Bulletins

Erreur ! Signet non défini.

          OF CANADA                                 DU CANADA   Erreur ! Signet non défini.

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

          PROCEEDINGS   PROCÉDURESErreur ! Signet non défini.

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

March 1st, 1996                                                322 - 340       le 1^er mars 1996Erreur ! Signet non défini.

CONTENTS                                                                                                               TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Lawrence Melnichuk

                Alan Gold

                Gold & Fuerst

                v. (25071)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

                Catherine Cooper

                A.G. of Ontario

FILING DATE 19.2.1996

Edward Michael Swereda

                Alexander D. Pringle, Q.C.

                Pringle, Renouf, MacDonald & Assoc.

                v. (25156)

Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.)

                Jane McClellan

                Agent of the Ministry of Justice

FILING DATE 19.2.1996

Clifford Davis et al.

                Carol Ross

                Hordo, Ross & Bennett

                v. (25157)

Maurice Hamelin et al. (B.C.)

                T.A. McAfee

                McAfee Harder Hattori & Shaw

FILING DATE 19.2.1996

Boréal Assurances Inc.

                Jean-Jacques Gagnon

                de Grandpré Godin

                c. (25158)

Reno-Dépôt et al. (Qué.)

                Georges Emery, c.r.

                Desjardins, Ducharme Stein Monast

FILING DATE 19.2.1996

Paul Butler

                Simon Wagstaffe

                Wagstaffe, Gosb & Smith

                v. (25161)

Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)

                Oleh S. Kuzma

                Regional Crown Counsel Office

FILING DATE 21.2.1996

FEBRUARY 23, 1996 / LE 23 FÉVRIER 1996

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

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Gonthier et Iacobucci

                                                                        Canadian National Railway Company

                                                                                                v. (24919)

                            National Transportation Agency and National Gypsum (Canada) Limited (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Constitutional law - Arbitration - Contracts - Respondent shipper applying to National Transportation Agency pursuant to s. 48 of the National Transportation Act, 1987, Chap. N-20.01, for Final Offer Arbitration in respect of the rate charged by Applicant carrier for the transportation of goods -Applicant carrier submitting that application For Final Offer Arbitration is null and void ab initio since the traffic to which it relates is governed by a confidential contract and should be dismissed and not referred to an arbitrator as it is contrary to subs. 120(6) of the NTA, 1987 - Whether the National Transportation Agency erred in law or jurisdiction in deciding that the matter submitted by National Gypsum for final offer arbitration was not governed by a confidential contract within the meaning of section 120(6) of the NTA, 1987? - Whether the final offer arbitration provisions in sections 48 to 57 of the NTA, 1987 are ultra vires the Parliament of Canada?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

March 9, 1995

National Transportation Agency

Decision: Canadian National Railway Company’s request to dismiss National Gypsum  (Canada) Limited’s application for Final Offer Arbitration denied

October 2, 1995

Federal Court of Appeal

(Isaac C.J. and Marceau and Roberston JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

Octobre 26, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

                                                          Canson Enterprises Ltd. And Fealty Enterprises Ltd.

                                                                                                v. (24991)

                                                     Boughton & Company, Ralph R. Wollen, George O. Treit,

Treit Land Consultants Inc., Pacific Mortgage Corporation Limited,

Gordon Bert Wilkins, Sun-Mark Development Corporation and Peregrine Ventures Inc. (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Barristers and solicitors - Partnership - Breach of fiduciary duty - Liability to account for secret profits - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling that in an action against a partnership, in order to establish the liability of one of the partners and thus the partnership, it is necessary to name the partner as an individual defendant in the style of cause - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding the liability of a partnership to account for a secret profit taken by a third party with the assistance of the partners on the basis of the rationale for liability of a corporate director for a breach of trust by his company pursuant to Air Canada v. M& L Travel, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 787 - Whether the Court of  Appeal erred in ruling that subjective knowledge of a dishonest scheme was required of a partner before the partnership could be held liable to account for a secret profit taken by a third party with the assistance of a partner - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not holding a law firm jointly liable with a secret profiteer to account for a secret profit in circumstances where the secret profit was paid out of trust funds contrary to the instructions of the client.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:   La Forest, Cory and Major JJ. /

Les juges La Forest, Cory et Major

                                                                                   Gertrude Madeline Clair

                                                                                                v. (24951)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Rebuttal Evidence - Whether the trial judge should have allowed the Respondent to call rebuttal evidence - Whether the trial judge should have given the jury a measuring tape to assist in their deliberations.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

July 7, 1994

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

(Palmeter A.C.J. N.S.)

Conviction: Second degree murder and unlawful use of a firearm during the commission of an indictable offence

July 11, 1995

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

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

Appeal dismissed

October 30, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

                                                                                    Her Majesty The Queen

                                                                                                v. (25053)

                                                                                Robert Currie (Crim.)(Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sentencing - Dangerous offender application - Whether the Court of Appeal  applied the correct criteria in overturning the trial judge’s finding of dangerous offender.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

February 20, 1991

Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)

(Tobias J.)

Conviction: sexual assault (3 counts); dangerous offender application granted; indeterminate sentence imposed

November 2, 1995

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Brooke, Finlayson, and Carthy JJ.A.)

Appeal of indeterminate sentence  allowed

December 21, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

                                                                                  Eugene Joseph Blanchard

                                                                                                v. (24942)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Whether payment received was taxable income in the circumstances.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

October 22, 1992

Federal Court of Canada Trial Division (Jerome A.C.J.)

Appeal from reassessment allowed

July 5, 1995

Federal Court of Appeal

(Marceau, Strayer and Linden JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed

October 26, 1995

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

                                                                                 MacMillan Bloedel Limited

                                                                                                v. (24941)

                                                                   The Galiano Island Trust Committee (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Municipal law - Statutes - Interpretation -- Whether the Galiano Island Trust Committee has the authority to enact by-laws with certain purposes - Whether a purpose section can change the interpretation of grant of power - Whether the ultra vires test is independent from the requirement that a government act in good faith when enacting by-laws - Whether there is a reversal in the onus of proof if prima facie discrimination is found in a by-law.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

July 30, 1993

Supreme Court of British Columbia (Paris J.)

Judgment for Applicant

August 10, 1995

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Southin, Finch, and Wood JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed

October 26, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

                                                                             Jonathan Trelawny Silbernagel

                                                                                                v. (24948)

                                                                          Canadian Stevedoring Co. Ltd. and

                                                                                   Alexander Ritchie (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Judgments and orders - Appeal - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  -  Whether the Court of Appeal could be seen to be disinterested in the striking out of Rule 18A of the  British Columbia Rules of Court - Whether Rule 18A falls short of the requirements of procedural fairness.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

December 29, 1994

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Hutchinson J.)

Application to strike out paragraphs of the Respondents’ Statement of Defence  adjourned; Application to quash summary trial application  of the Respondents  dismissed; Respondents’ application to dismiss claims of Applicant due to court’s lack of  jurisdiction, dismissed; cross-examination on affidavits ordered

May 26, 1995

Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Prowse J.A.)

Application for leave to appeal and a stay of proceedings, dismissed

June 9, 1995

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Hutchinson J.)

Judgment granted in favour of Respondents dismissing Applicant’s action, on the condition that the Applicant’s second motion to quash the Respondents’ application for summary judgment fails

June 22, 1995

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Taylor, Goldie, and Ryan JJ.A)

October 23, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada

Application to vary order of Prowse J.A., dismissed

Application for leave to appeal filed

November 23, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada

Notice of motion to extend time to file leave application until October 23, 1995, and notice of motion for an order to be exempted from filing fee for motion to extend time, filed (latter order granted by Registrar)

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

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

                          Syndicat des professeurs de l’Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières et Henri Wittmann

                                                                                                c. (24911)

                                                   Me Jacques Dupont, Me Pierre Tremblay et Jacques Poitras

                                                                                                     - et -

                                                                 Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail - Arbitrage - Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Compétence - Procédure -  Exception déclinatoire - Conseil d’arbitrage rejetant un grief au motif de litispendance - Refus subséquent du président du conseil d’arbitrage de convoquer à nouveau les parties pour entendre le même grief - Requête en évocation déposée par les demandeurs à l’encontre de ces décisions - Requête en irrecevabilité de l’Université - Requête en évocation rejetée par la Cour supérieure au motif qu’elle n’a pas été soumise dans un délai raisonnable, qu’elle ne constituait pas le recours approprié et que la décision du conseil d’arbitrage est un jugement final ayant l’autorité de la chose jugée - Un tribunal d’arbitrage qui s’est prononcé sur l’irrecevabilité d’un grief au motif de litispendance peut-il convoquer les parties de nouveau pour entendre et décider le grief?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 2 novembre 1989

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

Requête en irrecevabilité accueillie et requête en évocation rejetée

Le 15 juin 1995

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Bisson, Mailhot et Tourigny jj.c.a.)

Appel rejeté

Le 13 octobre 1995

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

22.2.1996

Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

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

Her Majesty The Queen

   v. (24296)

James Keegstra (Alta.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de dépôt du mémoire d’un intervenant

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to February 12, 1996.

22.2.1996

Before / Devant: LE JUGE GONTHIER

Requête en vue de surseoir à l'exécution

Groupe Bourg Royal Inc. et al.

   c. (25145)

Fiducie Desjardins (Qué.)

   et entre

Groupe Bourg Royal Inc. et al.

   c. (25146)

Rodrigue Blouin (Qué.)

Motion for a stay of execution

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

                Le soussigné est saisi d’une requête de sursis selon l’art. 65.1  de la Loi sur la Cour suprême du Canada  demandant que soit suspendue l’effet et l’exécution des jugements dont appel prononcés par la Cour d’appel du Québec le 8 janvier 1996 jusqu’à jugement final de cette Cour.

                Ces mêmes jugements ont fait l’objet de requêtes en sursis selon l’art. 522.1 du Code de procédure civile du Québec rejetées par jugement de l’hon. Louis LeBel de la Cour d’appel le 8 février 1996 selon les critères d’application de l’art. 65.1  de la Loi sur la Cour suprême du Canada .

                La présente requête ne fait état d’aucune circonstance justifiant de revenir sur l’exercice par le juge de la Cour d’appel de sa discrétion.  À mon avis, la requête en autorisation d’appel ne fait voir aucun moyen sérieux susceptible d’obtenir autorisation d’appel.

                La requête en sursis est rejetée avec dépens.

22.2.1996

Before / Devant: LE JUGE EN CHEF LAMER

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

Réjean Hinse

   c. (24320)

Sa Majesté La Reine (Qué.)

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

Avec le consentement des parties.

ACCORDÉE / GRANTED

Il est ordonné que:

a) le présent pourvoi ne soit pas réputé avoir été abandonné;

b) la date limite pour le dépôt du dossier d’appel soit fixée au 15 mars 1996;

c) la date limite pour le dépôt du mémoire de l’appelant soit fixée au 15 avril 1996.

26.2.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

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

R.D.S.

   v. (25063)

Her Majesty The Queen (N.S.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de dépôt de la réponse de l’intimée

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to February 2, 1996.

26.2.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

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

Gertrude Madeline Clair

   v. (24951)

Her Majesty The Queen (N.S.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de dépôt de la réponse de l’intimée

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to February 9, 1996.

27.2.1996

Before / Devant: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER

Motion to adjourn the hearing of the appeal 

Lorne McConnell et al.

   v. (24779)

Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.)

Requête pour ajourner l'audition de l’appel

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Adjourned to April 30, 1996.

27.2.1996

Before / Devant: GONTHIER J.

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

Steven McMahon

   v. (25100)

Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.)

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

With the consent of the parties.

REFERRED / DÉFÉRÉE   application referred to the bench seized with the application for leave to appeal.

27.2.1996

Before / Devant: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER

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

Edward Michael Pittman

   v. (25074)

Her Majesty The Queen (Nfld.)

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

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

28.2.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

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

Her Majesty The Queen

   v. (24296)

James Keegstra (Alta.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de dépôt du mémoire d’un intervenant

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to February 19, 1996.

28.2.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

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

Corey David Paternak

   v. (24877)

Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de dépôt du mémoire de l’appelant

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to February 21, 1996.

28.2.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

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

Boma Manufacturing Ltd. et al.

   v. (24520)

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (B.C.)

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

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to February 22, 1996.

21.2.1996

Her Majesty The Queen

   v. (25160)

Csaba Osvath (Ont.)

AS OF RIGHT

23.2.1996

The Judges of the Provincial Court of Manitoba as represented by the Manitoba Provincial Judges Assoc. et al.

   v. (24846)

Her Majesty The Queen in right of the province of Manitoba as represented by Rosemary Vodrey et al. (Man.)

19.2.1996

Patrick Mara

   v. (25159)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

AS OF RIGHT

23.2.1996

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

Noel Edwin Bell

   v. (24134 - 5)

Canadian Human Rights Commission

   - and between -

David John Cooper

   v.

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

David John Cooper and Noel Edwin Bell, in person.

René Duval and Eddie Taylor, for the respondent Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Rhys Davies and Jennifer Duprey, for the respondent Canadian Airlines International Ltd.

APPEAL traversed to spring term - Amicus Curiae to support Commission’s jurisdiction /

POURVOI reporté à la session du printemps - Amicus curiae à l’appui de la compétence de la Commission.

Nature of the case:

Administrative law - Judicial review - Statutes - Interpretation - Mandatory retirement - Whether the Canadian Human Rights Commission has the power to interpret law - Whether the Canadian Human Rights Commission has the power to make a final decision regarding the constitutionality of the provisions of any statute which is under its consideration -Whether the decision in McKinney v. University of Guelph, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229, has settled the question of the constitutionality of the Canadian Human Rights Act, s. 15(c). 

Nature de la cause:

Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Lois - Interprétation ‐ Retraite obligatoire - La Commission canadienne des droits de la personne a-t-elle le pouvoir d'interpréter des règles de droit? - La Commission canadienne des droits de la personne a-t-elle le pouvoir de rendre une décision définitive concernant la constitutionnalité des dispositions d'une loi qu'elle est appelée à examiner? - L'arrêt McKinney c. Université de Guelph, [1990] 3 R.C.S. 229, a-t-il réglé la question de la constitutionnalité de l'al. 15c) de la Loi canadienne sur les droits de la personne?

26.2.1996

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

Howard Pamajewon et al.

   v. (24596)

Her Majesty The Queen

   - and between -

Arthur C. Pape, Clayton C. Ruby and Jean Teillet, for the appellants.

Jack R. London, Q.C. and Martin S. Minuk, for the intervener the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs.

Louise Mandell and Peter W. Hutchins, for the interveners Delgamuukw et al.

Arnold Gardner et al.

   v.

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

Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond and Lesia Ostertag, for the interveners Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations et al.

Scott C. Hutchison, for the respondent.

Ivan G. Whitehall, Q.C. and Kimberley Prost, for the intervener the A.G. of Canada.

Pierre Lachance, pour l’intervenant le procureur général du Québec.

Kenneth J. Tyler and Richard A. Saull, for the intervener the A.G. of Manitoba.

Paul J. Pearlman, for the intervener the A.G. of B.C.

Margaret Unsworth, for the intervener the A.G. of Alta.

P. Mitch McAdam, for the intervener the A.G. of Sask.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE (orally) -- The appeals are dismissed, with reasons to follow.

LE JUGE EN CHEF (oralement)  -- Les appels sont rejetés, motifs à suivre.

Nature of the case:

Criminal Law - Constitutional law - Aboriginal law - Aboriginal rights and title - Inherent right to self-government - Whether aboriginal title protects only "activity and site specific" rights which reflect particular aboriginal traditions or practices, rather than a broad right to the use and benefits of lands - Is right of self-government restricted to matters which were the ancient aboriginal laws or customs? - Whether self-government rights respecting gaming were extinguished by provisions of the Criminal Code  - Whether Court of Appeal should have concluded that section 207  of the Criminal Code  is unjustifiably inconsistent with section 35  of the Constitution Act, 1982 , because it makes some gaming lawful if licensed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, but does not recognize an analogous authority  in the First Nations to authorize charitable gaming on reserves.

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel - Droit constitutionnel - Droit des autochtones - Droits et titre ancestraux - Droit inhérent à l'autonomie gouvernementale - Le titre ancestral protège-t-il seulement les droits spécifiques à une activité et à un endroit qui correspondent à des pratiques ou traditions ancestrales, plutôt qu'un droit général à l'usage et au produit des terres? - Le droit à l'autonomie gouvernementale est-il restreint à des matières relevant des lois ou coutumes ancestrales anciennes? - Les droits à l'autonomie gouvernementale concernant les jeux ont-ils été éteints par des dispositions du Code criminel ? - La Cour d'appel aurait-elle dû conclure que l'art. 207  du Code criminel  est d'une incompatibilité non justifiable avec l'art. 35  de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982  parce qu'il rend légitimes certains jeux s'ils sont autorisés par le lieutenant-gouverneur en conseil, mais ne reconnaît pas

aux Premières Nations un pouvoir analogue d'autoriser des jeux à des fins de bienfaisance sur les réserves?

28.2.1996

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

Her Majesty The Queen

   v. (24296)

James Keegstra

   - and between -

James Keegstra

   v.

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

Jack Watson, Q.C. and J. Steven Koval, Q.C., for the appellant.

Douglas H. Christie, for the respondent and the appellant on cross-appeal.

Jack Watson, Q.C. and J. Steven Koval, Q.C., for the respondent on cross-appeal.

Robert J. Frater and Erin McKey, for the intervener the A.G. of Canada.

Michael Bernstein, for the intervener the A.G. for Ontario.

Mark J. Sandler and Marvin Kurz, for the intervener the Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada.

APPEAL ALLOWED AND CROSS-APPEAL DISMISSED / APPEL ACCUEILLI ET APPEL INCIDENT REJETÉ

Nature of the case:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in concluding the jury's verdict of guilt should be undermined because of the manner in which the trial judge responded to the jury's request for the transcript of testimony and for "the Criminal Code  of the charge" - Does s. 319(3) of the Criminal Code  infringe s. 11(d)  of the Charter ? - Whether s. 319(3)(a) of the Criminal Code  a reasonable limit on the s. 11(d)  Charter  right pursuant to s. 1 - Has there been systemic delay and a breach of the Charter  to justify a judicial stay of proceedings under ss. 7, 11(b) and 24(1) - Did trial judge err in definition of public interest and public benefit - Was new trial warranted for lack of clarity in definition - Did Court of Appeal misapply Stinchcombe principles in the circumstances of the case - Did trial judge err in not properly directing the jury of the evidence of identifiable group.

Nature de la cause:

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit criminel - La Cour d'appel à la majorité a‐t‐elle commis une erreur en concluant que le verdict de culpabilité prononcé par le jury devait être attaqué en raison de la façon dont le juge du procès a réagi à la demande du jury relativement à la transcription d'un témoignage et aux dispositions du Code criminel  qui concernent l'accusation? - Le paragraphe 319(3) du Code criminel  porte‐t‐il atteinte à l'al. 11 d )  de la Charte ? - L'alinéa 319(3) a) du Code criminel  constitue‐t‐il une limite raisonnable au droit garanti à l'al. 11 d )  de la Charte  au sens de l'article premier? - Y a‐t‐il eu un retard systémique et une violation de la Charte  qui justifient un arrêt des procédures en vertu de l'art. 7 , de l'al. 11 b )  et du par. 24(1) ? - Le juge du procès a‐t‐il commis une erreur dans sa définition de l'intérêt public et du bénéfice public? - La tenue d'un nouveau procès était‐elle justifiée pour manque de clarté de la définition? - La Cour d'appel a‐t‐elle mal appliqué les principes énoncés dans l'arrêt Stinchcombe dans les circonstances de l'affaire? - Le juge du procès a‐t‐il commis une erreur en ne donnant pas des directives appropriées au jury relativement à la preuve d'un groupe identifiable?

29.2.1996

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

Newfoundland Association of Public Employees

   v. (24525)

Her Majesty The Queen in right of Newfoundland and Newfoundland Hospital and Nursing Home Association on behalf of Green Bay Health Care Centre (Nfld.)

V. Randell J. Earle, Q.C. and Thomas Johnson, for the appellant.

Augustus G. Lilly, for the respondents.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Labour law - Collective agreement - Arbitration - Judicial review - Statutes - Interpretation -  Application of Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Etobicoke (Borough of), [1982] 1 S.C.R. 202 and Winnipeg School Division (No. 1) v. Craton, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 150 - Interpretation of the Newfoundland Human Rights Code, S.N. 1988, c. 62 (as it then was) - Whether parties to a collective agreement can prohibit discrimination without a bona fide occupational qualification reservation.   

Nature de la cause:

Labour law - Collective agreement - Arbitration - Judicial review - Statutes - Interpretation -  Application of Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Etobicoke (Borough of), [1982] 1 S.C.R. 202 and Winnipeg School Division (No. 1) v. Craton, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 150 - Interpretation of the Newfoundland Human Rights Code, S.N. 1988, c. 62 (as it then was) - Whether parties to a collective agreement can prohibit discrimination without a bona fide occupational qualification reservation.   

29.2.1996

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

Giovanni Marinaro

   v. (24322)

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

Timothy E. Breen, for the appellant.

W. Graeme Cameron, for the respondent.

ALLOWED / ACCUEILLI

Nature of the case:

Criminal law - Procedural law - Trial - Defence - Charge to jury -  Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that misdirection as to consciousness of guilt could be excused by application of s. 686 (1) (b)(ii) of the Criminal Code .

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel - Droit procédural - Procès - Moyen de défense - Exposé au jury - La Cour d'appel a‐t‐elle commis une erreur en concluant qu'une directive erronée quant à la conscience de la culpabilité pouvait être excusée par l'application du sous‐al. 686(1)b)(ii) du Code criminel ?

AGENDA for the week beginning March 4, 1996.

ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 4 mars 1996.

Date of Hearing/                                     Case Number and Name/    

Date d'audition                                        Numéro et nom de la cause

04/03/96Motions - Requêtes

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.

                                                                     SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

                                                             CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA

- 1996 -

Journée d’audition de pourvois:                                                                                                                                                                                      

Motion days:

Journées de requêtes:

Holidays:

Congés statutaires: