - Abuse of process - Whether the complainant was trying to enforce a civil debt through criminal proceedings, and, in doing so, was abusing the court’s process - Adequacy of trial judge’s reasons - Whether trial judge’s reasons disclosed a misapprehension of the evidence thus rendering his verdict unreasonable.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

July 22, 1993

Ontario Court (General Division) (Hogg J.)

 

December 19, 1995

Court of Appeal of Ontario (Griffiths J.A., Doherty J.A. [dissenting], and Weiler J.A.)

 

February 19, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Conviction: fraud

 

 

 

Appeal dismissed

 

 

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 

25147ROSHAN ALI TEJANI  v.  HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.

 

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

 

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Proceeds of crime- Laundering - Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 42 - Whether Narcotic Control Act laundering provisions violate s. 7  of the Charter  as being too vague

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


February 24, 1993

Ontario Court (General Division) (Allen J.)


Conviction laundering proceeds of crime contrary to ss. 19.1(2) and 19.2(2) of the Narcotic Control Act


 


December 15, 1995

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Houlden, Robins and Abella JJ.A)


Appeal allowed; new trial ordered


 


January 21, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

 

25161PAUL BUTLER  v.  HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(B.C.)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.

 

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

 

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Right to counsel - Whether Applicant should have been informed of right to consult counsel in private - Self-defence - Excessive force - Whether trial judge erred in instructing jury that self-defence not available when excessive force used - Whether trial judge erred in failing to instruct jury to disregard outburst made by unidentified spectator from the gallery.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


June 22, 1994

Supreme Court of British Columbia (Meiklem J.)


Conviction: second degree murder


 


December 21, 1995

British Columbia Court of Appeal

(Southin, Prowse and Williams JJ.A.)


Appeal dismissed


 


February 21, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

 

25068LOIS SCHULTZ; THOMAS M.G. SCHULTZ   v.  HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Ont.)(F.C.A.)

 

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

 

Taxation - Assessment - Income splitting - Whether, having reassessed the Applicants on the basis that they were agent and principal, the Respondent can plead the alternative position before the Tax Court of Canada, after the expiry of the statutory limitation period for reassessments, that the Applicants were partners or joint venturers - Whether, in determining whether the Minister of National Revenue has failed to exercise his statutory duty pursuant to paragraph 165(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, as amended, a court may consider circumstances which took place prior to the taxpayer filing his notice of objection - In computing income from a partnership, is a taxpayer entitled to deduct losses and expenses from closing one leg of a hedge position, as they were incurred, or must the taxpayer wait to deduct them only when the second leg of the hedge position is closed out?

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


July 5, 1993

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


Appeals allowed


 


November 2, 1995

Federal Court of Appeal

(Stone, Linden, and McDonald JJ.A)


Appeals dismissed, cross-appeals allowed


 


January 2, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

25020RENÉ ROTTIERS  c. SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE (Sask.)

 

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 constitutionnel - Législation - Interprétation - Droit criminel - Procès - Droits linguistiques - Droit à la tenue d’un procès en français seulement - Pouvoir de la Saskatchewan d’abroger l’art. 110 de l’Acte des Territoires du Nord-Ouest, S.R.C. 1886, chap. 50 (mod. S.C. 1891, chap. 22, art. 18) - Loi sur la Saskatchewan, S.C. 1905, chap. 42 - Loi linguistique, S.S. 1988, chap. L-6.1 - R. c. Mercure, [1988] 1 R.C.S. 234 - Bilodeau c. P.g. Manitoba, [1986] 1 R.C.S. 449 - Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc. et al. c. Association of Parents for Fairness in Education, Grand Falls District 50 Branch, [1986] 1 R.C.S. 549 - MacDonald c. Ville de Montréal, [1986] 1 R.C.S. 460.  

 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

 


Le 20 juillet 1994

Cour provinciale de la Saskatchewan (Smith J.C.P.)


Arrêt des procédures


 


Le 19 janvier 1995

Cour du Banc de la Reine de la Saskatchewan

(Kyle J.)


Appel de l’intimé accueilli


 


Le 2 juin 1995

Cour d’appel de la Saskatchewan

(Vancise, Sherstobitoff et Jackson JJ.C.A.)


Appel du demandeur rejeté


 


Le 6 novembre 1995

Cour suprême du Canada


Demande d’autorisation d’appel et de prorogation de délai déposée


 

 

 

25168JAMES PETER EMMS  v.  HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.

 

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

 

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Criminal law - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in law in determining that there was no basis on which the Court could conclude that appellant’s plea of guilty was freely and voluntarily made.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


November 28, 1991

General Division (Murphy J.)


Convictions: fraud


 


January 12, 1996

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Catzman, Carthy and Doherty JJ.A)


Appeal dismissed


 


February 21, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

 

25169WILLIAM VANDERHEYDEN  v.  HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.

 

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

 

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

 

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Criminal law - Whether Applicant’s plea of guilty legally sufficient absent an express admission of the truth of the facts offered in support of the charges.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


December 21, 1993

Ontario Court (General Division) (Logan J.)


Conviction: three counts of counselling murder


 


April 25, 1995

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Carthy, Galligan and Austin JJ.A.)


Appeal dismissed


 


February 29, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

 

25268DONELLA OLIVER  v.  TARRYN OLIVER, AN INFANT SUING BY HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE AND C.A. ELLISON, ERLE MITCHELL, T.T. CHOW, THE SALVATION ARMY GRACE HOSPITAL, JOHN A. DOE, JANE A. DOE AND OTHERS (B.C.)

 

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

 

Procedural Law - Appeal - Civil Procedure - Torts - Family Law - Infants - Mother of infant who is guardian of infant’s estate denied standing to appeal decision by guardian ad litem - Public Trustee as guardian ad litem of infant has authority to settle a medical malpractice claim.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


 

April 15, 1994

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Huddart J., in Chambers)


 

Settlement approved on behalf of Tarryn Oliver


 


March 8, 1995

Court of Appeal of British Columbia

(McEachern C.J.B.C., in Chambers)


Motion to extend time to file Appeal Books dismissed


 


January 26, 1996

Court of Appeal of British Columbia

(Ryan, Donald and Newbury JJ.A.)


Application to vary order dismissed


 


March 29, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada


 Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

 

24962LES SYSTÈMES DE DRAINAGE MODERNES INC., v. 118353 CANADA LIMITÉE & 167899 CANADA INC. ET HANCOR INC., UNITED EXTRUSIONS LTD., CARON, BÉLANGER, ERNST & YOUNG INC., LA BANQUE LAURENTIENNE DU CANADA, TRUST LA LAURENTIENNE DU CANADA INC., GILBERT FOREST ET LE REGISTRATEUR DU BUREAU D’ENREGISTREMENT DE VAUDREUIL (C.A.F.)(Qué.)

 

CORAM:               Les juges L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et McLachlin

 

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

 

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

 

 NATURE DE LA CAUSE

 

Procédures - Faillite - Procédure civile - Législation - Interprétation - Saisie - Vente en justice -  Annulation du décret - Exigences - Adjudicataires de bonne foi - La saisie et la vente en justice de l’immeuble ont-elles été exécutées par une personne habilitée à ce faire au sens de la Loi sur la Cour fédérale , L.R.C. (1985), chap. F-7 , et les Règles de la Cour fédérale? - La vente en justice à un adjudicataire de bonne foi d’un immeuble ayant, depuis sa saisie, fait l’objet d’une proposition concordataire doit-elle être annulée? -  Code de procédure civile, L.R.Q., ch C-25 - Loi sur la Cour fédérale , L.R.C. (1985), chap. F-7  - Règles de la Cour fédérale - Loi sur la faillite, L.R.C. (1985), ch. B-3 .

 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

 


Le 10 juillet, 1992

Section de première instance de la Cour fédérale du Canada)

(Denault, J.C.F.)


Requêtes de la créancière Hancor Inc., de la débitrice Les Systèmes de drainage modernes Inc. et son syndic et des créancières Banque Laurentienne et Trust Laurentienne en annulation de la vente accueillies


 


Le 24 octobre 1995

Cour d’appel fédérale du Canada

(Décary, Hugessen et Chevalier JJ.C.A.)


Dossier 24962: Appel des adjudicataires 118353 Canada Ltée et 167899 accueilli

Dossier 24963:  Appel du shérif Forest accueilli


 


Le 12 décembre 1995

La Cour suprême du Canada


Demandes d’autorisation d’appel déposées par Les Systèmes de drainage modernes Inc.


 

 

 

24963LES SYSTÈMES DE DRAINAGE MODERNES INC., v. GILBERT FOREST ET HANCOR INC., UNITED EXTRUSIONS LTD., CARON, BÉLANGER, ERNST & YOUNG INC., LA BANQUE LAURENTIENNE DU CANADA, TRUST LA LAURENTIENNE DU CANADA INC., 118353 CANADA LIMITÉE & 167899 CANADA INC. ET LE REGISTRATEUR DU BUREAU D’ENREGISTREMENT DE VAUDREUIL (C.A.F.)(Qué.)

 

CORAM:               Les juges L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et McLachlin

 

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

 

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

 

 NATURE DE LA CAUSE

 

Procédures - Faillite - Procédure civile - Législation - Interprétation - Saisie - Vente en justice -  Annulation du décret - Exigences - Adjudicataires de bonne foi - La saisie et la vente en justice de l’immeuble ont-elles été exécutées par une personne habilitée à ce faire au sens de la Loi sur la Cour fédérale , L.R.C. (1985), chap. F-7 , et les Règles de la Cour fédérale? - La vente en justice à un adjudicataire de bonne foi d’un immeuble ayant, depuis sa saisie, fait l’objet d’une proposition concordataire doit-elle être annulée? -  Code de procédure civile, L.R.Q., ch C-25 - Loi sur la Cour fédérale , L.R.C. (1985), chap. F-7  - Règles de la Cour fédérale - Loi sur la faillite, L.R.C. (1985), ch. B-3 .

 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

 


Le 10 juillet, 1992

Section de première instance de la Cour fédérale du Canada)


 


(Denault, J.C.F.)


Requêtes de la créancière Hancor Inc., de la débitrice Les Systèmes de drainage modernes Inc. et son syndic et des créancières Banque Laurentienne et Trust Laurentienne en annulation de la vente accueillies


 


Le 24 octobre 1995

Cour d’appel fédérale du Canada

(Décary, Hugessen et Chevalier JJ.C.A.)


Dossier 24962: Appel des adjudicataires 118353 Canada Ltée et 167899 accueilli

Dossier 24963:  Appel du shérif Forest accueilli


 


Le 12 décembre 1995

La Cour suprême du Canada


Demandes d’autorisation d’appel déposées par Les Systèmes de drainage modernes Inc.


 

 

 

25083VICTOR JIM v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(B.C.)

 

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

 

                The application for leave to appeal and the request for an oral hearing of the application for leave to appeal are dismissed.

 

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel et la demande d’une audition de la requête sont rejetées.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Constitutional law - Gaming - Aboriginal rights - Do aboriginal peoples have a right of self-regulation over gaming where gaming is a traditional practice.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


November 26, 1992

Provincial Court of British Columbia (Smyth J.)


Conviction: gaming and betting; sentence: absolute discharge


 


November 8, 1995

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Hinkson, Gibbs, Donald JJ.A.)


Appeal dismissed


 


January 8, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

 

25086RUDI ALEXANDER BETTHEL v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Alta.)

 

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

 

                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

 

                La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Criminal law - Evidence - Destruction of evidence - Whether Crown has obligation to preserve evidence pending trial even where accused undertakes to plead guilty.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


September 16, 1994

Queen’s Bench for Alberta (Holmes J.)


Conviction: sexual assault causing bodily harm


 


November 27, 1995

Court of Appeal of Alberta

(Lieberman, Russell, and Trussler JJ.A.)


Appeal dismissed


 


Supreme Court of Canada

January 10, 1996


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

 

25025MYRNA CATHERINE COBURN AND COLLEEN GALE ROBERTSON, EXECUTRICES OF THE ESTATE OF CATHERINE MAHAFFEY, ALSO KNOWN AS CATHERINA MAHAFFEY, DECEASED, AND MYRNA CATHERINE COBURN AND COLLEEN ROBERTSON v. JOSEPH ANTHONY CAVADINI, CARL RUDOLPH CAVADINI, RANDOLPH ERMESE CAVADINI AND ERMA MARCELLA AIKINS (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

 

Property law - Wills - Testator's moral duty to adult independent children - Whether lower courts erred in finding that the Testatrix failed in her moral duty towards the Respondents by failing to make adequate provision in her Will for their proper maintenance and support.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


August 29, 1994

Supreme Court of British Columbia (Coultas J.)


Application for variation of will allowed


 


October 5, 1995

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Hinkson, Hollinrake,  and Donald JJ.A)


Appeal dismissed


 


December 1, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

 

25042RAYMOND ROY IZONY v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (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 - Procedural law - Severance - Severance application made after Crown case closed - Whether the trial judge should have severed the charges against the Applicant where he wished to testify on some but not on others.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


November 28, 1993

Supreme Court of British Columbia (Curtis J.)


Conviction: rape; indecent assault (3 counts); sexual assault; assault


 


December 12, 1995

British Columbia Court of Appeal (Hollinrake and Goldie JJ.A. and Southin J.A. dissenting)


Appeal dismissed


 


December 15, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada


Notice of Appeal as of right filed


 


February 12, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

 

24071JOSEPH BURKE v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Nfld.)

 

CORAM:               La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier,

                                Cory, Iacobucci and Major JJ.                   

 

                The application for reconsideration is dismissed.

 

                La demande de nouvel examen est rejetée.

 

                                                                                                                                      

 


MOTIONS

REQUÊTES

 

 

22.5.1996

 

Before / Devant: CORY J.

 


Motion to adduce new evidence

 

Opetchesaht et al.

 

   v. (24161)

 

Her Majesty The Queen in right of Canada et al. (B.C.)


Requête pour déposer d'autres éléments de preuve

 

With the consent of the parties.


 



GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

 

Upon application by counsel on behalf of the respondent crown for an order adding to the case on appeal the agreed statement of facts annexed hereto as Annexe “A”, and by consent of all parties,

 

It is ordered that the case on appeal be amended by adding thereto the said agreed statement of facts, and

 

It is further ordered that the appellant be at liberty to argue that the said agreed statement of facts is not relevant or determinative of the issues raised in this appeal, and

 

It is further ordered that the appellant having already filed a factum in this appeal, the appellant may file a brief reply to those portions of the facta of the respondents based on the said agreed statement of facts.

 

 

 

 

22.5.1996

 

Before / Devant: CORY J.

 


Motion to extend the time in which to apply for leave to appeal

 

Charles Belowitz

 

   v. (25036)

 

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)


Requête en prorogation du délai pour obtenir l'autorisation d'appel

 


 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to May 31, 1996.

 

 

 


NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE

AVIS D’APPEL DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  


 

22.5.1996

 

Bow Valley Industries Ltd.

 

   v. (24855)

 

Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. et al. (Nfld.)

 

 

 



APPEALS HEARD SINCE LAST ISSUE AND DISPOSITION

APPELS ENTENDUS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION ET RÉSULTAT

 

 

21.5.1996

 

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

 


Mara Properties Ltd.

 

   v. (24684)

 

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


Warren J.A. Mitchell, Q.C. and Karen Sharlow, for the appellant.

 

 

Roger Taylor and Brent Paris, for the respondent.


 

 

LA FOREST J. (orally for the Court) -- We agree with the conclusion reached by the Tax Court and Mr. Justice McDonald, the dissenting judge in the Court of Appeal.  In our view, in the circumstances of this case, the property retained its character as inventory in the hands of the appellant.       


 

 

LE JUGE LA FOREST (oralement au nom de la Cour) -- Nous souscrivons à la conclusion retenue par la Cour de l’impôt et par le juge McDonald, dissident en Cour d’appel.  À notre avis, compte tenu des circonstances de l’espèce, le bien conservait sa nature d’inventaire entre les mains de l’appelante.


 

                Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with costs throughout, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside, and the judgment of the Tax Court is restored.


 

                En conséquence, le pourvoi est accueilli avec dépens dans toutes les cours, l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel est infirmé et le jugement de la Cour de l’impôt est rétabli.


 

 

22.5.1996

 

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

 


Robert Wright

 

   v. (24839)

 

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


Richard Litkowski, for the appellant.

 

 

 

Roger A. Pinnock, for the respondent.


 

 


LA FOREST J. (orally for the Court) -- This appeal comes to us as of right.  In the circumstances of this case, we are all of the view that the Court of Appeal did not err in applying s. 686(1) (b)(ii) of the Criminal Code .  The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

 


LE JUGE LA FOREST (oralement au nom de la Cour) -- Il s’agit en l’espèce d’un pourvoi de plein droit.  Dans les circonstances de la présente affaire, nous sommes tous d’avis que la Cour d’appel n’a commis aucune erreur en appliquant le sous-al.  686(1) b)(ii) du Code criminel .  Le pourvoi est donc rejeté.


 

 

 

 

22.5.1996

 

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

 


Hardip Singh Rarru

 

    v. (24865)

 

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


S.R. Chamberlain, Q.C., for the appellant.

 

 

 

John M. Gordon, for the respondent.


 

 


ALLOWED - CONVICTION SET ASIDE - NEW TRIAL ORDERED /

ACCUEILLI - DÉCLARATION DE CULPABILITÉ INFIRMÉE - NOUVEAU PROCÈS ORDONNÉ

 


Nature of the case:

 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Defence - Evidence - Disclosure - Similar fact evidence.


Nature de la cause:

 

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit criminel - Défense - Preuve - Communication - Preuve de faits similaires.


 

 

23.5.1996

 

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

 


Her Majesty The Queen

 

   v. (24360)

 

Alexandre Nikolovski (Crim.)(Ont.)


David Butt, for the appellant.

 

 

 

John Collins, for the respondent.


 

ADJOURNED AT A DATE TO BE FIXED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE /

AJOURNÉE À UNE DATE FIXÉE PAR LE JUGE EN CHEF

 


Nature of the case:

 

Criminal law - Evidence - Identification evidence - Video tape of a robbery - Approach to assessing evidence - Witness in court shown videotape of robbery - Witness not able to identify robber in Court - Respondent seated alone in the prisoner's box - Trial judge relying on her own comparison between the robber on videotape and the Respondent in court to conclude that the Respondent was in fact the robber - Court of Appeal concluding that conviction unreasonable - Identification of Respondent having no other evidentiary foundation than the videotape.


Nature de la cause:

 

Droit criminel - Preuve - Preuve d’identification - Enregistrement vidéo d’un vol qualifié - Façon d’apprécier la preuve - Visionnement de la bande vidéo par un témoin à l’audience - Témoin incapable d’identifier le voleur à l’audience - Intimé assis seul dans le box des détenus - Le juge du procès s’est fié à sa propre comparaison entre le voleur figurant sur la bande vidéo et l’intimé en cour pour conclure que l’intimé était effectivement le voleur - La Cour d’appel a conclu que la déclaration de culpabilité était déraisonnable - L’identification de l’intimé n’a aucun autre fondement que la bande vidéo.


 

 


PRONOUNCEMENTS OF APPEALS    RESERVED 

 

Reasons for judgment are available

JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES APPELS EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

 

Les motifs de jugement sont disponibles

 

 

REVISED MAY 23, 1996 / RÉVISÉ LE 23 MAI 1996

 

DECEMBER 14, 1995 / LE 14 DÉCEMBRE 1995

 

 

23516JOSEPH APSASSIN, Chief of the Blueberry River Indian Band, and JERRY ATTACHIE, Chief of the Doig River Indian Band, on behalf of themselves and all other members of the Doig River Indian Band, the Blueberry River Indian Band and all present descendants of the Beaver Band of Indians v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA as represented by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Director of the Veterans Land Act - and - THE MUSQUEAM NATION and ERMINESKIN TRIBAL COUNCIL, CHIEF ABEL BOSUM et al., CHIEF TERRY BUFFALO et al. and THE SAMSON INDIAN BAND AND NATION, and THE ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS (B.C.)(REVISED/RÉVISÉ)

 

CORAM:               La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier,

                                Cory, McLachlin  and Major JJ.                         

 

                The appeal is allowed with costs throughout and the cross-appeal is allowed without costs.  The judgments below are set aside.  The appellants are entitled to damages against the Crown for breach of fiduciary duty with respect to   mineral rights in Indian Reserve 172 as were conveyed by the Director of the Veterans’ Land Act after August 9, 1949 by agreement for sale and, in the case of conveyances to Pacific Petroleum and Clement Brooks, by deed.  The action is remitted to the Federal Court, Trial Division, for assessment of damages accordingly.

 

                L’appel principal est accueilli avec dépens dans toutes les cours et l’appel incident est accueilli sans frais.  Les jugements dont appel sont cassés.  Les appelants ont droit à des dommages-intérêts de la part de la Couronne par suite du manquement de celle-ci à l’obligation de fiduciaire qui lui incombait relativement aux droits miniers attachés à la Réserve indienne 172 qui ont été cédés  par le Directeur de la Loi sur les terres destinées aux anciens combattants, après le 9 août 1949, par convention de vente et, dans le cas des cessions à Pacific Petroleum et Clement Brooks, par acte de vente.  L’action est renvoyée à la Cour fédérale, Section de première instance, pour établir les dommages.

                                                                                                                                      

 

 

February 22, 1996                                                                                                                                                le 22 février 1996

 

Revised:  May 21, 1996                                                                                                                              Revisé : le 21 mai 1996

                                                                                

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF a Reference by the Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia in Council to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal pursuant to the Constitutional Questions Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 89 of certain questions relating to the constitutional validity of provisions of An Act to Amend Chapter 401 of the Revised Statutes, 1989, the Residential Tenancies Act, S.N.S. 1992, c. 31.

 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NOVA SCOTIA v. D. A. ROLLIE THOMPSON - and - THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ONTARIO, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MANITOBA AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (N.S.)(24276)

 

 

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier,

                                Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

 

 

                The appeal is allowed and the cross-appeal is dismissed.  The constitutional questions are answered as follows:

 

                1.Are the unproclaimed provisions of An Act to Amend Chapter 401 of the Revised Statutes, 1989, the Residential Tenancies Act, S.N.S. 1992, c. 31 (the "Act"), within the legislative jurisdiction of the House of Assembly of Nova Scotia to the extent that those provisions confer authority respecting residential tenancies upon persons other than judges appointed pursuant to s. 96  of the Constitution Act, 1867 , and, most particularly, are the following provisions of the Act within the legislative jurisdiction of the House of Assembly of Nova Scotia?

 

                                7              The heading immediately preceding Section 13 and Sections 13 to 17 of said

Chapter 401 are repealed and the following headings and Sections substituted therefor:

 

               

APPLICATION TO DIRECTOR

 

                13.(1) Where a person applies to the Director

 

                (a) to determine a question arising under this Act; or

 

(b) alleging a breach of a tenancy agreement or a contravention of a provision of this Act,

 

and, not more than ninety days after the termination of the tenancy, files with the Director the form prescribed by the regulations, together with the fee, if any, prescribed by the regulations, the Director is the exclusive authority, at first instance, to investigate and endeavour to mediate a settlement.

 

                (2) Upon making an application pursuant to subsection (1), the applicant shall, in accordance with the regulations, serve the other parties to the matter with a copy of the application.

 

                (3) The Director may, on the Director's own initiative, investigate and determine a matter arising pursuant to a tenancy agreement or this Act.

 

(4) In exercising authority pursuant to this Section, the Director may determine and adopt the most expeditious method of investigating, mediating and determining a matter.

 

(5) On receiving an application pursuant to subsection (1), the Director shall investigate and, subject to subsections (7) and (8), endeavour to mediate a settlement of the matter.

 

(6) If a matter is settled by mediation, the Director shall make a written record of the settlement which shall be signed by both parties and which is binding on the parties and is not subject to appeal.

 

(7) If, after investigating the matter, the Director is of the opinion that the parties are unlikely to settle it by mediation within fourteen days, or if the matter is urgent and it involves the safety or security of the landlord, the tenant or other tenants, the Director may make a decision or order in accordance with Section 14.

 

(8) The Director may refuse to accept an application or continue a proceeding where, in the Director's opinion, the matter is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or has not been initiated in good faith, and may, subject to the approval of the Minister, issue an order to that effect.

 

(9) An applicant may withdraw an application at any time before an order or decision is made.

 

(10) For greater certainty, the landlord and the tenant have the right to be represented by legal counsel at any stage of the proceedings.

 

 

14.(1)       A decision or order made by the Director pursuant to Section 13 may

 

(a) require a landlord or tenant to comply with a lease or an obligation pursuant to this Act;

 

(b) require a landlord or tenant not to again breach a lease or an obligation pursuant to this Act;

 

(c) require any repair or action to be taken by the landlord or tenant to remedy a breach, and require the landlord or tenant to pay any reasonable expenses associated with the repair or action;

 

(d) order compensation to be paid for any loss that has been suffered or will be suffered as a direct result of the breach;

 

(e) terminate the tenancy on a date specified in the order and order the tenant to vacate the residential premises on that date;

 

(f) determine the disposition of a security deposit;

 

(g) direct that the tenant pay the rent in trust to the Director pending the performance by a landlord of any act the landlord is required by law to perform.

 

(2)             A decision or order made by the Director pursuant to Section 13 is, and is deemed to be, when no appeal is made pursuant to Section 15 within the time provided by that Section, a decision or order of a board.

 

 

                                                                                    APPEALS

 

15.(1)       Except as otherwise provided in this Act, any person, directly affected by a decision or order of the Director, may appeal the decision or order to the residential tenancies board for the area in which the residential premises to which the decision or order relates are situate.

 

(2)             An appeal may be commenced by filing with the Director, within ten days of the making of the decision or order, a notice of appeal in the form prescribed by the regulations and paying to the Director, within the said period of ten days, a fee in the amount prescribed by the regulations.

 

(3)             The appellant shall, in the manner prescribed by the regulations, give a copy of the notice of appeal to all persons directly affected by the decision or order.

 

(4)             The board shall give reasonable notice of the hearing to the parties by public notice given in the manner prescribed by the regulations, by personal service or by registered mail.

 

(5)             The board shall conduct a hearing in respect of a matter for which a notice of appeal is filed.

 

(6)             The board shall determine its own practice and procedure but shall give full opportunity for the parties to present evidence and make submissions.

 

(7)             The board may conduct a hearing orally, including by telephone, or in writing or partly in writing and partly orally.

 

(8)             Evidence may be given before the board in any manner that the board considers appropriate, and the board is not bound by rules of law respecting evidence applicable to judicial proceedings.

 

16                               (1)               Within seven days of holding a hearing pursuant to Section 15, the board shall

 

            (a)                         confirm, vary or rescind the decision or order of the Director;

 

            (b)                         make any decision or order that the Director could have made.

           

    (2)               The board shall compile a record of a hearing which shall consist of

 

            (a)                   the decision or order of the Director that was appealed from;

 

            (b)                   the notice of appeal to the board;

 

            (c)                   the notice of hearing by the board;

 

            (d)                   any written submissions received by the board; and

 

            (e)                   the decision or order of the board and any reasons for the                      decision or order.

 

* * *

 

17A    (1)                   Subject to subsections (2) and (3), any person who is a party to an                      appeal to a board pursuant to this Act may, if that person took part in the hearing, appeal the decision or order of the board to the Appeal Division of the Supreme Court

 

    (2)   An appeal pursuant to this Section may only be taken on a question law or jurisdiction and only with leave obtained from a judge of the Appeal Division of the Supreme Court.

 

    (3)   An application for leave to appeal shall be made within fourteen days of the decision or order of the board or within such further time as the judge allows.

 

    (4)   The board is entitled to be heard, by counsel or otherwise, on the argument of an application for leave to appeal and on an appeal pursuant to this Section.

 

    (5)   The Appeal Division of the Supreme Court, on hearing an appeal pursuant to this Section, may

 

            (a)                   make any decision or order that in its opinion ought to

            have been made;

 

            (b)                   quash, vary or confirm the decision of the board;

 

            (c)                   refer the matter back to the board with the direction of the

            Court.

 

    8(2)     Subsections (3) and (4) of said Section 18 are repealed and the following subsections substituted therefor:

 

. . .

 

            (4B)It is the function of a board and the board has the power to

                      hear appeals from decisions or orders of the Director.

 

    Answer:  Yes.

 

2.If the aforesaid provisions of the Act are not within the legislative jurisdiction of the House of Assembly of Nova Scotia, in what particular respects are those provisions ultra vires?

           

    Answer:  Given the answer to the first question, this question does not arise.

 

 

    Le pourvoi est accueilli et le pourvoi incident est rejeté.  Les questions constitutionnelles reçoivent les réponses suivantes:

 

1.L'Assemblée législative de la Nouvelle‑Écosse est‑elle compétente pour adopter les dispositions non proclamées de An Act to Amend Chapter 401 of the Revised Statutes, 1989, the Residential Tenancies Act, S.N.S. 1992, ch. 31 (la «Loi»), dans la mesure où ces dispositions confèrent une compétence, sur la location résidentielle, à des personnes autres qu'un juge nommé conformément à l'art. 96  de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 , et, plus particulièrement, l'Assemblée législative de la Nouvelle‑Écosse est‑elle compétente pour adopter les dispositions suivantes de la Loi?

           

    7      Les articles 13 à 17 du chapitre 401 et l’intertitre qui précède l’article 13

    sont abrogés et remplacés par ce qui suit:

 

 

DEMANDE AU DIRECTEUR

 

13.(1)  Le directeur a compétence exclusive, en première instance, pour enquêter et tenter, par la médiation, de régler un différend lorsque, au plus tard quatre‑vingt dix jours après l'expiration d'un bail, une personne lui présente, au moyen du formulaire réglementaire, accompagné, s'il y a lieu, des droits exigibles fixés par règlement :

 

a)  soit une demande pour qu'il tranche une question soulevée par la présente loi;

 

 

b)  soit une demande alléguant la violation du bail ou d'une disposition de la présente loi.

 

(2)  Conformément au règlement, le demandeur signifie aux autres parties concernées une copie de la demande visée au paragraphe (1).

 

(3)  Le directeur peut d'office enquêter et statuer sur une affaire concernant un bail ou la présente loi.

 

(4)  Dans l'exercice des pouvoirs qui lui sont conférés par le présent article, le directeur peut adopter la méthode la plus rapide pour tenter, par la médiation, de régler l'affaire en question, et pour enquêter et statuer sur celle-ci.

 

(5)  Sur réception d'une demande visée au paragraphe (1), le directeur enquête et, sous réserve des paragraphes (7) et (8), tente par la médiation de régler l'affaire.

 

(6)  En cas de règlement par médiation, le directeur constate le règlement par écrit.  Le règlement, qui doit être signé par les deux parties, lie celles-ci et ne peut faire l'objet d'un appel.

 

(7)  Si, au terme d'une enquête, le directeur est d'avis qu'il est improbable que les parties arrivent à un règlement par médiation dans un délai de quatorze jours, ou si l'affaire est urgente et met en jeu la sécurité du locateur, du locataire concerné ou d'autres locataires, le directeur peut rendre une décision ou une ordonnance conformément à l'article 14.

 

(8)  Le directeur peut rejeter une demande ou refuser de continuer toute instance si, à son avis, il s'agit d'une affaire futile, frivole ou vexatoire, ou si elle n'a pas été introduite de bonne foi; et il peut, sous réserve de l'approbation du ministre, rendre une ordonnance en ce sens.

 

(9)  L'auteur d'une demande peut la retirer à n'importe quel moment avant qu'une décision ou une ordonnance soit rendue.

 

(10)  Il est entendu que le locateur et le locataire ont le droit d'être représentés par un avocat à toute étape des procédures.

 

14.(1)  Le directeur peut, lorsqu'il rend une décision ou une ordonnance en application de l'article 13:

 

a)  intimer au locateur ou au locataire de respecter le bail ou de se conformer à une obligation prévue par la présente loi;

 

b)  interdire au locateur ou au locataire de manquer de nouveau au bail ou à une obligation prévue par la présente loi;

 

c)  intimer au locateur ou au locataire de prendre des mesures, notamment d'effectuer des réparations, en vue de corriger un manquement, et contraindre le locateur ou le locataire à payer les dépenses raisonnables engagées à cette fin;

 

d)  imposer le paiement d'une indemnité pour toute perte qui a été subie ou sera subie et qui découle directement du manquement;

 

e)  résilier le bail à la date fixée dans l'ordonnance et intimer au locataire de quitter le logement à cette date;

 

f)  indiquer ce qui sera fait du cautionnement;

 

g)  intimer au locataire de lui verser le montant du loyer en fiducie, jusqu'à ce que le locateur se soit acquitté d'une obligation lui incombant.

 

(2)  Si aucun appel n'est interjeté en vertu de l'article 15 dans le délai prévu, les décisions ou ordonnances rendues par le directeur en application de l'article 13 sont réputées être des décisions ou ordonnances de la commission.

                                                                                     APPELS

 

15.(1)  Sauf disposition contraire de la présente loi, toute personne directement touchée par une décision ou une ordonnance du directeur peut en appeler à la commission de location résidentielle de la région où se trouve le logement visé.

 

(2)  Dans les dix jours qui suivent la décision ou l'ordonnance, l'appelant dépose auprès du directeur un avis d'appel en la forme réglementaire, accompagné des droits fixés par règlement.

 

(3)  L'appelant remet, de la manière prévue par règlement, une copie de l'avis d'appel à toutes les personnes directement touchées par la décision ou l'ordonnance.

 

(4)  La commission donne un préavis suffisant de la date de l'audition aux parties soit par avis public en la forme réglementaire, soit par signification à personne ou par courrier recommandé.

 

(5)  La commission tient une audition à l'égard de chaque affaire.

 

(6)  La commission établit ses propres règles de pratique et de procédure et donne aux parties la possibilité de présenter des éléments de preuve et des observations.

 

(7)  La commission peut tenir l'audition soit oralement, notamment par conférence téléphonique, soit par écrit, ou encore en partie par écrit et en partie oralement.

 

(8)  La commission reçoit les témoignages de la façon qu'elle juge appropriée, et elle n'est pas liée par les règles de preuve applicables aux procédures judiciaires.

 

16.(1)  Dans les sept jours qui suivent l'audition tenue conformément à l'article 15, la commission :

 

a)  confirme, modifie ou annule la décision ou l'ordonnance du directeur;

 

b)  rend toute décision ou ordonnance que celui-ci aurait pu rendre.

 

(2)  La commission dresse un dossier de l'audition, composé des éléments suivants :

 

a)  la décision ou l'ordonnance du directeur visée par l'appel;

 

b)  l'avis d'appel à la commission;

 

c)  l'avis de l'audition donné par la commission;

 

d)  les observations écrites reçues par la commission;

 

e)  la décision ou l'ordonnance de la commission et les motifs formulés à l'appui de celle‑ci.

 

                                                                                           . . .

 

17A(1)  Sous réserve des paragraphes (2) et (3), la personne qui est partie à un appel présenté à la commission conformément à la présente loi peut, si elle a participé à l'audition, interjeter appel de la décision ou de l'ordonnance de la commission à la Division d'appel de la Cour suprême.

 

(2)  Il ne peut être interjeté appel à la Division d'appel conformément au présent article que sur une question de droit ou de compétence, et uniquement avec l'autorisation d'un juge de la Division d'appel de la Cour suprême.

 

(3)  La demande d'autorisation d'appel doit être présentée dans les quatorze jours qui suivent la décision ou l'ordonnance de la commission ou dans le délai supérieur accordé par le juge.

 

(4)  La commission a le droit de se faire entendre, par l'entremise d'un avocat ou autrement, lors de la présentation d'une demande d'autorisation d'appel ou de l'audition d'un appel interjeté conformément au présent article.

 

    (5)  Au terme de l'audition d'un appel interjeté conformément au présent article, la Division d'appel de la Cour suprême peut :

 

    a)  rendre la décision ou l'ordonnance qui, à son avis, aurait dû être rendue;

 

b)  annuler, modifier ou confirmer la décision de la commission;

 

c)  renvoyer l'affaire à la commission avec des directives.

        8(2)             Les paragraphes (3) et (4) de l’article 18 sont abrogés et remplacés par ce qui suit:

                                                                                           . . .

 

    (4B)  La commission entend les appels formés à l'encontre des décisions ou    ordonnances du directeur.

    Réponse: Oui.

2.Si l'Assemblée législative n'est pas compétente pour adopter les dispositions précédentes de la Loi, à quels égards ces dispositions sont‑elles ultra vires?

 

    Réponse: Vu la réponse à la première question, cette question ne se pose pas.          

 

 

MAY 23, 1996 / LE 23 MAI 1996

 

 

24631WILLIAM WAYNE DALE STILLMAN  v.  HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(N.B.)

 

CORAM:           The Chief Justice and L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,

                            Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.           

 

                In view of the importance of the issues raised on the facts of this appeal which, in some aspects, invite a re-consideration of established principles as regards the application of s. 24(2)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , and in view of the fact that this appeal was heard by a bench of seven Justices without representations from any interveners, a re-hearing is ordered, to be heard by the full Court during the Fall session.

 

                Vu l’importance des questions soulevées par les faits du présent pourvoi qui, à certains égards, appellent un réexamen des principes établis concernant l’application du par. 24(2)  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés , et compte tenu du fait que le présent pourvoi a été entendu par une formation de sept juges en l’absence d’observations de la part d’intervenants, la tenue d’une nouvelle audition devant la Cour au complet , pendant la session d’automne, est ordonnée.

                                                                                                                                       


WEEKLY AGENDA

ORDRE DU JOUR DE LA

SEMAINE

 

 

AGENDA for the week beginning May 27, 1996.

ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 27 mai 1996.

 

 

 

 

 

Date of Hearing/                                     Case Number and Name/    

Date d'audition                                        Numéro et nom de la cause

 

27/05/96Procureur général du Québec c. Jocelyn Guimond (Qué.)(24625)

 

28/05/96Alain Labonté c. Sa Majesté La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)(24768)

 

29/05/96Alton William Royer v. Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)(24640)

 

30/05/96Manulife Bank of Canada v. John Joseph Conlin (Ont.)(24499)

 

 

 

 

NOTE: 

 

This agenda is subject to change.  Hearing dates should be confirmed with Process Registry staff at (613) 996-8666.

 

Cet ordre du jour est sujet à modification.  Les dates d'audience devraient être confirmées auprès du personnel du greffe au (613) 996-8666.


SUMMARIES OF THE CASES

RÉSUMÉS DES AFFAIRES

 

 

24625Attorney General of Quebec v. Jocelyn Guimond

 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Civil Code - Administrative law - Procedure - Civil procedure - Legislation - Damages - Class action.

 

Between July 24, 1985 and March 12, 1989, the respondent was found guilty of 34 offences under the Highway Safety Code, R.S.Q., c. C‑24.2.  A fine was imposed for each of those offences.  Because the respondent failed to pay the fines in question, 34 warrants of committal were issued against him.  Under the Summary Convictions Act, R.S.Q., c. P-15, and the Code of Penal Procedure, R.S.Q., c. C‑25.1, which replaced that Act, the term of imprisonment is determined in relation to the amount of the fine plus the costs awarded against the accused.  In the case at bar, article 348 of the Code of Penal Procedure extended the term so determined by three days of imprisonment per warrant issued.  The respondent was accordingly sentenced to 102 additional days of imprisonment.  The respondent did not challenge the validity of the orders of imprisonment but contested the provisions of and schedules to the Code of Penal Procedure and the Summary Convictions Act that authorized this additional sentence.

 

On June 21, 1991, the respondent, who had been on parole since March 28, 1991, served on the Attorney General of Quebec a motion for authorization to institute a class action.  He applied to bring, on behalf of all persons imprisoned for failure to pay a fine since June 21, 1989, a direct action in nullity and for a declaration that the provisions of the Code of Penal Procedure and the Summary Convictions Act at issue in the case at bar are of no force or effect within the meaning of subsection 52(1)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .  He also applied for authorization to bring an action for damages under article 1053 of the Civil Code of Lower Canada, subsection 24(1)  of the Canadian Charter  and section 49 of the Charter of human rights and freedoms, R.S.Q., c. C-12.  He claimed an indemnity of $300 per day of detention as moral damages and compensation.  His class action would concern 50,000 people.

 

On September 21, 1992, the Superior Court dismissed the respondent's motion.  On November 1, 1993, an amendment to article 348 of the Code of Penal Procedure that abolished the three days of detention to be added for each offence came into force.  On January 25, 1995, the Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the respondent's appeal; Delisle J.A. dissented on the issue of suing the government for damages.  On June 1, 1995, the Court allowed the Attorney General of Quebec's application for leave to appeal.  On November 17, 1995, the Chief Justice stated the following constitutional questions:

 

1.Do s. 63.10 and Schedule "A" of the Summary Convictions Act, R.S.Q., c. P‑15 -- which were in force until September 30, 1990 -- and ss. 347 and 348 and the schedule of the Code of Penal Procedure, R.S.Q., c. C-25.1 -- as they read until October 31, 1993 -- concerning the imprisonment of a defendant who has failed to pay a fine -- infringe the rights guaranteed by ss. 7 , 9  or 12  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

 

2.If the answer to question 1 is yes, are they limits prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified pursuant to s. 1  of the Charter?

 

Origin of the case:                                                                Quebec

 

File No.:                                                                 24625

 

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                                     January 25, 1995

 

Counsel:                                                                Claude Bouchard and Monique Rousseau for the Appellant

Jacques Larochelle and René Vallerand for the Respondent

 

 

 


24625Le procureur général du Québec c. Jocelyn Guimond

 

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Code civil - Droit administratif - Procédure - Procédure civile - Législation -Dommages-intérêts - Recours collectif.

 

Entre le 24 juillet 1985 et le 12 mars 1989, l'intimé est reconnu coupable de 34 infractions au Code de la sécurité routière, L.R.Q., ch. C-24.2.  Pour chaque infraction, une amende est imposée.  L'intimé ayant fait défaut d'acquitter les amendes imposées, 34 mandats d'emprisonnement sont décernés contre lui.  Selon la Loi sur les poursuites sommaires, L.R.Q., ch. P-15, et le Code de procédure pénale, L.R.Q., ch. C-25.1, lequel a remplacé la loi, la peine d'emprisonnement est établie en tenant compte du montant de l'amende et des frais auxquels l'accusé a été condamné.  En l'espèce, à la peine d'emprisonnement établie selon ces textes législatifs, l'article 348 du Code de procédure pénale ajoute 3 jours de détention par mandat décerné.  L'intimé a donc été condamné à 102 jours additionnels d'incarcération.  L'intimé n'a jamais contesté la validité des ordonnances d'incarcération, mais conteste les dispositions et annexes du Code de procédure pénale et de la Loi sur les poursuites sommaires qui permettent cette peine additionnelle.

 

Le 21 juin 1991, en liberté conditionnelle depuis le 28 mars 1991, l'intimé signifie au procureur général du Québec une requête en autorisation d'exercer un recours collectif.  Il demande d'exercer, au nom de toutes les personnes ayant été emprisonnées par suite du défaut de payer une amende depuis le 21 juin 1989, une action directe en nullité et en jugement déclaratoire portant que les dispositions applicables en l'espèce du Code de procédure pénale et de la Loi sur les poursuites sommaires sont inopérantes au sens du paragraphe 52(1)  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés .  Il demande en outre l'autorisation d'exercer une action en dommages-intérêts en application de l'article 1053 du Code civil du Bas-Canada, du paragraphe 24(1)  de la Charte canadienne  et de l'article 49 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., ch. C-12.  Il réclame une indemnisation de 300 $ par journée de détention à titre de dommages moraux et de compensation.  Son recours viserait 50 000 personnes.

 

Le 21 septembre 1992, la Cour supérieure rejette la requête de l'intimé.  Le 1er novembre 1993, entre en vigueur une modification apportée à l'article 348 du Code de procédure pénale pour supprimer les trois jours de détention à ajouter à chaque infraction.  Le 25 janvier 1995, la Cour d'appel du Québec accueille l'appel de l'intimé, le juge Delisle étant dissident sur la question de la poursuite en dommages-intérêts contre l'État.  Le 1er juin 1995, la Cour accueille la demande d’autorisation d’appel du procureur général du Québec.  Le 17 novembre 1995, le juge en chef formule les questions constitutionnelles suivantes:

 

1.L'article 63.10 et l'annexe "A" de la Loi sur les poursuites sommaires (L.R.Q. c. P‑15) ‑ qui étaient en vigueur jusqu'au 30 septembre 1990 ‑, de même que les articles 347, 348 et l'annexe du Code de procédure pénale (L.R.Q. c. C‑25.1) ‑ tels qu'ils se lisaient jusqu'au 31 octobre 1993 ‑, et qui concernent l'emprisonnement d'un défendeur ayant fait défaut de payer une amende ‑ contreviennent‑ils aux droits garantis par les articles 7, 9 ou 12 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

 

2.Si la réponse à la première question est affirmative, s'agit‑il de limites prescrites par une règle de droit dont la justification puisse se démontrer conformément à l'article premier de la Charte?

 

 

Origine:                                                                  Québec

 

No du greffe:                                                          24625

 

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel:                                    Le 25 janvier 1995

 

Avocats:                                                                Me Claude Bouchard et Me Monique Rousseau pour l’appelant

                                                                                Me Jacques Larochelle et Me René Vallerand pour l’intimé

 

 

 


24768    Alain Labonté v. Her Majesty the Queen

 

Criminal law - Trial - Offences - Charge to the jury - Whether a court of appeal has the power to order a new trial following an acquittal on the ground that the judge’s charge to the jury failed to mention the possibility of convicting the accused as an accessory, even though at trial the prosecution had expressly renounced the argument of the responsibility of the accused as an accessory - Whether the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the judge’s charge to the jury concerning the criminal responsibility of the accused as an accessory is a question of law only and accordingly a question on the basis of which a court of appeal can set aside a verdict of acquittal - Whether the order for a new trial in this case infringes the right of the accused not to be tried twice for the same offence.

 

The appellant was acquitted by a jury on charges of murder, robbery and use of a firearm.  The respondent appealed the verdict.  The Court of Appeal summarized the facts and evidence as follows:

 

Aside from certain technical evidence, the respondent’s evidence was based on the testimony of three persons: Kenneth Eckel, Pierre Boivin and Michel Dauphinais.  Marcel Gosselin was killed by two bullets from a revolver belonging to Eckel, who told the jury that he had conspired with the appellant to rob the victim using a sledgehammer handle purchased by Boivin at Eckel’s request.  At the scene of the robbery, the appellant was in possession of Eckel’s revolver, which he had taken from Eckel’s residence without his knowledge.  Observing that the victim’s wallet contained only cheques, Eckel left the residence, went to his car and waited for the appellant.  A few minutes later, the appellant joined Eckel with the victim’s wallet.  On the way to Eckel’s residence, the appellant threw the empty wallet out of the car.

 

Boivin told the jury that Eckel and the appellant had conspired to commit robbery and had forced him to give them the names and addresses of potential victims, and that he had given them those of the victim and had on Eckel’s instructions purchased a sledgehammer handle.  The afternoon of the murder, Eckel and the appellant left Eckel’s residence, where Boivin was baby-sitting.  When they returned, the appellant told Boivin that the victim had been killed with a revolver.  Who had used the weapon was unclear from what the appellant said.  As for Dauphinais, who was in prison at the same time as the appellant while the latter was awaiting his trial, he testified about comments made by the appellant in confidence after a failed attempt to commit suicide.  The appellant allegedly told him that he had killed somebody and could no longer live with that memory.

 

In the Court of Appeal, the respondent argued that the judge had made two errors of law in charging the jury.  First, the judge had erred in giving excessive weight to the care to be taken in considering Eckel’s testimony.  Second, the judge had also erred in failing to give adequate instructions concerning the conspiracy to commit the robbery.  The majority of the Court of Appeal accepted the second ground for appeal and ordered a new trial on the robbery charge.  Tourigny J.A., in dissent, would have dismissed the appeal on the ground that the judge’s charge was consistent with the only evidence adduced by the respondent, according to which the appellant was the principal perpetrator of the crime and not an accomplice.

 

Origin of the case:                                                Quebec

 

File No.:                                                 24768

 

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     May 10, 1995

 

Counsel:                                                Michel LeBrun and Sylvie Roy for the Appellant

                                                                Jean-François Royer for the Respondent

 

 

 


24768Alain Labonté c. Sa Majesté la Reine

 

Droit criminel - Procès - Infractions - Directives au jury - Une Cour d’appel a-t-elle le pouvoir d’ordonner un nouveau procès suite à un acquittement au motif que les directives du juge au jury n’ont pas fait mention de la possibilité de trouver l’accusé coupable à titre de complice et ce, malgré le fait qu’au procès la poursuite ait spécifiquement renoncé à invoquer la responsabilité de l’accusé à titre de complice? - La détermination de la suffisance de la preuve justifiant des directives du juge au jury concernant la responsabilité criminelle de l’accusé à titre de complice est-elle une question de droit seulement, et partant une question justifiant une Cour d’appel de casser un verdict d’acquittement? - Est-ce que l’ordonnance d’un nouveau procès en l’instance constitue une violation du droit de l’accusé de ne pas être jugé deux fois pour une même infraction?

 

L’appelant a été acquitté par un jury des accusations de meurtre, vol qualifié et utilisation d’une arme à feu.  L’intimée a porté en appel ce verdict.  La Cour d’appel a résumé comme suit les faits et les témoignages:

 

La preuve présentée par l’intimée, exception faite de certaines preuves à caractère technique, reposait sur le témoignage de trois personnes, à savoir Kenneth Eckel, Pierre Boivin et Michel Dauphinais.  Marcel Gosselin fut tué par deux balles provenant d’un revolver appartenant à Eckel.  Ce dernier a affirmé au jury qu’il avait comploté avec l’appelant pour commettre un vol avec violence chez la victime à l’aide d’un manche de masse acheté par Boivin à la demande d’Eckel.  Sur les lieux du vol, l’appelant était en possession du revolver d’Eckel qu’il avait pris dans la résidence de ce dernier à son insu.  Ayant constaté que le porte-monnaie de la victime ne contenait que des chèques, Eckel a quitté la résidence pour se diriger dans sa voiture et attendre l’appelant.  Quelques minutes plus tard, l’appelant est allé rejoindre Eckel avec le porte-monnaie de la victime.  En route vers la résidence d’Eckel, l’appelant a jeté le porte-monnaie vide à l’extérieur.

 

Boivin a affirmé au jury qu’Eckel et l’appelant avaient comploté pour commettre un vol, que ces derniers l’avaient forcé à leur révéler le nom et l’adresse de victimes potentielles, qu’il avait révélé ceux de la victime et que, sur les instructions d’Eckel, il avait acheté un manche de masse.  Au cours de l’après-midi du meurtre, Eckel et l’appelant ont quitté la résidence d’Eckel où Boivin gardait les enfants.  Lorsqu’ils sont revenus, l’appelant a dit à Boivin que la victime avait été tuée à l’aide d’un revolver.  Les paroles de l’appelant n’étaient pas claires quant à l’identité de l’utilisateur de  l’arme.  Quant à Dauphinais, qui se trouvait en prison en même temps que l’appelant lorsque ce dernier attendait son procès, il a témoigné au sujet des confidences faites par l’appelant suite à une tentative de suicide avortée. L’appelant lui aurait confié avoir tué quelqu’un et qu’il ne pouvait plus vivre avec ce souvenir.

 

Devant la Cour d’appel, l’intimée a insisté sur deux erreurs de droit commises par le juge dans ses directives au jury.  Tout d’abord, le juge aurait erré en insistant trop lourdement sur la prudence à adopter face au témoignage d’Eckel.  Le juge aurait également erré en ne donnant pas de directives adéquates quant au complot ayant existé pour commettre le vol qualifié.  Les juges majoritaires de la Cour d’appel ont retenu le second motif d’appel et ordonné la tenue d’un nouveau procès sur le chef d’accusation de vol qualifié.  Le juge Tourigny, dissidente, aurait rejeté le pourvoi au motif que les directives données par le juge étaient conformes à la seule preuve présentée par l’intimée et qui faisait de l’appelant l’acteur principal du crime et non un complice.

 

Origine:                                                                  Qué.

 

No du greffe:                                                          24768

 

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel:                                    Le 10 mai 1995

 

Avocats:                                                                Me Michel LeBrun et Me Sylvie Roy pour l’appelant

                                                                                Me Jean-François Royer pour l’intimée

 

 

 


24640Alton William Royer v. Her Majesty The Queen

 

Criminal law - Defence - Evidence - Pre-trial procedure - Procedural law -  Whether there was an improper re-examination - Whether alcohol induced automatism should have been left with the jury as a defence - Whether the preferred indictment after discharge at a preliminary hearing offends the principles of autrefois acquit - Whether the charge of first degree murder preferred shortly before trial should be stayed as an abuse of process - Whether the trial judge erred in the charge to the jury regarding intent and the absence of motive - Whether evidence of prior threats should have been ruled inadmissible.

 

On June 28, 1991, after dinner at Mrs. Mohamed’s residence with her daughter, the Appellant argued with Mrs. Mohamed, when she refused to advance him money to purchase a business.  When Mrs. Mohamed and her daughter retired to their bedroom, he went to the bedroom dressed in his underwear, threw boiling water on them and stabbed them with a sharp kitchen knife.  Mrs. Mohamed was seriously wounded and her daughter died.  He then went to the washroom, washed his hands, and dressed.  He fled when the police arrived.

 

At the preliminary hearing, Beaulne, J. discharged the Appellant of first degree murder.  Just before the trial was to commence, the Crown preferred an indictment for first degree murder.  At trial the Appellant admitted, through his lawyer, that he had caused the victims' injuries.  It was common ground that he had consumed a lot of alcohol but there was considerable dispute as to how much.  The only issue at trial was whether the Crown had proved the Appellant had the requisite mental state.  The trial judge instructed the jury with respect to the effect of intoxication on the question of intent, but the trial judge disagreed with the defence submissions on the interpretation of the case law respecting intoxication and refused to recharge the jury, saying that "where automatism has been produced by voluntary intoxication, only the defence of drunkenness is required to be left with the jury".  The Appellant was convicted. His appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal was dismissed.

 

Origin of the case:                                                Ontario

 

File No.:                                                 24640

 

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     January 30, 1995

 

Counsel:                                                                Rosalind E. Conway for the Appellant

                                                                                David Butt for the Respondent

 

 

 


24640    Alton William Royer c. Sa Majesté la Reine

 

Droit criminel - Défense - Preuve - Procédure préalable au procès - Droit procédural - Y a-t-il eu un réinterrogatoire irrégulier? - Le moyen de défense d'automatisme provoqué par l'alcool aurait-il dû être soumis à l'appréciation du jury? - La mise en accusation directe après libération à l'issue de l'enquête préliminaire viole-t-elle le principe d'autrefois acquit? - L'accusation de meurtre au premier degré portée peu avant le procès devrait-elle être arrêtée pour cause d'abus de procédure? - Le juge du procès a-t-il commis une erreur dans son exposé au jury concernant l'intention et l'absence de motif? - La preuve de menaces antérieures aurait-elle dû être déclarée inadmissible?

 

Le 28 juin 1991, après le dîner à la résidence de Mme Mohamed avec sa fille, l'appelant s'est disputé avec Mme Mohamed lorsqu'elle a refusé de lui avancer de l'argent pour acheter une entreprise.  Lorsque Mme Mohamed et sa fille se sont retirées dans leur chambre, il s'est rendu dans la chambre en sous-vêtements, leur a lancé de l'eau bouillante et les a poignardées avec un couteau de cuisine tranchant.  Mme Mohamed a subi de graves blessures et sa fille est morte.  Il s'est ensuite rendu aux toilettes, s'est lavé les mains et s'est habillé.  Il a fui lorsque la police est arrivée.

 

À l'enquête préliminaire, le juge Beaulne a libéré l'appelant de l'accusation de meurtre au premier degré.  Juste avant le début du procès, le ministère public a porté une accusation de meurtre au premier degré.  Par l'intermédiaire de son avocat, l'appelant a admis au procès avoir causé les blessures des victimes.  Il était reconnu qu'il avait consommé beaucoup d'alcool, mais il y avait de grandes divergences quant à la quantité.  La seule question au procès était de savoir si le ministère public avait prouvé que l'appelant avait l'état d'esprit requis.  Le juge du procès a donné au jury des directives sur l'effet de l'intoxication sur la question de l'intention, mais il a exprimé son désaccord avec les allégations de la défense sur l'interprétation de la jurisprudence relative à l'intoxication et a refusé de faire un nouvel exposé au jury, en déclarant que «lorsque l'automatisme a été causé par une intoxication volontaire, seule la défense d'ivresse doit être soumise à l'appréciation du jury».  L'appelant a été déclaré coupable.  La Cour d'appel de l'Ontario a rejeté son appel.

 

 

 

Origine:                                                                                  Ontario

 

No du greffe:                                                                         24640

 

Arrêt de la Cour d'appel:                                                     Le 30 janvier 1995

 

Avocats:                                                                Rosalind E. Conway pour l'appelant

                                                                                David Butt pour l'intimée

 

 

 


24499Manulife Bank of Canada v. John Joseph Conlin

 

Property law - Creditor/debtor - Commercial law - Loan - Mortgage - Guaranty/surety - Construction of guaranty agreement - Effect of renewal of mortgage agreement on guarantee -  Whether the language of a guarantor clause should be strictly construed or in accordance with its plain ordinary meaning? - Whether a strict construction of the guarantee would release the guarantor if the principal mortgage contract were renewed without the guarantor’s consent? - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing this action in which the neither the order nor the nature of the relief granted was requested by either party?

 

In 1987, Manulife Bank of Canada (then The Regional Trust Company) loaned Mrs. Dina Conlin $275,000.  The loan was secured by a first mortgage on an apartment building in Welland and as a condition of making the loan the mortgagor’s husband, the Respondent, and Conlin Engineering and Planning Ltd. guaranteed the loan.  The liability of these parties was expressly stated to be a “continuous liability”.

 

In 1989, the Respondent and Mrs. Conlin separated.  In 1990, Mrs. Conlin signed a "Renewal Agreement" and selecting a three-year term at 13% interest.  Although the form provided for the signature of the `registered owner' and the `guarantor', the agreement was signed by Dina Conlin as owner and by no one else.

 

In 1992, there was a default in payment.  In 1993, Manulife Bank obtained summary judgment against the Respondent and Mrs. Conlin in the Ontario Court (General Division).  A majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the Respondent's appeal, set aside the judgment and dismissed the action against him.

 

 

Origin of the case:                                                Ontario

 

File No.:                                                 24499

 

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     November 9, 1994

 

Counsel:                                                                H. Stephen Lee for the Appellant

                                                                                Barbara F. Fischer for the Respondent

 

 


24499                    Manulife Bank of Canada c. John Joseph Conlin

 

Droit des biens - Créancier/débiteur - Droit commercial - Prêt - Hypothèque - Garantie/caution - Interprétation de l'accord de cautionnement - Effet du renouvellement de l'acte hypothécaire sur le cautionnement - Le texte d'une clause relative aux cautions devrait-il être interprété restrictivement ou suivant son sens ordinaire? - Une interprétation stricte du cautionnement libérerait-elle la caution si le contrat hypothécaire principal était renouvelé sans le consentement de la caution? - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en rejetant l'action dans laquelle les parties n'avaient demandé ni l'ordonnance rendue ni la réparation accordée?

 

En 1987, Manulife Bank of Canada (alors The Regional Trust Company) a prêté à Mme Dina Conlin la somme de 275,000$.  Ce prêt était garanti par une hypothèque de premier rang sur un immeuble résidentiel situé à Welland et, vu l'une des conditions du prêt, l'époux de la débitrice hypothécaire, l'intimé, et Conlin Engineering and Planning Ltd. se sont portés cautions du prêt.  Il était explicitement stipulé que ces parties avaient une «responsabilité continue».

 

En 1989, l'intimé et Mme Dina Conlin se sont séparés.  En 1990, Mme Conlin a signé un accord de renouvellement de son prêt, pour une période de trois ans, à un taux d'intérêt de 13 pour 100.  Même si le formulaire devait être signé par le «propriétaire enregistré» et la «caution», il n'a été signé que par Dina Conlin.

 

En 1992, il y a eu défaut de paiement.  En 1993, Manulife Bank a obtenu un jugement par procédure sommaire contre l'intimé et Mme Conlin devant la Cour de l'Ontario (Division générale).  La Cour d'appel à la majorité a accueilli l'appel de l'intimé, annulé le jugement et rejeté l'action contre lui.

 

 

Origine:                                                                  Ontario

 

No de greffe:                                                                          24499

 

Arrêt de la Cour d'appel:                                                     Le 9 novembre 1994

 

Avocats:                                                                H. Stephen Lee pour l'appelante

                                                                                                Barbara F. Fischer pour l'intimé

 

 

 


DEADLINES: MOTIONS

 

DÉLAIS: REQUÊTES

 

 

BEFORE THE COURT:

 

Pursuant to Rule 23.1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, the following deadlines must be met before a motion before the Court can be heard:

 

DEVANT LA COUR:

 

Conformément à l'article 23.1 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada, les délais suivants doivent être respectés pour qu'une requête soit entendue par la Cour:

 

 

Motion day       :            May 6, 1996

 

Service  :            April 15, 1996

Filing                  :            April 22, 1996

Respondent       :            April 29, 1996

Audience du            :            6 mai 1996

 

Signification          :            15 avril 1996

Dépôt                       :            22 avril 1996

Intimé                      :            29 avril 1996

 

 

                                                                                                                                                  


DEADLINES:  APPEALS

 

DÉLAIS:  APPELS

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

 

The spring session of the Supreme Court of Canada will commence April 22, 1996.

 

Pursuant to the Supreme Court Act and Rules, the following requirements for filing must be complied with before an appeal will be inscribed and set down for hearing:

 

Case on appeal must be filed within three months of the filing of the notice of appeal.

 

Appellant's factum must be filed within four months of the filing of the notice of appeal. For appeals in which the notice of appeal was filed before July 26, 1995, the factum must be filed within five months.

 

 

Respondent's factum must be filed within eight weeks of the date of service of the appellant's factum.

 

Intervener's factum must be filed within four weeks of the date of service of the respondent's factum. For appeals in which the notice of appeal was filed before July 26, 1995, the factum must be filed within two weeks.

 

The Registrar shall inscribe the appeal for hearing upon the filing of the respondent's factum or after the expiry of the time for filing the respondent's factum

 

 

La session de printemps de la Cour suprême du Canada commencera le 22 avril 1996.

 

Conformément à la Loi sur la Cour suprême et aux Règles, il faut se conformer aux exigences suivantes avant qu'un appel puisse être inscrit pour audition:

 

 

Le dossier d'appel doit être déposé dans les trois mois du dépôt de l'avis d'appel.

 

Le mémoire de l'appelant doit être déposé dans les quatre mois du dépôt de l'avis d'appel. Pour les appels dont l’avis d’appel a été déposé avant le 26 juillet 1995, le mémoire doit être déposé dans les cinq mois.

 

Le mémoire de l'intimé doit être déposé dans les huit semaines suivant la signification de celui de l'appelant.

 

Le mémoire de l'intervenant doit être déposé dans les quatre semaines suivant la signification de celui de l'intimé. Pour les appels dont l’avis d’appel a été déposé avant le 26 juillet 1995, le mémoire doit être déposé dans les deux semaines.

 

Le registraire inscrit l'appel pour audition après le dépôt du mémoire de l'intimé ou à l'expiration du délai de signification du mémoire de l'intimé.

 

 

 

 


                                                                     SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

                                                             CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA

 

- 1996 -

 


JANUARY - JANVIER

 S- D

M-L

T-M

W-M

T-J

F-V

S-S

 

H

1

 

2

 

3

 

4

 

5

 

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

 

 

 


 

FEBRUARY - FÉVRIER

S- D

M-L

T-M

W-M

T-J

F-V

S-S

 

 

 

 

1

2

3

 

4

M

5

 

6

 

7

 

8

 

9

 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

 

 


 

MARCH - MARS

S- D

M-L

T-M

W-M

T-J

F-V

S-S

 

 

 

 

 

1

2

 

3

M

4

 

5

 

6

 

7

 

8

 

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


APRIL - AVRIL

S- D

M-L

T-M

W-M

T-J

F-V

S-S

 

M

1

 

2

 

3

 

4

H

5

H

6

H

7

H

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

 

 

 

 

 


 

MAY - MAI

S- D

M-L

T-M

W-M

T-J

F-V

S-S

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

 

5

M

6

 

7

 

8

 

9

 

10

 

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

 

19

H

20

 

21

 

22

 

23

 

24

 

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

 


 

JUNE - JUIN

S- D

M-L

T-M

W-M

T-J

F-V

S-S

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

2

M

3

 

4

 

5

 

6

 

7

 

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 
Hearing of appeal days:

Journée d’audition de pourvois:                                                                                                                                                                                      

 

Motion days:

 

M

 

Journées de requêtes:

 

Holidays:

 

H

 

Congés statutaires:                                                                                                                                                                                                            

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.