Bulletins

CONTENTS                                                                                                                                                                                       TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Applications for leave to appeal                                                                                  1951 - 1952                                         Demandes d'autorisation d'appel

filed                                                                                                                                                                                                        déposées

Applications for leave submitted                                                                                 1953 - 1961                                         Demandes soumises à la Cour depuis la

to Court since last issue                                                                                                                                                                  dernière parution

Oral hearing ordered                                                                                                          -                              Audience ordonnée

Oral hearing on applications for                                                                                -                                 Audience sur les demandes d'autorisation

leave                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Judgments on applications for                                                                                   1962 - 1963                                         Jugements rendus sur les demandes

leave                                                                                                                                                                                                     d'autorisation

Motions                                                                                                                                1964 - 1967                                         Requêtes

Notices of appeal filed since last                                                                                 -                                 Avis d'appel déposés depuis la dernière

issue                                                                                                                                                                           parution

Notices of intervention filed since                                                                                    -                                 Avis d'intervention déposés depuis la

last issue                                                                                                                                                                                              dernière parution

Notices of discontinuance filed since                                                                              -                              Avis de désistement déposés depuis la

last issue                                                                                                                                                                                              dernière parution

Appeals heard since last issue and                                                                                1968                                  Appels entendus depuis la dernière

disposition                                                                                                                                                                                           parution et résultat

Pronouncements of appeals reserved                                                                    1969 - 1971                                         Jugements rendus sur les appels en

délibéré

Headnotes of recent judgments                                                                                  1972 - 1987                                      Sommaires des arrêts récents

Weekly agenda                                                                                                                    1988                                  Ordre du jour de la semaine

Summaries of the cases                                                                                                      -                         Résumés des affaires

Cumulative Index ‑ Leave                                                                                             1989 - 2009                            Index cumulatif ‑ Autorisations

Cumulative Index ‑ Appeals                                                                                         2010 - 2014                                         Index cumulatif ‑ Appels

Appeals inscribed ‑ Session                                                                                                -                                 Appels inscrits ‑ Session

beginning                                                                                                                                                                  commençant le

Notices to the Profession and                                                                                            -                            Avis aux avocats et communiqué

Press Release                                                                                                                                                                                     de presse

Deadlines: Motions before the Court                                                                           2015                                            Délais: Requêtes devant la Cour

Deadlines: Appeals                                                                                                             2016                                         Délais: Appels

Judgments reported in S.C.R.                                                                                             -                                   Jugements publiés au R.C.S.

Michael Walter Yarema

James C. Fleming

Rosen, Fleming

v. (24446)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

A.G. of Ontario

FILING DATE  6.12.1994

Timothy Randall Lemky

Adrian Brooks

v. (24454)

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

FILING DATE  9.12.1994

Evelyn Rizk

c. (24427)

Syndicat des enseignantes et enseignants de Le Royer (Qué.)

Gaétan Levesque

DATE DE PRODUCTION  5.12.1994

Valerie Langer

A. Cameron Ward

v. (24437)

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. et al. (B.C.)

John L. Hunter

Davis & Co.

FILING DATE  29.11.1994

Margaret Kaban

Sidney Green, Q.C.

v. (24444)

Sikhor Nath Sett (Man.)

H. D. Van Iderstine

Aikins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson

FILING DATE  29.11.1994

La Fraternité des policiers de la communauté urbaine de Montréal et al.

Mario Létourneau

Lanctôt, Létourneau, Raiche & Dufour

c. (24445)

Communauté urbaine de Montréal et al. (Qué.)

Jacques Audette

Lavery, De Billy

DATE DE PRODUCTION  30.11.1994

City of Dartmouth

W. Augustus Richardson

Huestis Holm

v. (24447)

The Pay Equity Commission et al. (N.S.)

Reinhold Endres

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE  5.12.1994

Sminon-Wai-Huen Fong

Alexander D. Pringle, Q.C.

v. (24448)

Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.)

Jack Watson, Q.C.

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE  2.12.1994

The Gerber Scientific Instrument Co.

R. Kronick, Q.C.

Goldberg, Shinder

v. (24449)

Bell-Northern Research Ltd. (Ont.)

James L. Shields

Soloway, Wright

FILING DATE  2.12.1994

Kartar Basra

Andrew S. Berna

Mair Jensen Blair

v. (24450)

Jaswant Singh Gill (B.C.)

Gordon D. Hoffman

Gillespie Renkema

FILING DATE  1.12.1994

James Eakin

Shaun Nakatsuru

Nakatsuru and Doucette

v. (24451)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

Brian Gover

Stockwood, Spies, Ashby and Craigen

FILING DATE  5.12.1994

Martine Ranger Bourbonnière

Pierre Bourque, c.r.

Desjardins Ducharme Stein Monast

c. (24452)

Le Bureau d'expertise des assureurs Ltée et al. (Qué.)

Marie-Josée Hogue

Heenan Blaikie

DATE DE PRODUCTION  8.12.1994

Alexander Hugh Gillis

Darcy L. MacPherson

v. (24453)

Her Majesty The Queen (N.S.)

Kenneth W.F. Fiske, Q.C.

Public Prosecution Service

FILING DATE  5.12.1994

                                                                                                                                               DECEMBER 9, 1994 / LE 9 DÉCEMBRE 1994

CORAM:  CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER AND GONTHIER AND IACOBUCCI JJ. /

LE JUGE EN CHEF LAMER ET LES JUGES GONTHIER ET IACOBUCCI

                                                                                          The National Parole Board and The Warden of Kent Institution

                                                                                                                                                    v. (24436)

                                                                                                                             Ian Ross Mooring (Crim.)(B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Procedural law - Parole - Prerogative writs - Jurisdiction - Evidence - National Parole Board revoking the Respondent's release on mandatory supervision - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the National Parole Board is a "court of competent jurisdiction" for the purpose of making an order excluding evidence pursuant to s. 24(2)  of the Charter  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to direct that the question of the Respondent's suitability for parole be remitted to the Board for reconsideration - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a Provincial Superior Court has jurisdiction to grant relief in the nature of certiorari for the purpose of quashing a decision of the National Parole Board.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                                                                     Her Majesty the Queen

                                                                                                                                                    v. (24302)

                                                                                                                             Donald Robinson (Crim.)(B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Procedural law - Defence - Second degree murder - Intent - Intoxication - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in following Regina Canute (1993), 80 C.C.C.(3d) 403, and in deciding that it is reversible error for a trial judge to instruct a jury on the defence of drunkenness in accordance with the principles enunciated in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard, [1920] A.C. 479, and MacAskill v. The King, [1931] S.C.R. 330 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in following Regina v. Canute and in deciding that the common law rules regarding the defence of drunkenness as enunciated in D.P.P. v. Beard and MacAskill v. The King violate ss. 7  and 11( d )  of the Charter  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in following Regina v. Canute and in deciding that it is reversible error for a trial judge to instruct a jury on the defence of drunkenness in accordance with the "two-step" process enunciated in Regina v. McKinlay (1986), 28 C.C.C.(3d) 306.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                                                                           Randy Remington

                                                                                                                                                    v. (24376)

                                                                                                                            Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.A.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Inducement to enter into a lease of a office building - Whether the payment was a non-taxable receipt or income from a business - To what extent must a Court consider the economic substance on the transaction, generally accepted accounting principles and commonly accepted business and commercial practices in determining the taxation year in which the amount must be reported.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                                    Coopers & Lybrand Limited, in its capacity as Trustee

                                                                                         in Bankruptcy of Hawboldt Hydraulics (Canada) Inc., successor

                                                                                                             to Maritime Hydraulic Repair Centre Limited

                                                                                                                                                    v. (24329)

                                                                                                       Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (F.C.A.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Statutes - Interpretation - Definition of "goods for sale" pursuant to the Income Tax Act - Whether the Applicant's activities in repairing and re-manufacturing hydraulic and pneumatic components amounted to a manufacturing of goods for sale such that it was eligible for capital cost allowance under Class 29 of Schedule ll of the Income Tax Regulations and for investment tax credit under s. 127(5) of the Income Tax Act - Whether the legal test to define "goods for sale" under the Income Tax Act is of national or public importance under Section 40 of the Supreme Court Act.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:  LA FOREST, CORY AND MAJOR JJ. /

LES JUGES LA FOREST, CORY ET MAJOR

                                                                                                                                           Leonard Peckham

                                                                                                                                                    v. (24401)

                                                                                                                                Her Majesty the Queen and

                                                                                      Administrator of the North Bay Psychiatric Hospital (Crim.)(Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Criminal Code Review Board - Section 672.54  of the Criminal Code  governing determinations made by Ontario Criminal Code Review Board pursuant to  s. 672.83  of the Criminal Code  - Appeal based on the reasonableness of the Board's disposition - Burden and onus of proof, if any, applicable to the assessment mandated by s. 672.54  of the Criminal Code  -Meaning of the phrase "the mental condition of the accused" as found in s. 672.54 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Board need not first be satisfied that the Applicant continues to suffer from the "disease of the mind" upon which his not guilty by reason of insanity verdict was based before ordering anything more restrictive than an absolute discharge pursuant to s.672.54 of the Code - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that, if it was necessary for the Board to first find that the Applicant continued to suffer from his original "disease of the mind", the evidence adduced before the Board was reasonably capable of supporting such a finding - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that, at a hearing to review an insane acquittee's continued detention, the state does not bear a burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that any restrictions on the insane acquittee's liberty are necessary to protect the public - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to set aside the Board's disposition on the ground that the evidence was not reasonably capable of supporting a finding that custodial detention was necessary; that is, that custodial detention was the "least restrictive and least onerous" form of disposition.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                                                                   Gerald Michael Vaughan

                                                                                                                                                    v. (24345)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the finding and conclusion of the Criminal Code Review Board was sound and supported by evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to determine that the Criminal Code Review Board had misapplied section 672.54  of the Criminal Code  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to determine that the Criminal Code Review Board had violated the appellant's rights under section 7, 9, 12 and 15.(1) of the Charter  - Whether the Court of Appeal failed to make a proper and complete assessment of the evidence before them and thereby violated the appellant's rights under section 7, 9, 12 and 15.(1) of the Charter  - Whether the appeal was prejudiced as a result of a report containing false information having been improperly and erroneously placed into the Appeal Book by counsel for the Attorney General - Whether there is reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of two judges of the Court of Appeal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                                                                      J.M. Gregory MacIsaac

                                                                                                                                                    v. (24180)

                                                                                                                 Charlene Anne (MacIsaac) MacNeil (N.S.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family law - Maintenance - Divorce - Ability to pay - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in determining that the decision of the family court judge should stand and in not recognizing the principle of economic self sufficiency.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                                                       The D & B Companies of Canada Ltd.

                                                                                                                                                    v. (24423)

                                                                                                                               The Director of Investigation

                                                                                                                                                          and

                                                                                                                Information Resources, Inc. (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Administrative law - Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Motion for disclosure dismissed - Application for judicial review dismissed - What are the pre-hearing disclosure obligations of a prosecutor in administrative proceedings, such as proceedings before the Competition Tribunal, in which a party may have vital and long standing commercial relationships terminated? - Are the materials, notes and statements of information received from a complainant and other persons interviewed during the course of a prosecutor's investigation protected, as a class, "by public interest privilege"? - What deference, if any, should be accorded to the decision of an administrative tribunal, such as the Competition Tribunal, that documents are protected, as a class, by such "public interest privilege" and that the principles in Stinchcombe do not apply, particularly when that decision is subject to an unfettered right of appeal and there is no privative clause?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:  L'HEUREUX-DUBÉ, SOPINKA AND McLACHLIN JJ. /

LES JUGES L'HEUREUX-DUBÉ, SOPINKA ET McLACHLIN

                                                                                                                                      Leonard Joseph Henry

                                                                                                                                                    v. (24384)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Procedural law - Severance - Admittance of fresh evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not ordering a new trial once it had permitted the introduction of fresh evidence at the bail hearing depriving the Applicant of his right to trial by jury - Once the fresh evidence was introduced at the bail hearing the Court of Appeal erred in weighing the fresh evidence and encroached upon the jury's role as the sole trier of fact - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in admitting the fresh evidence of the Crown, the complainant's affidavit, of an admitted perjurer without requiring the Crown to meet the four part test set out in Palmer and Palmer v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the common law rule in Palmer that offends against ss. 7 , 11(d)  and 11(f)  of the Charter  and is not saved by s. 1 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial judge's decision refusing severance by presuming the jury did not use the statement of the co-accused as evidence against the Applicant.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                                                                                         B. K.

                                                                                                                                                    v. (24357)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Contempt of court - Pre-trial procedure - Young offenders - Whether resort to immediate conviction and sentencing, by instanter procedure, in response to an in facie contempt of court violates ss. 7, 10(b), 11(a) and 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - In the event use of the instanter procedure occasions a violation of the Charter , is the violation a reasonable limitation of the Applicant's rights within the meaning of s. 1  of the Charter  - Whether a contemner's status as a young offender provides him with additional protection due to s. 11 of the Young Offenders Act and further restricts the availability of the instanter procedure.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                                                                            Richard Couture

                                                                                                                                                    c. (24392)

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

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Procédure - Appel - Preuve - Est-ce que la Cour d'appel a erré en appliquant proprio motu le sous-al. 686(1)b)iii) du Code criminel ? - Est-ce que la Cour d'appel a erré en rejetant le moyen d'appel relatif à l'admission en preuve des photographies saisies au domicile du demandeur?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

CORAM:  CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER AND L'HEUREUX-DUBÉ AND GONTHIER JJ. /

LE JUGE EN CHEF LAMER ET LES JUGES L'HEUREUX-DUBÉ ET GONTHIER

                                                                                                                                    Gymnase Longueuil Inc.

                                                                                                                                                    c. (24348)

                                                                                                                            Construction Dupal Inc. (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Procédure civile - Jugements et ordonnances - Requête en rectification et rétractation de jugement - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle erré en droit dans l'interprétation de l'article 520 du Code de procédure civile, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. C-25? - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle erré en décidant que la requête en rectification l'invitait fondamentalement à refaire l'audition et visait à obtenir une audition supplémentaire pour faire valoir des arguments déjà développés au mémoire d'appel ou de nouveaux arguments qui portent essentiellement sur la méthode de calcul à adopter pour trancher le litige? - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle erré en concluant qu'il s'agissait d'une matière de fond et non pas d'une matière de rectification de jugement ou entrant dans les paramètres d'une requête en rétractation de jugement?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

                                                                                                                                          Ville de St-Georges

                                                                                                                                                    c. (24352)

                                                                  Commission municipale du Québec, Me Odette Lapalme et Jacques W. Fortier (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail - Droit municipal - Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Employeur et employé - Contrats - Destitution d'un cadre municipal - Art. 71 et 72 de la Loi sur les cités et villes, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. C-19 - La Commission municipale du Québec a-t-elle commis une erreur manifestement déraisonnable en ignorant les termes clairs du contrat de travail  et en modifiant sans droit les droits et obligations contractuels des parties? - La Cour d'appel du Québec a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en s'abstenant de réviser une décision qui assimile un contrat à durée déterminée à un contrat à durée indéterminée et qui reconnaît un statut de "permanent" à un employé engagé pour une durée déterminée afin d'assurer un intérim au sein d'une fonction donnée?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

DECEMBER 15, 1994 / LE 15 DÉCEMBRE 1994

24304                                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - v. - JAMES RODNEY BROWN (Crim.)(N.S.)

CORAM:      The Chief Justice and Cory 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 - Evidence - Alleged sexual assault occurred five years before trial date - Court of Appeal setting aside conviction because of the failure of the trial judge to apply the propositions of presumption of innocence of the accused and that the Crown must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in their interpretation of the proper scope of appellate review under s. 686(1)(a) of the Code in its determination that the trial judge had incorrectly applied the burden of proof.

24381                                    LES CUIRS LAURENCE ROY INC. AND PIERRE MAILLETTE - v. - THE CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE (Que.)

CORAM:      The Chief Justice and L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier 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 - Civil procedure - Pre-trial procedure - Applicant Maillette representing himself and the Applicant Les Cuirs Laurence Roy Inc. in action for damages against the Respondent - Superior Court ordering the corporate Applicant to obtain counsel - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting the Respondent's motion for dismissal of the appeal and in dismissing the Applicants' appeal.

24324                                    ERIC SAVICS AND A. COUPECO LTD. v. MARC AMSEN (Ont.)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Creditor & debtor - Minutes of Settlement providing for payment to Respondent by Applicants - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the Respondent had standing to bring this application for leave to appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the Respondent had a right of action based on the Minutes of Settlement - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Applicant Savics was personally liable.

23866                                    JOSEPH PILON v. DR. A. BOUAZIZ, DR. MALCOLM C. CUMBERLIDGE (B.C.)

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

The application for reconsideration of the application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

La requête de réexamen de la demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.

DECEMBER 9, 1994 / LE 9 DÉCEMBRE 1994

ORDONNANCE / ORDER

GUILLAUME KIBALE c. SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE (Ont.)(24082)

CORAM:      Le juge en chef et les juges La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,

Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci et Major.                                                                                                                                                                                

LA COUR --                      La requête en révision du demandeur est rejetée avec dépens comme entre procureur et client.

Le greffe doit refuser tout document présenté par le demandeur dans le dossier jusqu'à production d'une preuve satisfaisante du paiement de tous dépens sur cette requête ainsi que tous les autres dépens auxquels le demandeur a été condamné dans ce dossier.

THE COURT -- This application must be dismissed with costs on a solicitor and client basis.

Until such time as the applicant has filed satisfactory proof of the payment of the costs of this application and all other costs ordered to be paid by him in connection with this file no further documents are to be accepted by the Registrar from the applicant on this file.

DECEMBER 8, 1994 / LE 8 DÉCEMBRE 1994

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - v. - IMRE FINTA - and - THE CANADIAN HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE ASSOCIATION, CANADIAN JEWISH CONGRESS, LEAGUE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS OF B'NAI BRITH CANADA, and INTERAMICUS (Application to the Court by the Coalition of Concerned Congregations on the Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Including those of the Holocaust)(23023/23097)

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

Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Major JJ.                 

The applications are dismissed with costs.

Les demandes sont rejetées avec dépens.

9.12.1994

Before / Devant:  LE REGISTRAIRE

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Délai prorogé au 30 novembre 1994.

9.12.1994

Before / Devant:  THE REGISTRAR

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

9.12.1994

Before / Devant:  MAJOR J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   It is ordered that G.D. McKinnon be appointed as counsel for the appellants, provided fees and disbursements are in accordance to the consent of the respondent.

12.12.1994

Before / Devant:  MAJOR J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE  Time extended to December 6, 1994.

12.12.1994

Before / Devant:  THE REGISTRAR

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE  Time extended to December 31, 1994.

12.12.1994

Before / Devant:  THE REGISTRAR

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE  Time extended to November 22, 1994.

12.12.1994

Before / Devant:  THE REGISTRAR

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE  Time extended to November 30, 1994.

12.12.1994

Before / Devant:  LE JUGE L'HEUREUX-DUBÉ

ACCORDÉE / GRANTED

Cette requête a été contestée par les intimés et mis-en-cause.

Après audition des parties et examen du dossier de la jurisprudence produite par les parties:

CONSIDÉRANT l'article 69 de la Loi de la Cour suprême du Canada et sa règle 43;

CONSIDÉRANT que le désistement contesté n'est ni conforme à la loi ni à la règle 42;

CONSIDÉRANT qu'on ne saurait, sous guise de désistement, rechercher des conclusions qu'un désistement ne saurait produire (art. 70, Loi de la Cour suprême du Canada);

CONSIDÉRANT que le désistement en question va au-delà de la motivation invoquée par l'appelante.

CONSIDÉRANT, en outre, qu'il s'agit ici non pas d'un litige entre parties privées mais ressort d'actions disciplinaires en vertu d'une loi d'ordre public (Loi des tribunaux judiciaires);

Pour ces motifs:

ACCUEILLE la requête des intimés;

REJETTE le désistement tel que libellé déposé au dossier de l'appel, quitte à se pourvoir.

14.12.1994

Before / Devant:  CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE  on condition that the appeal be prosecuted during the Winter Term.

9.12.1994

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

9.12.1994

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

DECEMBER 15, 1994 / LE 15 DÉCEMBRE 1994

22980                                    LEROY JENSEN and ROGER TOLOFSON v. KIM TOLOFSON (B.C.)

CORAM:      La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory,

McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

The appeal is allowed with costs throughout.  The appellants' application for a declaration that the proper choice of law to be applied is the law of Saskatchewan and that the Saskatchewan limitation period is substantive is granted, and the action is referred to the Supreme Court of British Columbia Chambers for determination.

Le pourvoi est accueilli avec dépens dans toutes les cours.  La requête des appelants visant à obtenir un jugement déclarant qu'il convient de décider que la loi applicable est celle de la Saskatchewan et que le délai de prescription qui y est fixé constitue une règle de fond est accueillie, et l'action est déférée à la Cour suprême de la Colombie-Britannique en chambre pour qu'une décision soit rendue.

23445                                    RÉJEAN GAGNON v. TINA LUCAS and JUSTIN GAGNON by their litigation guardian HEATHER GAGNON, HEATHER GAGNON personally, and CYRILLE LAVOIE ‑ and ‑ SYBIL MARSHALL, VICTOR MARSHALL, DIANNE MARGARET MARSHALL, ROSEMARIE ANNE MARSHALL, CARMEN SELINA FREY, ADITHA LE BLANC, CLARENCE S. MARSHALL, LES SERVICES DE BÉTON UNIVERSELS LTÉE, LA SOCIÉTÉ D'EXPERTS-CONSEILS PELLEMON INC. and LE GROUPE PELLEMON INC. (Ont.)

CORAM:      La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory,

McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

The appeal is allowed and the action of the respondents, Tina Lucas and Justin Gagnon, by their litigation guardian Heather Gagnon, and Heather Gagnon personally, is dismissed.  Question 2 of the agreed statement of facts is answered as follows:

2(a)                Does Ontario tort law or Quebec law, as set out in the Automobile Insurance Act, apply to this action?

Quebec law, as set out in the Automobile Insurance Act.

2(b)                Is the appellant Réjean Gagnon entitled to maintain his cross-claim for contribution and indemnity against the respondent Cyrille Lavoie?

No.

As agreed between these parties, there is no order as to costs against the respondents Tina Lucas and Justin Gagnon, by their litigation guardian Heather Gagnon, and Heather Gagnon personally, in this Court and the courts below.  The respondent Cyrille Lavoie is to have his costs against the appellant unless the two agree otherwise.

Le pourvoi est accueilli et l'action des intimés Tina Lucas et Justin Gagnon par leur tutrice à l'instance Heather Gagnon, et Heather Gagnon personnellement, est rejetée.  La deuxième question formulée dans l'exposé conjoint des faits reçoit la réponse suivante:

2a)                  Est-ce le droit de la responsabilité délictuelle de l'Ontario ou la loi du Québec énoncée dans la Loi sur l'assurance automobile, qui s'applique à la présente action?

La loi du Québec énoncée dans la Loi sur l'assurance automobile.

2b)                  La demande, entre défendeurs, de contribution et d'indemnisation que l'appelant Réjean Gagnon a fait contre l'intimé Cyrille Lavoie est-elle recevable?

Non.

Tel que convenu entre ces parties, il n'y a pas lieu de condamner aux dépens, devant notre Cour et les tribunaux d'instance inférieure, les intimés, Tina Lucas et Justin Gagnon par leur tutrice à l'instance Heather Gagnon, et Heather Gagnon personnellement.  L'intimé Cyrille Lavoie a droit au paiement de ses dépens par l'appelant, à moins d'une entente contraire entre les deux.

23502                                    CO-OPERATORS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY  - v. -  JUDGMENT RECOVERY (P.E.I.) LTD. (P.E.I.)

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

The appeal is allowed with costs throughout.

Le pourvoi est accueilli avec dépens dans toutes les cours.

24010                                    MARCEL BÉLAIR, JASMINE BISSON, CARMEN LORTIE-FLEURY, NORMAND LORTIE, ROBERT LORTIE, MARCEL PERRON, RICHARD PONTON, PIERRE READMAN, FRANCINE RICARD, MICHEL RIOUX, CLAUDE ST-GEORGES c. LE PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL DU CANADA (Crim.)(Qué.)

CORAM:      Les juges La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,

Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin et Iacobucci        

Le pourvoi est rejeté.

The appeal is dismissed.

23905                                    MERCK & CO. INC. and MERCK FROSST CANADA INC. v. APOTEX INC.

‑ and ‑ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE (F.C.A.)

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

Cory, Iacobucci and Major JJ.                     

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Le pourvoi est rejeté avec dépens.

Leroy Jensen, et al v. Kim Tolofson (B.C.) - and between - Rejean Gagnon v. Tina Lucas by her litigation guardian Heather Gagnon, et al (Ont.)(22980-23445)

Indexed as:  Tolofson v. Jensen; Lucas (Litigation Guardian of) v. Gagnon /

Répertorié:  Tolofson c. Jensen; Lucas (Tutrice à l'instance de) c. Gagnon

Judgment rendered December 15, 1994 / Jugement rendu le 15 décembre 1994

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

Conflict of laws ‑‑ Torts ‑‑ Traffic accident ‑‑ Injured parties not resident in province where accident occurred ‑‑ Actions instituted in home provinces of injured parties ‑‑ Whether lex fori or lex loci delicti should apply ‑‑ If substantive law that of jurisdiction where accident occurred, whether limitation period substantive law and therefore applicable in forum or procedural law and therefore not binding on court hearing case ‑‑ Automobile Insurance Act, L.Q. 1977, c. 68, ss. 3, 4 ‑‑ Code civil du Bas Canada, art. 6 ‑‑ Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. L-15 ‑‑ Vehicles Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. V-3, s. 180(1).

These appeals deal with the "choice of law rule":  which law should govern in cases involving the interests of more than one jurisdiction specifically as it concerns automobile accidents involving residents of different provinces.  The first case also raises the subsidiary issue of whether, assuming the applicable substantive law is that of the place where the tort arises, the limitation period established under that law is inapplicable as being procedural law and so not binding on the court hearing the case, or substantive law.  The second case raises the issue whether the Quebec no‑fault insurance scheme applies to situations where some or all the parties are non‑residents.

                                                                                                                                            Tolofson v. Jensen

The plaintiff, Kim Tolofson, a 12‑year‑old passenger in a car driven by his father Roger, was seriously injured in a car accident with Leroy Jensen.  The accident occurred in Saskatchewan.  The Tolofsons were resident in and their car was registered in British Columbia; Mr. Jensen was resident in and his car was registered in Saskatchewan.  Plaintiff brought an action eight years later in British Columbia on the assumption that the action was statute‑barred under Saskatchewan law.  Further, Saskatchewan law, unlike British Columbia law, did not permit a gratuitous passenger to recover, absent wilful or wanton misconduct of the driver of the car in which he or she was travelling.  Neither defendant admitted liability.  The defendants brought an application by consent to seek a determination as to whether the court was forum non conveniens or alternatively as to whether Saskatchewan law applied.  The motions judge dismissed the application and ruled that choice of law was inextricably entwined with issues of jurisdiction and forum conveniens, and that choice of law followed these determinations.  The Court of Appeal found that the law of the forum should apply.

                                                                                                                      Lucas (Litigation Guardian of) v. Gagnon

Mrs. Gagnon brought action on her own behalf and as litigation guardian of two children against her husband, Mr. Gagnon, for personal injuries suffered in a Quebec traffic accident involving her husband and Mr. Lavoie.  The Gagnons were residents of Ontario; Mr. Lavoie was a resident of Quebec.  Mrs. Gagnon discontinued her action against Mr. Lavoie following an Ontario Court of Appeal judgment that a Quebec resident's liability was governed by Quebec law.  Mr. Gagnon, however, had cross‑claimed against Mr. Lavoie and that cross‑claim was not discontinued.  Mrs. Gagnon obtained all of the no‑fault benefits allowable under the Quebec scheme from Mr. Gagnon's Ontario insurer which was in turn reimbursed by the Régie de l'assurance automobile du Québec.  The only legal avenue open to Mrs. Gagnon in seeking damages was to sue in Ontario because she was barred from bringing an action for damages in Quebec by operation of Quebec's Automobile Insurance Act.

The Ontario Court, General Division, on a motion brought by Mr. and Mrs. Gagnon (without notice to Mr. Lavoie) to determine specific points of law, decided that the Ontario court had jurisdiction, that the Ontario court should accept that jurisdiction, that Ontario law applied, and that Mr. Gagnon was entitled to maintain his action against Mr. Lavoie.  Mr. Gagnon and Mr. Lavoie appealed on the questions of whether Ontario law applied and whether Mr. Gagnon could maintain his cross‑claim against Mr. Lavoie.  The Ontario Court of Appeal held that Ontario law applied in the action against Mr. Gagnon but that the law of Quebec applied with respect to any claim made against Mr. Lavoie since he was not resident in Ontario and the accident occurred in Quebec.

Held (Tolofson v. Jensen, File No. 22980):  The appeal should be allowed.

Held (Lucas (Litigation Guardian of) v. Gagnon, File No. 23445):  The appeal should be allowed. 

Per La Forest, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.:  The rule of private international law that should generally be applied in torts is the law of the place where the activity occurred ‑‑ the lex loci delicti.  This approach responds to the territorial principle under the international legal order and the federal regime.  It also responds to a number of sound practical considerations.  It is certain, easy to apply and predictable and meets normal expectations in that ordinarily people expect their activities to be governed by the law of the place where they happen to be and expect that concomitant legal benefits and responsibilities will be defined accordingly.  The government of that place is the only one with power to deal with these activities.  The same expectation is ordinarily shared by other states and by people outside the place where an activity occurs.

The former British rule, adopted in McLean v. Pettigrew, that a court should apply its law (lex fori) when adjudicating on wrongs committed in another country, subject to the wrong's being "unjustifiable" in that country, cannot be accepted.  This would involve a court's defining the nature and consequences of an act done in another country, which, barring some principled justification, flies against the territoriality principle.  In practice, the courts of different countries would follow different rules in respect of the same wrong and invite forum shopping by litigants in search of the most beneficial place to litigate an issue.  Applying the same approach to the units of a federal state like Canada would make forum shopping even easier.

No compelling reason exists for following the lex fori.  The problem of proof of foreign law has been considerably attenuated given advances in transportation and communication.  McLean v. Pettigrew, which applied the lex fori even though the action complained of was not actionable under the law of the place of the wrong, should be overruled.  Its application in the federal context raises serious constitutional difficulties.

The nature of Canada's constitutional arrangements ‑‑ a single country with different provinces exercising territorial legislative jurisdiction ‑‑ supports a rule that is certain and that ensures that an act committed in one part of this country will be given the same legal effect throughout the country.  This militates strongly in favour of the lex loci delicti rule.  In this respect, given the mobility of Canadians and the many common features in the law of the various provinces and the essentially unitary nature of Canada's court system, an invariable rule that the matter also be actionable in the province of the forum is not necessary.  This factor should be considered in determining whether there is a real and substantial connection to the forum to warrant its exercise of jurisdiction.  Any problems that might arise could be resolved by a sensitive application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

Strict application of lex loci delicti also has the advantage of unquestionable conformity with the Constitution.  This advantage is not to be ignored given the largely unexplored nature of the area and the consequent danger that a rule developed in a constitutional vacuum may, when explored, not conform to constitutional imperatives.

One of the main goals of any conflicts rule is to create certainty in the law.  Any exception adds an element of uncertainty.  However, since a rigid rule on the international level could give rise to injustice, the courts should retain a discretion to apply their own law to deal with such circumstances, although such cases would be rare.  Indeed, if not strictly narrowed to situations that involve some timely and close relationship between the parties, an exception could lead to injustice.

The underlying principles of private international law are order and fairness, but order comes first for it is a precondition to justice.  Considerations of public policy in actions that take place wholly within Canada should play a limited role, if at all.  Arguments for an exception based on public policy are simply rooted in the fact that the court does not approve of the law that the legislature chose to adopt.  The law of the land, however, is not usually ignored in favour of those who visit.  The perception that the parties intend the law of their residence to apply is not valid.

On the international level, the rule that the wrong must be actionable under Canadian law is not really necessary, since the jurisdiction of Canadian courts is confined to matters where a real and substantial connection with the forum jurisdiction exists.  The fact that a wrong would not be actionable within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum if committed there might be a factor better weighed in considering the issue of forum non conveniens or whether entertaining the action would violate the public policy of the forum jurisdiction. 

Saskatchewan's substantive law applies in Tolofson v. Jensen.  This includes its limitation rule.  In any action involving the application of a foreign law the characterization of rules of law as substantive or procedural is crucial because the substantive rights of the parties to an action may be governed by a foreign law, but all matters of procedure are governed exclusively by the law of the forum.  The forum court cannot be expected to apply the procedural rules of the foreign state whose law it wishes to apply.  The forum's procedural rules exist for the convenience of the court, and forum judges understand them. 

The bases of the old common law rule, which held that statutes of limitation are always procedural, are out of place in the modern context.  The limitation period in this case was substantive because it created an accrued right in the defendant to plead a time bar.  The limitation defence was properly pleaded here and all parties proceeded on the assumption that, if Saskatchewan law applied, it was a valid defence.  It should not be rejected by a British Columbia court as contrary to public policy.  The extent to which limitation statutes should go in protecting individuals against stale claims involves policy considerations unrelated to the manner in which a court must carry out its functions and the particular balance may vary from place to place.

In Lucas (Litigation Guardian of) v. Gagnon, Quebec law applies, both by virtue of Quebec's no‑fault insurance scheme and through the operation of lex loci delicti.  Barring other considerations, the legislature clearly intended that these provisions should apply to all persons who have an accident in Quebec regardless of their province of residence.  This policy is clearly within the province's constitutional competence.  The new Civil Code, which was not in effect at the time of the accident, did not change the situation of the parties.  Even had it been operative, the language of the Automobile Insurance Act clearly overrode the general law.  Section 4 removes not only rights of action but also "all rights of anyone".

Per Sopinka J.  Concurrence with the reasons of La Forest J. was subject to the observations expressed by Major J.

Per Major J.:  The question of which province's law should govern the litigation should be determined by reference to the lex loci delicti rule.  An absolute rule admitting of no exceptions needed not be established.  Parties have the ability to choose, by agreement, to be governed by the lex fori and a  discretion exists to depart from the absolute rule in international litigation where the lex loci delicti rule would work an injustice.  Recognition of a similar exception should not be foreclosed in interprovincial litigation.

APPEAL (Tolofson v. Jensen, File No. 22980) from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (1992), 65 B.C.L.R. (2d) 114, 89 D.L.R. (4th) 129, 11 B.C.A.C. 94, 22 W.A.C. 94, [1992] 3 W.W.R. 743, 9 C.C.L.T. (2d) 289, 4 C.P.C. 113, dismissing an appeal from a judgment of Macdonald J. (1989), 40 B.C.L.R. (2d) 90,  Appeal allowed.

APPEAL (Lucas (Litigation Guardian of) v. Gagnon, File No. 23445) from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1992), 11 O.R. (3d) 422, 99 D.L.R. (4th) 125, 59 O.A.C. 174, 15 C.C.L.T. (2d) 41, 15 C.C.L.I. (2d) 100, 42 M.V.R. (2d) 67, allowing an appeal, to the extent it held that a cross‑claim for contribution and indemnity could not be maintained, from a judgment of Hurley J. (1991), 3 O.R. (3d) 38, 4 C.C.L.I. (2d) 194, 28 M.V.R. (2d) 155, determining that Ontario law applied to the cause of action and that a cross‑claim could be maintained against appellant Lavoie.  Appeal allowed.

Avon M. Mersey, Elizabeth B. Lyall and Brian F. Schreiber, for the appellants Leroy Jensen and Roger Tolofson.

Noreen M. Collins, for the respondent Kim Tolofson.

Allan Lutfy, Q.C., for the appellant Réjean Gagnon.

Robert J. Reynolds, for the respondent Justin Gagnon.

Graeme Mew and Adelina Wong, for the respondent Cyrille Lavoie.

Written submission only by Brian J. E. Brock and Lesli Bisgould, for the intervener Clarence S. Marshall.

Written submission only by Peter A. Daley, for the interveners Sybil Marshall, Victor Marshall, Dianne Margaret Marshall, Rosemarie Anne Marshall, Carmen Selina Frey and Aditha Le Blanc.

Written submission only by W. T. McGrenere, for the interveners La Société d'experts‑conseils Pellemon Inc., Le Groupe Pellemon Inc., Simcoe and Erie General Insurance Company, Les Services de béton universels Ltée, and Allstate Insurance Company of Canada.

Solicitors for the appellant Leroy Jensen:  McQuarrie, Hunter, New Westminster.

Solicitors for the appellant Roger Tolofson:  Russell & DuMoulin, Vancouver.

Solicitors for the respondent Kim Tolofson:  Simpson & Company, Vancouver.

Solicitors for the appellant Réjean Gagnon:  Lavery, de Billy, Ottawa.

Solicitors for the respondent Cyrille Lavoie:  Smith, Lyons, Torrance, Stevenson & Mayer, Toronto.

Solicitors for the respondents Tina Lucas, Justin Gagnon and Heather Gagnon:  Reynolds, Kline, Selick, Belleville.

Solicitors for the intervener Clarence S. Marshall:  Dutton, Brock, MacIntyre & Collier, Toronto.

Solicitors for the interveners Sybil Marshall, Victor Marshall, Dianne Margaret Marshall, Rosemarie Anne Marshall, Carmen Selina Frey and Aditha Le Blanc:  Soloway, Wright, Ottawa.

Solicitors for the interveners La Société d'experts‑conseils Pellemon Inc., Le Groupe Pellemon Inc., Simcoe and Erie General Insurance Company, Les Services de béton universels Ltée, and Allstate Insurance Company of Canada:  Fraser & Beatty, North York.

Présents:  Les juges La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci et Major.

Droit international privé ‑‑ Responsabilité délictuelle ‑‑ Accident de la circulation routière ‑‑ Blessés ne résidant pas dans la province où l'accident s'est produit ‑‑ Actions intentées dans les provinces d'origine des blessés ‑‑ Y a-t‑il lieu d'appliquer la lex fori ou la lex loci delicti? ‑‑ Si la loi substantielle applicable est celle du ressort où l'accident s'est produit, le délai de prescription constitue‑t‑il une règle de fond qui est donc applicable dans le ressort du tribunal saisi, ou s'agit‑il d'une règle de procédure qui ne lie pas le tribunal qui entend l'affaire? ‑‑ Loi sur l'assurance automobile, L.Q. 1977, ch. 68. art. 3, 4 ‑‑ Code civil du Bas Canada, art. 6 ‑‑ Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.S. 1978, ch. L‑15 ‑‑ Vehicles Act, R.S.S. 1978, ch. V‑3, art. 180(1).

Les présents pourvois portent sur la *règle du choix de la loi applicable+, c'est‑à‑dire de la loi qui devrait régir les affaires où sont en jeu les intérêts de plus d'un ressort, en particulier en ce qui concerne les accidents d'automobile impliquant des résidents de différentes provinces.  Le premier cas soulève également la question subsidiaire suivante:  à supposer que la loi substantielle applicable soit celle du lieu où le délit a été commis, le délai de prescription établi en vertu de cette loi est‑il inapplicable pour le motif qu'il s'agit d'une règle de procédure qui ne lie donc pas le tribunal qui entend l'affaire, ou constitue‑t‑il une règle de fond?  Le second cas soulève la question de savoir si le régime québécois d'assurance sans égard à la faute s'applique aux situations où toutes les parties ou certaines d'entre elles sont non résidentes.

                                                                                                                                             Tolofson c. Jensen

Le demandeur, Kim Tolofson, était âgé de 12 ans au moment où il a été grièvement blessé lors d'un accident survenu entre le véhicule de Leroy Jensen et la voiture conduite par son père Roger, dans laquelle il prenait place.  L'accident s'est produit en Saskatchewan.  Les Tolofson étaient résidents de la Colombie‑Britannique et leur voiture était immatriculée dans cette province.  Jensen était résident de la Saskatchewan où sa voiture était immatriculée.  Huit ans plus tard, le demandeur a intenté une action en Colombie‑Britannique en tenant pour acquis que son action était prescrite suivant la loi de la Saskatchewan.  En outre, la loi de la Saskatchewan, à la différence de celle de la Colombie‑Britannique, ne permettait pas qu'un passager à titre gratuit soit indemnisé en l'absence d'inconduite délibérée ou téméraire de la part du  conducteur de la voiture dans laquelle il prenait place.  Aucun des défendeurs n'a reconnu sa responsabilité.  Les défendeurs ont présenté, avec le consentement des parties, une requête visant à faire déterminer si le tribunal était forum non conveniens ou, subsidiairement, si la loi de la Saskatchewan s'appliquait.  Le juge saisi de la requête l'a rejetée en décidant que le choix de la loi applicable était inextricablement lié aux questions de compétence et de forum conveniens, et qu'il était donc fonction des décisions rendues à cet égard.  La Cour d'appel a conclu que la loi du for devrait s'appliquer.

                                                                                                                       Lucas (Tutrice à l'instance de) c. Gagnon

Madame Gagnon, a intenté, contre son mari, M. Gagnon, une action en sa qualité personnelle et en sa qualité de tutrice à l'instance de deux enfants, pour les blessures subies lors d'un accident de la circulation survenu au Québec et impliquant son mari et M. Lavoie.  Les Gagnon étaient résidents de l'Ontario; M. Lavoie était résident du Québec.  Madame Gagnon s'est désistée de son action contre M. Lavoie à la suite d'un arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, selon lequel la responsabilité d'un résident du Québec était régie par la loi du Québec.  Toutefois, M. Gagnon avait fait une demande entre défendeurs contre M. Lavoie et il n'y a pas eu désistement à l'égard de cette demande.  Madame Gagnon a obtenu de l'assureur ontarien de M. Gagnon la totalité des prestations auxquelles elle avait droit en vertu du régime québécois d'assurance sans égard à la faute, et l'assureur ontarien a été remboursé par la Régie de l'assurance automobile du Québec.  L'unique possibilité pour M^me Gagnon d'obtenir des dommages‑intérêts était d'exercer son recours en Ontario, car elle ne pouvait pas intenter une action en dommages‑intérêts au Québec en vertu de la Loi sur l'assurance automobile du Québec.

À la suite d'une requête présentée par M. et M^me Gagnon (dont M. Lavoie n'a pas été avisé) en vue de faire trancher certains points de droit, la Cour de l'Ontario, Division générale, a décidé que le tribunal de l'Ontario avait compétence, qu'il devait accepter d'exercer cette compétence, que la loi de l'Ontario s'appliquait et que l'action de M. Gagnon contre M. Lavoie était recevable.  Messieurs Gagnon et Lavoie ont interjeté appel quant aux questions de savoir si la loi de l'Ontario s'appliquait et si la demande entre défendeurs que M. Gagnon avait faite contre M. Lavoie était recevable.  La Cour d'appel de l'Ontario a conclu que la loi de l'Ontario s'appliquait à l'action intentée contre M. Gagnon, mais que la loi du Québec s'appliquait à toute demande contre M. Lavoie, étant donné qu'il n'était pas résident ontarien et que l'accident était survenu au Québec.

Arrêt (Tolofson c. Jensen, n^o du greffe 22980):  Le pourvoi est accueilli.

Arrêt (Lucas (Tutrice à l'instance de) c. Gagnon, n^o du greffe 23445):  Le pourvoi est accueilli.

Les juges La Forest, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin et Iacobucci:  La règle de droit international privé qui devrait généralement s'appliquer en matière de responsabilité délictuelle est la loi du lieu où l'activité s'est déroulée, c'est‑à‑dire la lex loci delicti.  Ce point de vue est conforme au principe de la territorialité des lois selon l'ordre juridique international et le régime fédéral.  Il répond aussi à un certain nombre de considérations pratiques valables.  La règle est certaine, facile à appliquer et prévisible.  De plus, elle répond à des attentes normales en ce sens que les gens s'attendent habituellement à ce que leurs activités soient régies par la loi du lieu où ils se trouvent et à ce que les avantages et les responsabilités juridiques s'y rattachant soient définis en conséquence.  Le gouvernement de ce lieu est le seul habilité à régir ces activités.  Les autres États et les étrangers partagent normalement les mêmes attentes.

L'ancienne règle britannique, retenue dans l'arrêt McLean c. Pettigrew, suivant laquelle les tribunaux devraient appliquer leur propre loi (lex fori) aux fautes commises dans un autre pays, à la condition que la faute en question soit *injustifiable+ dans cet autre pays, est inacceptable.  Cela impliquerait la définition par un tribunal de la nature et des conséquences d'un acte accompli dans un autre pays, ce qui, en l'absence de quelque justification de principe, va à l'encontre du principe de la territorialité.  En pratique, les tribunaux de différents pays suivraient des règles différentes à l'égard de la même faute et les justiciables, en quête du lieu le plus avantageux pour faire trancher un litige, seraient incités à rechercher un tribunal favorable.  Si l'on appliquait la même solution aux composantes d'un État fédéral comme le Canada, la recherche d'un tribunal favorable en serait d'autant facilitée.

Il n'y a aucune raison sérieuse de suivre la loi du for.  Le problème que constitue la preuve de la loi étrangère a été considérablement atténué par le progrès des transports et des communications.  Il y a lieu de renverser l'arrêt McLean c. Pettigrew qui a appliqué la loi du for même lorsque que l'action reprochée n'ouvrait pas droit à une action en justice suivant la loi du lieu du délit.  Son application dans le contexte fédéral soulève de graves difficultés sur le plan constitutionnel.

La nature des arrangements constitutionnels au Canada ‑‑ un pays unique formé de provinces dotées d'une compétence législative territoriale ‑‑ justifie l'adoption d'une règle certaine qui garantit qu'un acte commis dans une partie du pays aura le même effet juridique partout au pays.  C'est là un puissant argument en faveur de la règle de la lex loci delicti.  À cet égard, étant donné la mobilité des Canadiens et les nombreux traits communs de la loi de diverses provinces ainsi que la nature essentiellement unitaire du système judiciaire canadien, il n'est pas nécessaire d'adopter une règle invariable voulant que l'affaire ouvre également droit à une action dans la province du tribunal saisi.  Ce facteur devrait être pris en considération pour déterminer s'il existe, avec le tribunal saisi, un lien réel et substantiel qui justifie l'exercice de sa compétence.  Tout problème qui risquerait de surgir pourrait être résolu par une application sensée de la règle du forum non conveniens.

L'application stricte de la lex loci delicti a également l'avantage d'être nettement conforme à la Constitution, ce qu'il ne faut pas passer sous silence étant donné la nature largement inexplorée du domaine et le danger consécutif qu'une règle établie en l'absence de tout cadre constitutionnel puisse, après examen, se révéler contraire à des impératifs de cet ordre.

L'un des principaux objectifs de toute règle de droit international privé est de créer la certitude dans la loi.  Toute exception ajoute un élément d'incertitude.  Cependant, étant donné qu'une règle stricte sur le plan international pourrait entraîner une injustice, les tribunaux devraient conserver le pouvoir discrétionnaire d'appliquer leur propre loi en pareil cas, encore que ces cas seraient rares.  En fait, si elle n'est pas strictement limitée aux situations où il est question de rapports étroits et opportuns entre les parties, une exception pourrait entraîner une injustice.

L'ordre et l'équité sont les principes fondamentaux du droit international privé, mais l'ordre vient en premier étant donné qu'il est une condition préalable de la justice.  Les considérations d'ordre public ne devraient jouer qu'un rôle limité, s'il en est, dans les actions qui se déroulent entièrement au Canada.  Les arguments en faveur d'une exception fondée sur l'ordre public reposent simplement sur le fait que le tribunal n'approuve pas la loi que la législature a choisi d'adopter.  Toutefois, on n'ignore pas ordinairement la loi interne en faveur des visiteurs.  La perception selon laquelle les parties veulent que ce soit la loi de leur lieu de résidence qui s'applique n'est pas valable.

Sur le plan international, la règle voulant que la faute doive ouvrir droit à une action en vertu de la loi canadienne n'est pas vraiment nécessaire, étant donné que la compétence des tribunaux canadiens se limite aux questions à l'égard desquelles il existe un lien réel et substantiel avec le ressort du tribunal saisi.  Le fait qu'une faute n'ouvrirait pas droit à une action dans le ressort du tribunal saisi, si elle y était commise, pourrait constituer un facteur susceptible d'être mieux soupesé en examinant la question du forum non conveniens ou celle de savoir si l'instruction de l'action serait contraire à l'ordre public dans le ressort du tribunal saisi.

La loi substantielle de la Saskatchewan s'applique à l'affaire Tolofson c. Jensen, ce qui inclut sa règle en matière de prescription.  Dans toute action où il est question d'appliquer une loi étrangère, la qualification d'une règle de droit comme étant une règle de fond ou une règle de procédure revêt une importance cruciale car, bien qu'il se puisse que les droits substantiels des parties à une action soient régis par une loi étrangère, toutes les questions relevant de la procédure sont régies exclusivement par la loi du tribunal saisi.  On ne saurait s'attendre à ce que le tribunal saisi applique les règles de procédure de l'État étranger dont il veut appliquer la loi.  Les règles de procédure du tribunal saisi existent pour sa commodité et les juges de ce tribunal les comprennent.

Les raisons qui sous‑tendent la vieille règle de common law, selon laquelle la prescription est toujours une règle de procédure, n'ont pas leur place dans le contexte moderne.  Le délai de prescription en l'espèce était une règle de fond parce qu'il conférait au défendeur un droit acquis d'invoquer la prescription.  La prescription comme moyen de défense a été dûment plaidée en l'espèce et toutes les parties ont tenu pour acquis qu'il s'agissait d'un moyen de défense valide si la loi de la Saskatchewan s'appliquait.  Un tribunal de la Colombie‑Britannique ne devrait pas le rejeter comme étant contraire à l'ordre public.  La mesure dans laquelle les lois en matière de prescription devraient protéger les particuliers contre les demandes caduques fait intervenir des considérations de principe non liées à la manière dont un tribunal doit s'acquitter de sa tâche, et l'évaluation qui doit être faite à cet égard peut varier d'un endroit à l'autre.

Dans l'affaire Lucas (Tutrice à l'instance de) c. Gagnon, la loi du Québec s'applique tant en vertu du régime d'assurance sans égard à la faute en vigueur dans cette province qu'en vertu de la lex loci delicti.  Abstraction faite d'autres considérations, il est clair que le législateur a voulu que ces dispositions s'appliquent à toutes les personnes ayant un accident au Québec, quelle que soit leur province de résidence, ce qui relève manifestement de la compétence constitutionnelle de la province.  Le nouveau Code civil, qui n'était pas en vigueur au moment de l'accident, n'a pas modifié la situation des parties.  Même s'il avait été applicable au moment de l'accident, le texte de la Loi sur l'assurance automobile l'emportait clairement sur le droit commun.  L'article 4 supprime non seulement les droits d'action mais *tous les droits [. . .] de quiconque+.

Le juge Sopinka:  Les motifs du juge La Forest sont acceptés sous réserve des observations du juge Major.

Le juge Major:  Il y a lieu de résoudre en fonction de la règle de la lex loci delicti la question de savoir quelle loi provinciale devrait régir le litige.  Il n'était pas nécessaire d'établir une règle absolue n'admettant aucune exception.  Les parties peuvent s'entendre pour choisir d'être régies par la lex fori et il existe un pouvoir discrétionnaire de déroger à la règle absolue dans le cas d'un litige international où l'application de la loi locale aurait pour effet de causer une injustice.  Il n'y a pas lieu d'écarter la possibilité de reconnaître une exception similaire dans le cas d'un litige interprovincial.

POURVOI (Tolofson c. Jensen, n^o du greffe 22980) contre un arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‑Britannique (1992), 65 B.C.L.R. (2d) 114, 89 D.L.R. (4th) 129, 11 B.C.A.C. 94, 22 W.A.C. 94, [1992] 3 W.W.R. 743, 9 C.C.L.T. (2d) 289, 4 C.P.C. 113, qui a rejeté un appel interjeté contre un jugement du juge Macdonald (1989), 40 B.C.L.R. (2d) 90.  Pourvoi accueilli.

POURVOI (Lucas (Tutrice à l'instance de) c. Gagnon, n^o du greffe 23445) contre un arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario (1992), 11 O.R. (3d) 422, 99 D.L.R. (4th) 125, 59 O.A.C. 174, 15 C.C.L.T. (2d) 41, 15 C.C.L.I. (2d) 100, 42 M.V.R. (2d) 67, qui, dans la mesure où on a décidé qu'une demande, entre défendeurs, de contribution et d'indemnisation n'était pas recevable, a accueilli un appel interjeté contre un jugement du juge Hurley (1991), 3 O.R. (3d) 38, 4 C.C.L.I. (2d) 194, 28 M.V.R. (2d) 155, dans lequel on avait décidé que la loi de l'Ontario s'appliquait à la cause d'action et qu'une demande entre défendeurs était recevable contre l'appelant Lavoie.  Pourvoi accueilli.

Avon M. Mersey, Elizabeth B. Lyall et Brian F. Schreiber, pour les appelants Leroy Jensen et Roger Tolofson.

Noreen M. Collins, pour l'intimé Kim Tolofson.

Allan Lutfy, c.r., pour l'appelant Réjean Gagnon.

Robert J. Reynolds, pour l'intimé Justin Gagnon.

Graeme Mew et Adelina Wong, pour l'intimé Cyrille Lavoie.

Argumentation écrite seulement par Brian J. E. Brock et Lesli Bisgould, pour l'intervenant Clarence S. Marshall.

Argumentation écrite seulement par Peter A. Daley, pour les intervenants Sybil Marshall, Victor Marshall, Dianne Margaret Marshall, Rosemarie Anne Marshall, Carmen Selina Frey et Aditha Le Blanc.

Argumentation écrite seulement par W. T. McGrenere, pour les intervenantes La Société d'experts‑conseils Pellemon Inc., Le Groupe Pellemon Inc., Simcoe and Erie General Insurance Company, Les Services de béton universel Ltée et Allstate Insurance Company of Canada.

Procureurs de l'appelant Leroy Jensen:  McQuarrie, Hunter, New Westminster.

Procureurs de l'appelant Roger Tolofson:  Russell & DuMoulin, Vancouver.

Procureurs de l'intimé Kim Tolofson:  Simpson & Company, Vancouver.

Procureurs de l'appelant Réjean Gagnon:  Lavery, de Billy, Ottawa.

Procureurs de l'intimé Cyrille Lavoie:  Smith, Lyons, Torrance, Stevenson & Mayer, Toronto.

Procureurs des intimés Tina Lucas, Justin Gagnon et Heather Gagnon:  Reynolds, Kline, Selick, Belleville.

Procureurs de l'intervenant Clarence S. Marshall:  Dutton, Brock, MacIntyre & Collier, Toronto.

Procureurs des intervenants Sybil Marshall, Victor Marshall, Dianne Margaret Marshall, Rosemarie Anne Marshall, Carmen Selina Frey et Aditha Le Blanc:  Soloway, Wright, Ottawa.

Procureurs des intervenantes La Société d'experts‑conseils Pellemon Inc., Le Groupe Pellemon Inc., Simcoe and Erie General Insurance Company, Les Services de béton universel Ltée et Allstate Insurance Company of Canada:  Fraser & Beatty, North York.

Cooperators General Insurance Company v. Judgment Recovery (P.E.I.) Ltd. (P.E.I.)(23502)

Indexed as:  Patterson v. Gallant / Répertorié:  Patterson c. Gallant

Judgment rendered December 15, 1994 / Jugement rendu le 15 décembre 1994

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

Insurance -- Automobile insurance -- Renewal -- Policy lapse -- Insurer mailing offer to renew and "pink card" to insured -- Insured failing to pay renewal premium due by time specified -- Insurer not sending notice of termination -- Insured involved in accident after insurance had expired -- Whether insurer liable -- Whether "pink card" constitutes insurance policy -- Insurance Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. I-4, ss. 216(8), 218(6).

The insured was the owner and operator of an automobile which collided with another vehicle on February 20, 1989, causing personal injuries to the plaintiffs.  About a month prior to the February 5, 1989 expiry date of the insured's standard auto insurance policy, Co‑operators, the insurer, had sent him a premium notice/offer to renew which indicated that the policy would be renewed if the premium was paid by February 5.  Included with the offer to renew was an insurance card ("pink card") issued under s. 216(8) of the Insurance Act and valid for the full six‑month renewal period.  The insured did not pay the renewal premium due by the time specified.  Had he paid the premium, Co‑operators would have issued him an automobile renewal receipt along with a second "pink card" identical to the one sent with the offer to renew.  Under s. 218(6) of the Act, the renewal receipt would have functioned as a renewal certificate  and been the equivalent of a policy.  The insured did not receive a notice of termination from Co‑operators pursuant to Statutory Condition 8(1) of the Act.  Co‑operators and the respondent were added as interveners in the plaintiffs' action against the insured.  Co‑operators took the position that the policy had not been renewed and that consequently it was not liable.  The dispute was referred to the Court of Appeal as a special case.  The court ruled that Co‑operators had delivered the insured an insurance policy by sending him a "pink card" and was therefore bound to cover him even though he had not paid his renewal premium.

Held:  The appeal should be allowed.

In renewals of automobile insurance policies, a separate and distinct contract comes into existence at each renewal, with its own offer and acceptance.  Under the two‑step renewal process employed by Co‑operators in this case, the documentation mailed to the insured was an offer of insurance coverage.  The offer to renew did not purport to be a binding insurance policy, as it specifically stated that coverage would be renewed only if the renewal premium were paid.  The documentation sent was not the equivalent of a renewal certificate and hence an insurance policy within the meaning of s. 218(6) of the Insurance Act.  A new pink card is sent with the offer to renew as a convenience to the insured, since under the Highway Traffic Act drivers are required to carry valid pink cards at all times.  The pink card by itself does not bind the insurer in the absence of an underlying insurance policy.  The fact that the pink card is not listed in the definition of "contract" in s. 1(d.2) of the Insurance Act shows that a pink card, properly used, serves only to indicate the existence of an underlying policy.  Section 216(8) refers to the insurer issuing a card when it issues or delivers a policy or renewal.  The pink card thus seems to be an additional requirement and does not by itself constitute insurance.  Finally, s. 324(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, which makes it an offence to obtain the registration of a motor vehicle when it is not insured, contemplates the possibility of an individual presenting a seemingly valid pink card when he or she does not actually have insurance.  This lends further support to the conclusion that the pink card is not in itself an insurance policy.

It is unnecessary for Co‑operators to terminate or cancel the alleged insurance in accordance with Statutory Condition 8(1), since this is only necessary where there is a binding insurance policy.  In the absence of legislation to the contrary, which does not exist in this case, a lapsed policy does not need to be formally terminated.  If a third party reasonably relies on the existence of the pink card to its detriment, the insurer may be estopped from denying the existence of a binding insurance policy, but there was no evidence of such reliance in this case.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Appeal Division (1993), 105 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 15, 44 M.V.R. (2d) 79, 17 C.C.L.I. (2d) 201, determining that the defendant's vehicle was insured at the time of the accident.  Appeal allowed.

Patrick L. Aylward, for the appellant.

Graham W. Stewart, Q.C., for the respondent.

Solicitors for the appellant:  Walker & Aylward, Summerside.

Solicitors for the respondent:  Campbell, Stewart, Charlottetown.

Présents:  Les juges La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci et Major.

Assurance ‑‑ Assurance automobile ‑‑ Renouvellement ‑‑ Déchéance de la police ‑‑ Offre de renouvellement et *carte rose+ envoyées par l'assureur à l'assuré ‑‑ Non‑paiement de la prime de renouvellement avant la date précisée ‑‑ L'assureur n'a pas donné d'avis de résiliation ‑‑ Assuré impliqué dans un accident après l'expiration de la police ‑‑ L'assureur est‑il responsable? ‑‑ La *carte rose+ constitue‑t‑elle une police d'assurance? ‑‑ Insurance Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, ch. I‑4, art. 216(8), 218(6).

L'assuré était le propriétaire et le conducteur d'une automobile qui est entrée en collision avec un autre véhicule le 20 février 1989, causant des blessures aux demandeurs.  Environ un mois avant le 5 février 1989, date d'expiration de la police d'assurance automobile type de l'assuré, Co‑operators, l'assureur, lui avait envoyé un avis d'échéance/offre de renouvellement qui indiquait que la police serait renouvelée si la prime était payée avant le 5 février.  L'offre de renouvellement était accompagnée d'une carte d'assurance (*carte rose+) délivrée en vertu du par. 216(8) de l'Insurance Act et valide pour la période de renouvellement de six mois.  L'assuré n'a pas payé la prime de renouvellement à la date précisée.  S'il l'avait fait, Co‑operators lui aurait fait parvenir une quittance de renouvellement d'assurance automobile ainsi qu'une deuxième *carte rose+ identique à celle jointe à l'offre de renouvellement.  En vertu du par. 218(6) de la Loi, la quittance de renouvellement aurait servi d'attestation de renouvellement et équivalu à une police d'assurance.  Co‑operators n'a pas donné à l'intimé un avis de résiliation conformément au par. 8(1) des conditions prescrites par la Loi.  Co‑operators et l'intimée ont été constituées parties intervenantes dans l'action des demandeurs contre l'assuré.  Co‑operators a soutenu qu'elle ne pouvait être tenue responsable parce que la police d'assurance n'avait pas été renouvelée.  Le litige a été soumis à la Cour d'appel par voie d'exposé de cause.  La cour a statué que Co‑operators avait délivré à l'assuré une police d'assurance en lui faisant parvenir une *carte rose+ et qu'elle était donc tenue d'assurer celui‑ci même s'il n'avait pas payé sa prime de renouvellement.

Arrêt:  Le pourvoi est accueilli.

Dans le renouvellement de polices d'assurance automobile, un contrat distinct est conclu à chaque renouvellement, avec son offre et son acceptation.  Dans la procédure de renouvellement en deux étapes utilisée par Co‑operators en l'espèce, les documents envoyés à l'assuré étaient une offre d'assurance.  L'offre de renouvellement n'était pas censée être une police d'assurance exécutoire car elle indiquait expressément que l'assurance ne serait renouvelée que si la prime de renouvellement était payée.  Les documents envoyés n'étaient pas l'équivalent d'une attestation de renouvellement ni, par conséquent, d'une police d'assurance au sens du par. 218(6) de l'Insurance Act.  Une nouvelle carte rose est envoyée avec l'offre de renouvellement pour la commodité de l'assuré étant donné que la Highway Traffic Act exige que le conducteur ait une carte rose en sa possession en tout temps.  En l'absence d'une police d'assurance de base, la carte rose en soi ne lie pas l'assureur.  Le fait que la carte rose ne soit pas comprise dans la définition de *contrat+ à l'al. 1d.2) de l'Insurance Act montre que la carte rose, correctement utilisée, ne sert qu'à indiquer l'existence d'une police de base.  Le paragraphe 216(8) indique que l'assureur remet une carte lorsqu'il établit ou délivre une police ou son renouvellement.  Il semble donc que la carte rose soit une condition additionnelle et qu'elle ne constitue pas en soi une assurance.  Enfin, le paragraphe 324(1) de la Highway Traffic Act, qui porte que la personne qui obtient l'immatriculation d'un véhicule automobile non assuré commet une infraction, prévoit qu'il est possible qu'une personne qui n'est pas en réalité assurée présente une carte rose apparemment valide.  Cela vient confirmer la conclusion selon laquelle la carte rose n'est pas en soi une police d'assurance.

Il est inutile pour Co‑operators de résilier ou d'annuler l'assurance alléguée conformément au par. 8(1) des conditions prescrites puisque ce n'est nécessaire que lorsqu'il existe une police d'assurance exécutoire.  En l'absence de dispositions législatives contraires, ce qui n'est pas le cas en l'espèce, il n'est pas nécessaire de résilier une police tombée en déchéance.  Lorsqu'un tiers se fie à son détriment à l'existence de la carte rose, il se peut que l'assureur soit irrecevable à nier l'existence d'une police d'assurance exécutoire, mais rien dans la preuve n'indique que des tiers se sont fiés à la carte rose.

POURVOI contre un jugement de la Cour suprême de l'Île‑du‑Prince‑Édouard, Division d'appel (1993), 105 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 15, 44 M.V.R. (2d) 79, 17 C.C.L.I. (2d) 201, qui a statué que le véhicule du défendeur était assuré au moment de l'accident.  Pourvoi accueilli.

Patrick L. Aylward, pour l'appelante.

Graham W. Stewart, c.r., pour l'intimée.

Procureurs de l'appelante:  Walker & Aylward, Summerside.

Procureurs de l'intimée:  Campbell, Stewart, Charlottetown.

Jasmine Bisson, et al c. Procureur général du Canada - et entre - Carmen Lortie-Fleury c. Procureur général du Canada - et entre - Robert Lortie, et al c. Procureur général du Canada (Crim.)(Qué.)(24010)

Indexed as:  R. v. Bisson  / Répertorié:  R. c. Bisson

Judgment rendered December 15, 1994 / Jugement rendu le 15 décembre 1994

Present:  La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

Criminal law ‑‑ Interception of private communications ‑‑ Validity of wiretap authorizations ‑‑ Appellants charged with conspiracy to traffic in narcotics ‑‑ Crown's evidence consisting of intercepted communications ‑‑ Trial judge finding errors in supporting affidavit material and setting aside authorizations ‑‑ Appellants acquitted ‑‑ Court of Appeal setting aside acquittals and ordering new trial ‑‑ Errors in information presented to authorizing judge not leading to automatic vitiation of authorization ‑‑ Sufficient reliable information remaining to support authorization.

Held:  The appeal should be dismissed.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal, [1994] R.J.Q. 308, 87 C.C.C. (3d) 440, 60 Q.A.C. 173, allowing the Crown's appeal from the appellants' acquittal on charges of conspiracy to traffic in narcotics and ordering a new trial.  Appeal dismissed.

André Gagnier, Jacques Bouchard, Mario Longpré, Gilles Richard, Micheline Paradis, Isabel Ducharme and Lise Rochefort, for the appellants.

Ronald Schachter and Robert Marchi, for the respondent.

Solicitor for the appellants Marcel Bélair and Claude St‑Georges:  Gilles Richard, Montréal.

Solicitor for the appellant Jasmine Bisson:  Isabel Ducharme, Montréal.

Solicitor for the appellant Carmen Lortie‑Fleury:  Micheline Paradis, Chomedey, Quebec.

Solicitors for the appellant Normand Lortie:  Bouchard, Filteau, Doré, Montréal.

Solicitors for the appellants Robert Lortie and Pierre Readman:  Labelle, Boudrault, Côté & Associés, Montréal.

Solicitor for the appellant Marcel Perron:  Mario Longpré, Montréal.

Solicitor for the appellants Richard Ponton and Francine Ricard:  Pierre Panaccio, Montréal.

Solicitor for the appellant Michel Rioux:  Lise Rochefort, Montréal.

Solicitor for the respondent:  George Thomson, Ottawa.

Présents:  Les juges La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin et Iacobucci.

Droit criminel ‑‑ Interception de communications privées ‑‑ Validité d'autorisations d'écoute électronique ‑‑ Appelants accusés de complot de trafic de stupéfiants ‑‑ Preuve à charge consistant en communications interceptées ‑‑ Le juge du procès a constaté des erreurs dans les documents à l'appui de l'affidavit et a annulé les autorisations ‑‑ Acquittement des appelants ‑- La Cour d'appel a annulé les acquittements et ordonné un nouveau procès ‑‑ Des erreurs dans les renseignements fournis au juge qui a accordé l'autorisation n'entraînent pas automatiquement la nullité de l'autorisation ‑‑ Il restait suffisamment de renseignements fiables pour justifier l'autorisation.

Arrêt:  Le pourvoi est rejeté.

POURVOI contre un arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec, [1994] R.J.Q. 308, 87 C.C.C. (3d) 440, 60 Q.A.C. 173, qui a accueilli l'appel du ministère public contre l'acquittement des appelants prononcé relativement à des accusations de complot de trafic de stupéfiants et qui a ordonné un nouveau procès.  Pourvoi rejeté.

André Gagnier, Jacques Bouchard, Mario Longpré, Gilles Richard, Micheline Paradis, Isabel Ducharme et Lise Rochefort, pour les appelants.

Ronald Schachter et Robert Marchi, pour l'intimé.

Procureur des appelants Marcel Bélair et Claude St‑Georges:  Gilles Richard, Montréal.

Procureur de l'appelante Jasmine Bisson:  Isabel Ducharme, Montréal.

Procureur de l'appelante Carmen Lortie‑Fleury:  Micheline Paradis, Chomedey, Quebec.

Procureurs de l'appelant Normand Lortie:  Bouchard, Filteau, Doré, Montréal.

Procureurs des appelants Robert Lortie et Pierre Readman:  Labelle, Boudrault, Côté & Associés, Montréal.

Procureur de l'appelant Marcel Perron:  Mario Longpré, Montréal.

Procureur des appelants Richard Ponton et Francine Ricard:  Pierre Panaccio, Montréal.

Procureur de l'appelant Michel Rioux:  Lise Rochefort, Montréal.

Procureur de l'intimé:  George Thomson, Ottawa.

Merck & Co. Inc., et al v. Apotex Inc., et al (F.C.A.)(Ont.)(23905)

Indexed as:  Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) /

Répertorié:  Apotex Inc. c. Canada (Procureur général)

Judgment rendered December 15, 1994 / Jugement rendu le 15 décembre 1994

Present:  La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

Food and drugs ‑‑ Notice of compliance ‑‑ Mandamus ‑‑ Drug company obtaining mandamus to compel Minister of National Health and Welfare to issue notice of compliance respecting generic version of drug ‑‑ Federal Court of Appeal affirming order ‑‑ Whether drug company haing vested rights in issuance of notice of compliance ‑‑ Whether mandamus properly granted ‑‑ Whether Federal Court of Appeal exceeding jurisdiction by issuing mandamus.

Held:  The appeal should be dismissed.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, [1994] 1 F.C. 742, 51 C.P.R. (3d) 339, 162 N.R. 177, 18 Admin. L.R. (2d) 122, dismissing an appeal and cross‑appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division (1993), 49 C.P.R. (3d) 161, 66 F.T.R. 36, which granted Apotex's application for mandamus and denied Merck's application for prohibition. Appeal dismissed.

W. Ian C. Binnie, Q.C., and William H. Richardson, for the appellants.

H. B. Radomski and Richard Naiberg, for the respondent Apotex Inc.

H. Lorne Morphy, Q.C., and Kent E. Thomson, for the respondents the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of National Health and Welfare.

Solicitors for the appellants:  McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto.

Solicitors for the respondent Apotex Inc.:  Goodman & Goodman, Toronto.

Solicitor for the respondents the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of National Health and Welfare:  George Thomson, Ottawa.

Présents:  Les juges La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci et Major.

Aliments et drogues ‑‑ Avis de conformité ‑‑ Mandamus -- Compagnie pharmaceutique obtenant un mandamus enjoignant au ministre de la Santé nationale et du Bien-être social de délivrer un avis de conformité concernant un médicament générique ‑‑ Ordonnance confirmée par la Cour d'appel fédérale ‑‑ La compagnie pharmaceutique avait-elle des droits acquis en matière d'avis de conformité? ‑‑ Le mandamus a-t-il été régulièrement accordé? ‑‑ La Cour d'appel fédérale a-t-elle excédé sa compétence en délivrant un mandamus?

Arrêt:  Le pourvoi est rejeté.

POURVOI contre un arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, [1994] 1 C.F. 742, 51 C.P.R. (3d) 339, 162 N.R. 177, 18 Admin. L.R. (2d) 122, qui a rejeté un appel principal et un appel incident contre un jugement de la Section de première instance (1993), 49 C.P.R. (3d) 161, 66 F.T.R. 36, qui avait fait droit à la demande de mandamus d'Apotex et rejeté la demande de prohibition de Merck.  Pourvoi rejeté.

W. Ian C. Binnie, c.r., et William H. Richardson, pour les appelantes.

H. B. Radomski et Richard Naiberg, pour l'intimée Apotex Inc.

H. Lorne Morphy, c.r., et Kent E. Thomson, pour les intimés le procureur général du Canada et le ministre de la Santé nationale et du Bien‑être social.

Procureurs des appelantes:  McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto.

Procureurs de l'intimée Apotex Inc.:  Goodman & Goodman, Toronto.

Procureur des intimés le procureur général du Canada et le ministre de la Santé nationale et du Bien-être social:  George Thomson, Ottawa.

The next bulletin of proceedings will be published January 20, 1995. /

Le prochain bulletin des procédures sera publié le 20 janvier 1995

COMPLIMENTS OF THE SEASON

MEILLEURS VOEUX

This index includes applications for leave to appeal standing for judgment at the beginning of 1994 and all the applications for leave to appeal filed or heard in 1994 up to now.

Cet index comprend les requêtes en autorisation de pourvoi en délibéré au début de 1994 et toutes celles produites ou entendues en 1994 jusqu'à maintenant.

*01         Refused/Refusée

*02         Refused with costs/Refusée avec dépens

*03         Granted/Accordée

*04         Granted with costs/Accordée avec dépens

*05         Discontinuance filed/Désistement produit

*A           Applications for leave to appeal filed/Requêtes en autorisation de pourvoi produites

*B           Submitted to the Court/Soumises à la Cour

*C           Oral Hearing/Audience

*D           Reserved/En délibéré

                                                                                                 Status/              Disposition/

 CASE/AFFAIRE                                                                         Statut                   Résultat

                                                                                                                Page

1229-1605 Québec Inc. c. Marché A.J.T. Inc. (Qué.),

   23880, *02 3.3.94                                                                                                                                                                                       2373(93)                                            355(94)

146919 Canada Ltd. v. Sherwin (Ont.), 23559, *02 16.6.94                                                                                                                   1182(93)                                            1032(94)

2108496 Manitoba Ltd. v. Assessor for the City of

   Winnipeg (Man.), 23999, *02 2.6.94                                                                                                                                                   511(94)                                               943(94)

332415 Alberta Ltd. v. Edmonton Oilers Hockey Corporation

   (Alta.), 23994, *05 17.5.94                                                                                                                                                                      336(94)                                               856(94)

715341 Ontario Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue (F.C.A.)(Ont.),

   23912, *02 21.4.94                                                                                                                                                                                    165(94)                                               563(94)

A.J. v. Government of Manitoba (Man.), 23770, *01 3.3.94                                                                                                                  2250(93)                                            349(94)

A.J.L. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23919, *01 24.3.94                                                                                                                             207(94)                                               552(94)

A.K. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 23808, *01 28.4.94                                                                                                                             88(94)                                                 698(94)

Accurpress Manufacturing Ltd. v. Stoddard (B.C.), 23882, *A                                                                                                              2282(93)

Adler (Ralph) v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24341, *B                                                                                                                              1770(94)

Adler (Susie) v. The Queen (Ont.), 24347, *B                                                                                                                                             1844(94)

Ahmed c. Ministre de l'emploi et de l'imigration (C.A.F.)(Qué.),

   24228, *01 3.11.94                                                                                                                                                                                    1325(94)                                            1690(94)

Ahrens v. Alberta Teachers' Associaiton (Alta.), 24298, *02

   1.12.94   1555(94)                                                                                                                                                                                      1860(94)

Alain v. Attorney General of Canada (B.C.), 23373, *A                                                                                                                           4(93)

Alberta Human Rights Commission v. Co-operators General

   Insurance Co. (Alta.), 23951, *02 2.6.94                                                                                                                                             396(94)                                               935(94)

Albright v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24031, *05 6.9.94                                                                                                                           1285(94)                                            1285(94)

Allam c. Nessia Investments Ltd. (Qué.), 23168, *A                                                                                                                                2048(92)

Allegretti v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24053, *01 25.8.94                                                                                                                     733(94)                                               1254(94)

Alouette Amusements Canada Inc. c. Sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec

   (Qué.), 23954, *01 7.4.94                                                                                                                                                                        281(94)                                               556(94)

Amoco Canada Resources Ltd. v. Mesa Operating Partnership Ltd.

   (Alta.), 24123, *02 6.10.94                                                                                                                                                                      1031(94)                                            1522(94)

Amos v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (B.C.),

   24164, *03 6.10.94                                                                                                                                                                                    1061(94)                                            1522(94)

Amusements Pinocchio Inc. c. Corporation municipale de Dollard-

   Des-Ormeaux (Qué.), 24181, *02 22.9.94                                                                                                                                        974(94)                                               1341(94)

Anderson (Evelyn Ann) v. Anderson (Man.), 24066, *02 11.8.94                                                                                                        850(94)                                               1219(94)

Anderson (Gordon Neil) v. Regan (B.C.), 23524, *05 5.7.94                                                                                                                  1175(94)                                            1175(94)

Apsassin v. The Queen in right of canada (F.C.A.), leave to

   cross-appeal granted 8.12.94                                                                                                                                                                1902(94)                                            1902(94)

Arbutus Bay Estates Ltd. v. Emmett (B.C.), 24295, *02 8.12.94                                                                                                           1555(94)                                            1898(94)

Archambault c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 24078, *01 11.8.94                                                                                                                  738(94)                                               1218(94)

Arcuri c. Attorney General for Québec (Qué.), 24293, *01 8.12.94                                                                                                     1598(94)                                            1899(94)

Armada Lines Ltd. v. Chaleur Fertilizers Ltd. (F.C.A.), 24351, *A                                                                                                         1675(94)

Arndt v. Arndt (Ont.), 23854, *02 3.3.94                                                                                                                                                       2367(93)                                            351(94)

Arthur Andersen Inc. v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (Ont.), 24111, *01

   15.9.94   1143(94)                                                                                                                                                                                      1336(94)

Associated Respiratory Services Inc. v. Purchasing Commission (B.C.),

   24366, *A                                                                                                                                                                                                      1676(94)

Atkinson v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24258, *01 8.12.94                                                                                                                     1314(94)                                            1898(94)

Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association v. Halifax-Dartmouth

   Bridge Commission (N.S.), 24051, *02 25.8.94                                                                                                                                735(94)                                               1255(94)

Atlific (Nfld.) Ltd. v. Hotel Buildings Ltd. (Nfld.), 24313, *B                                                                                                                    1682(94)

Atta c. Malouf (Qué.), 23672, *02 27.1.94                                                                                                                                                   2138(93)                                            93(94)

Atta c. Malouf (Qué.), 23481, *05 7.11.94                                                                                                                                                   1754(94)                                            1754(94)

Attis v. Board of School Trustees, District No. 15

   (N.B.), 24002, *03 13.10.94                                                                                                                                                                    506(94)                                               1565(94)

Attorney General for Ontario v. Franks (Ont.), 24069, *02

   18.8.94   926(94)                                                                                                                                                                                        1221(94)

Attorney General for the Province of Ontario v. Pamajewon

   (Ont.), 23986, *02 12.5.94                                                                                                                                                                       532(94)                                               807(94)

Attorney General of British Columbia v. McCallum (B.C.),

   23767, *02 19.5.94                                                                                                                                                                                    282(94)                                               854(94)

Attorney Genaeral of Canada v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police

   Public Complaints Commission (F.C.A.)(N.B.), 24319, *B                                                                                                            1844(94)

Attorney General of Ontario v. Comeau (Crim.)(Ont.), 24195, *01

   8.12.94   1318(94)                                                                                                                                                                                      1900(94)

Attridge v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Alta.), 23926, *02 2.6.94                                                                                                                        340(94)                                               942(94)

Augusma c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 24144, *01 28.7.94                                                                                                                        876(94)                                               1207(94)

Auto Concrete Curb Ltd. v. South Nation River

   Conservation Authority (Ont.), 23090, rehearing dismissed with

   costs 8.12.94                                                                                                                                                                                                1732(92)                                            1907(94)

Avrith c. Richter, Usher & Vineberg (Qué.), 24036, *02

   11.8.94   534(94)                                                                                                                                                                                        1212(94)

B.C.C. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24062, *01 25.8.94                                                                                                                           734(94)                                               1255(94)

B.K. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 24357, *B                                                                                                                                               1959(94)

Baker v. MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. (Crim.)(B.C.), 24171, *01 6.10.94                                                                                                    1056(94)                                            1519(94)

Baldwin v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23737, *01 6.10.94                                                                                                                       7(94)                                                    1519(94)

Baril v. Liard (Ont.), 24035, *02 2.6.94                                                                                                                                                          541(94)                                               938(94)

Barnes v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24256, *01 3.11.94                                                                                                                         1315(94)                                            1685(94)

Baron c. Karas (Qué.), 23967, *02 21.4.94                                                                                                                                                   404(94)                                               564(94)

Baroni v. The Queen (N.S.), 23439, *A                                                                                                                                                          478(93)

Barrons v. Ontario Automobile Dealers Association (Ont.),

   23853, *01 21.4.94                                                                                                                                                                                    166(94)                                               563(94)

Barrys Ltd. v. Fishermen, Food and Allied Workers' Union

   (Nfld.), 23877, *02 2.6.94                                                                                                                                                                        508(94)                                               943(94)

Bartlett v. Attorney General of Canada (Crim.)(N.S.), 24170, *01

   15.9.94   1137(94)                                                                                                                                                                                      1336(94)

Barzal v. The Queen (B.C.), 23730, *05 13.4.94                                                                                                                                         594(94)                                               594(94)

Basra v. Gill (B.C.), 24450, *A                                                                                                                                                                           1952(94)

Bate Equipment Ltd. v. Ellis-Don Ltd. (Alta.), 24396, *A                                                                                                                         1765(94)

Bateman v. Doiron (N.B.), 23980, *02 5.5.94                                                                                                                                             446(94)                                               745(94)

Battlefords and District Co-operative Ltd. v. Gibbs

   (Sask.), 24342, *B                                                                                                                                                                                      1775(94)

Bazinet c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 23714, *01 13.1.94                                                                                                                            1843(93)                                            16(94)

Beals v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 24206, *01 3.11.94                                                                                                                             1242(94)                                            1686(94)

Bekar v. Bekar (B.C.), 23971, *02 2.6.94                                                                                                                                                      504(94)                                               935(94)

Bell (Noel Edwin) v. Canadian Human Rights Commission

   (F.C.A.), 24134, *03 13.10.94                                                                                                                                                                 929(94)                                               1567(94)

Bell (Rodger) v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 23756, *01 3.2.94                                                                                                                2363(93)                                            173(94)

Bellefleur c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.),

   23762, *02 3.3.94                                                                                                                                                                                       2140(93)                                            354(94)

Bempong v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23856, *01 10.2.94                                                                                                                    2362(93)                                            215(94)

Benner v. Secretary of State of Canada (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 23811, *03

   10.3.94   2287(93)                                                                                                                                                                                      413(94)

Bennett (Russell James) v. Superintendent of Brokers (B.C.),

   23979, *02   2.6.94                                                                                                                                                                             528(94)                                               948(94)

Bennett (Shirley) v. Kynock (N.S.), 24299, *B                                                                                                                                            1627(94)

Biddle v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23734, *03 10.2.94                                                                                                                           1842(93)                                            218(94)

Biddle v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23885, *01 3.2.94                                                                                                                             2361(93)                                            173(94)

Bishop v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23871, *01 3.3.94                                                                                                                            2363(93)                                            356(94)

Blackwell v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24073, *01 6.10.94                                                                                                                    924(94)                                               1515(94)

Bleasdale v. The Queen (B.C.), 23729, *05 14.4.94                                                                                                                                  594(94)                                               594(94)

Bluebird Footwear Inc. c. General Motors Acceptance Corporation

   of Canada (Qué.), 24386, *A                                                                                                                                                                  1764(94)

Boileau c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 23942, *01 7.4.94                                                                                                                               168(94)                                               556(94)

Bougie c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 24192, *01 1.9.94                                                                                                                                1140(94)                                            1265(94)

Bourbonnière c. Bureau d'expertise des assureurs Ltée

   (Qué.), 24452, *A                                                                                                                                                                                       1952(94)

Bovbel v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (F.C.A.)(Ont.),

   24108, *02 8.9.94                                                                                                                                                                                       850(94)                                               1268(94)

Branco v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24060, *01 11.8.94                                                                                                                          736(94)                                               1216(94)

Brault c. Fontaine (Qué.), 23953, *A                                                                                                                                                              196(94)

Bremner v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23789, *01 13.1.94                                                                                                                      2200(93)                                            14(94)

Bricker v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24264, *01 3.11.94                                                                                                                         1508(94)                                            1685(94)

Bridges Brothers Ltd. v. The Queen in the name of the

   Minister of National Revenue (F.C.A.), 24101, *02 1.9.94                                                                                                           878(94)                                               1259(94)

Brock v. Attorney General of Canada (B.C.), 23774, *02

   27.1.94   2209(93)                                                                                                                                                                                      93994)

Brousseau c. Stewart-Wolf (Qué.), 24407, *A                                                                                                                                            1797(94)

Brown v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24047, *01 11.8.94                                                                                                                          542(94)                                               1214(94)

Burden v. Scurry-Rainbow Oil Ltd. (Alta.), 24405, *A                                                                                                                               1766(94)

Burke v. The Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.), 24071, *03 6.10.94                                                                                                                          924(94)                                               1518(94)

Burnett c. Banque royale du Canada (Qué.), 24284, *02

   3.11.94   1513(94)                                                                                                                                                                                      1692(94)

Burnett c. Compagnie de fiducie Household (Qué.), 24250, *02

   3.11.94   1512(94)                                                                                                                                                                                      1692(94)

Burton c. City of Verdun (Qué.), 24105, *02 21.7.94                                                                                                                                876(94)                                               1158(94)

Butchart v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23956, *01 24.3.94                                                                                                                      268(94)                                               550(94)

C & M McNally Engineering Inc. v. Greater Moncton Sewage

   Commission (N.B.), 23768, *02 17.2.94                                                                                                                                             2206(93)                                            238(94)

C.A.S. v. J.F.T. (B.C.), 23796, *02 10.2.94                                                                                                                                                      2072(93)                                            216(94)

C.C. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23920, *01 24.3.94                                                                                                                               208(94)                                               552(94)

Calvi c. Assicurazioni Generalli S.p.a. (Qué.), 24314, *02

   1.12.94   1630(94)                                                                                                                                                                                      1863(94)

Camani v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24369, *A                                                                                                                                         1676(94)

Campbell v. Campbell (Ont.), 23921, *01 21.4.94                                                                                                                                     505(94)                                               560(94)

Canadian Association of Fire Bomber Pilots v. Government of

   Saskatchewan (Sask.), 24214, *B                                                                                                                                                        1313(94)

Canadian Association of Regulated Importers v. Attorney

   General of Canada (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24025, *02 2.6.94                                                                                                                    524(94)                                               944(94)

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Attorney General for New

   Brunswick (N.B.), 24305, *B                                                                                                                                                                   1847(94)

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Attorney General of the

   province of Saskatchewan (Crim.)(Sask.), 23738, *B                                                                                                                    1797(93)

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Pierre (B.C.), 23837, *02

   3.3.94      2367(93)                                                                                                                                                                                      351(94)

Canadian Commercial Bank v. Crawford, Smith & Swallow (Ont.),

   24188, *02 15.9.94                                                                                                                                                                                    1138(94)                                            1337(94)

Canadian Forest Products Ltd. v. Bovar Inc. (B.C.), 24235, *02

   17.11.94                                                                                                                                                                                                        1252(94)                                            1779(94)

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Attorney General of Canada

   (F.C.A.)(Man.), 24197, *02 8.12.94                                                                                                                                                      1154(94)                                            1903(94)

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Attorney General of Canada

   (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24236, *02 8.12.94                                                                                                                                                        1244(94)                                            1904(94)

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Sayani (B.C.),

   23862, *02 10.3.94                                                                                                                                                                                    9(94)                                                    413(94)

Canadian Jewish Congress v. Board of School Trustees, District No. 15

   (N.B.), 24002, *03 13.10.94                                                                                                                                                                    508(94)                                               1565(94)

Canadian Life and Health Insurance Compensation Corporation c.

   Services de santé du Québec (Qué.), 23746, *01 28.4.94                                                                                                            2369(93)                                            698(94)

Canadian National Railway Co. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24340, *B                                                                                          1771(94)

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees

   Canadian Pacific System Federation (B.C.), 24317, *B                                                                                                                 1683(94)

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 24315, *B                                                                                                               1771(94)

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. The Queen in right of Ontario (Ont.),

   23721, *03 10.2.94                                                                                                                                                                                    1940(93)                                            211(94)

Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Canada Labour Relations

   Board (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23989, *02 5.5.94                                                                                                                                              447(94)                                               745(94)

Canassurance, Compagnie d'assurance-vie Inc. c. Bourassa

   (Qué.), 24090, *02 19.5.94                                                                                                                                                                      687(94)                                               854(94)

Caron c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 24270, *01 3.11.94                                                                                                                               1325(94)                                            1690(94)

Castaldo v. Lento (Ont.), 23908, *02 31.3.94                                                                                                                                              272(94)                                               553(94)

Centre communautaire juridique de l'Estrie c. Ville de

   Sherbrooke (Qué.), 24425, *A                                                                                                                                                               1798(94)

Century Holdings Ltd. v. Corporation of Delta (B.C.), 24221, *02

   3.11.94   1328(94)                                                                                                                                                                                      1691(94)

Chaba v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24380, *B                                                                                                                                           1849(94)

Chaisson v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.B.), 24129, *03 5.12.94                                                                                                                     1567(94)                                            1897(94)

Chan v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (F.C.A.)(B.C.),

   23813, *03 10.2.94                                                                                                                                                                                    2246(93)                                            214(94)

Charlebois v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 279 (F.C.A.),

   24219, *B                                                                                                                                                                                                      1323(94)

Chen v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (F.C.A.)(Ont.),

   23984, *03 28.4.94                                                                                                                                                                                    519(94)                                               699(94)

Chisan v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24032, *02 9.6.94                                                                                                                            539(94)                                               979(94)

Christie MacKay & Co. v. The Queen in right of the province

   of Manitoba (Man.), 24063, *02 30.6.94                                                                                                                                           851(94)                                               1158(94)

Ciba-Geigy Canada Ltd. v. Rowen (Ont.), 24328, *02 8.12.94                                                                                                             1683(94)                                            1907(94)

City of Dartmouth v. Pay Equity Commissiion (N.S.), 24447, *A                                                                                                         1951(94)

Cloutier c. Ferland (Qué.), 24349, *B                                                                                                                                                             1846(94)

Coalition of Citizens for a Charter Challenge v. Metropolitan

   Authority (N.S.), 23911, *02 27.1.94                                                                                                                                                    9(94)                                                    91(94)

Cohnstaedt v. University of Regina (Sask.), 24146, *03 13.10.94                                                                                                       1029(94)                                            1568(94)

Collier v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23706, *01 1.9.94                                                                                                                             1027(94)                                            1261(94)

Commercial Union Assurance Co. of Canada v. Bank

   of Nova Scotia (N.S.), 23777, *02 3.3.94                                                                                                                                            2204(93)                                            347(94)

Commission des droits de la personne du Québec c. Commission

   scolaire régionale Chauveau (Qué.), 24291, *B                                                                                                                              1561(94)

Commission scolaire de la Jonquière c. Syndicat du personnel

   de soutien de Jonquière (Qué.), 24338, *B                                                                                                                                        1767(94)

Commonwealth Investors Syndicate Ltd. v. Laxton (B.C.),

   24353, *A                                                                                                                                                                                                      1675(94)

Compagnie d'assurance Canadienne générale c. Auberge Roland

   St-Pierre Inc. (Qué.), 24225, *05 12.10.94                                                                                                                                         1134(94)                                            1584(94)

Compagnie minière Lamaque Ltée c. Sous-ministre de

   l'Énergie et des Ressources du Québec (Qué.),

   23684, *01 10.2.94                                                                                                                                                                                    1561(93)                                            211(94)

Compagnie minière Québec Cartier c. Métallurgistes unis

   d'Amérique, local 6869 (Qué.), 23960, *03 2.6.94                                                                                                                          280(94)                                               950(94)

Compton v. The Queen (Ont.), 23477, *deemed abandoned pursuant to

   rule 25 18.3.94                                                                                                                                                                                            561(93)                                               1358(94)

Conrad v. Minicipality of the County of Halifax province of

   Nova Scotia (N.S.), 24191, *02 15.9.94                                                                                                                                              1147(94)                                            1337(94)

Consolidated Enfield Corporation v. Blair (Ont.), 23887, *03

   28.4.94   338(94)                                                                                                                                                                                        690(94)

Construction Amtron Inc. c. Corbeil (Qué.),

   22562, *A                                                                                                                                                                                                      1783(91)

Constructions Drumco Inc. c. Canaassurance, Compagnie

   d'Assurance-vie Inc. (Qué.), 24050, *02 19.5.94                                                                                                                             537(94)                                               854(94)

Cooper (David John) v. Canadian Human Rights Commission (F.C.A.),

   24135, *03 13.10.94                                                                                                                                                                                  929(94)                                               1568(94)

Cooper (Donald) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24001, *05 9.9.94                                                                                                        1358(94)                                            1358(94)

Coopérative Forestière du Nord-Ouest c. Deschênes (Qué.),

   23779, *02 27.1.94                                                                                                                                                                                    2075(93)                                            92(94)

Coopers & Lybrand Ltd. v. Bruncor Leasing Inc. (N.S.),

   24279, *B                                                                                                                                                                                                      1511(94)

Coopers & Lybrand Ltd. v. The Queen in right of Canada (F.C.A.),

   24329, *B                                                                                                                                                                                                      1955(94)

Coopers & Lybrand OYDL Inc. v. Royal Trust Co. (Ont.),

   23771, *02 21.4.94                                                                                                                                                                                    78(94)                                                 561(94)

Corbeil v. Paquette (Ont.), 24255, *02 3.11.94                                                                                                                                           1326(94)                                            1691(94)

Cormier c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 23847, *01 3.2.94                                                                                                                              2251(93)                                            176(94)

Corporation municipale de la ville de Bécancour c. Enfoui-Bec Inc.

   (Qué.), 24422, *A                                                                                                                                                                                       1798(94)

Corporation of the City of London v. Mortimer (Ont.),

   24094, *02 11.8.94                                                                                                                                                                                    846(94)                                               1209(94)

Corporation of the City of Stratford v. Large (Ont.),

   24004, *03 2.6.94                                                                                                                                                                                       522(94)                                               936(94)

Côté c. La Reine (Qué.), 23707, *03 3.3.94                                                                                                                                                  1799(93)                                            353(94)

Courtcliffe Parks Ltd. v. Hamilton Wentworth Credit Union (Ont.),

   24106, *B                                                                                                                                                                                                      1857(94)

Cousineau c. Petitpas (Qué.), 23830, *02 13.1.94                                                                                                                                     2141(93)                                            17(94)

Couture c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 24392, *B                                                                                                                                             1960(94)

Craig v. Lahey (N.B.), 23828, *02 3.3.94                                                                                                                                                      2365(93)                                            350(94)

Crawford v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23711, *03 10.2.94                                                                                                                     2133(93)                                            212(94)

Cross (Manly Ruben) v. The Queen (Ont.), 24371, *A                                                                                                                            1677(94)

Cross (Robert Andrew) v. Wood (Man.), 24065, *02 4.8.94                                                                                                                  875(94)                                               1208(94)

Crown Parking Co. v. City of Calgary (Alta.), 24377, *B                                                                                                                          1850(94)

Cuirs Laurence Roy Inc. c. Canadian Imperial Bank of

   Commerce (Qué.), 24381, *02 15.12.94                                                                                                                                            1846(94)                                            1962(94)

D & B Companies of Canada Ltd. v. Director of Investigation

   and Research (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24423, *B                                                                                                                                              1957(94)

D.E.P. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23892, *01 10.3.94                                                                                                                            11(94)                                                 411(94)

D.G.R. v. K.L.V. (B.C.), 24365, *B                                                                                                                                                                    1859(94)

D.M.S. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23878, *01 10.2.94                                                                                                                         5(94)                                                    216(94)

D.S c. V.W. (Qué.), 23765, *03 8.12.94                                                                                                                                                          2005(93)                                            1905(94)

D'Amato v. Badger (B.C.), 24364, *A                                                                                                                                                            1676(94)

D'Amore Construction (Windsor) Ltd. v. The Queen (Ont.),

   24372, *A                                                                                                                                                                                                      1677(94)

Darryl C. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23852, *01 10.3.94                                                                                                                      5(94)                                                    406(94)

David Hunt Farms Ltd. v. Minister of Agriculture (F.C.A.)(Ont.),

   24281, *B                                                                                                                                                                                                      1511(94)

Davis v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24268, *01 27.10.94                                                                                                                         1331(94)                                            1633(94)

Delgamuukw v. The Queen in right of the province of

   British Columbia (B.C.), 23799, *03 10.3.94                                                                                                                                      82(94)                                                 548(94)

Delitcheva c. La Reine (C.A.F.)(Qué.), 23788, *01 27.1.94                                                                                                                     2141(93)                                            93(94)

Delorey v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24030, *01 25.8.94                                                                                                                       734(94)                                               1255(94)

Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue (F.C.A.)(Ont.),

   23842, *01 10.3.94                                                                                                                                                                                    2211(93)                                            412(94)

Desaulniers c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 24356, *B                                                                                                                                     1772(94)

Descoteaux c. Banque nationale du Canada (Qué.),

   23863, *02 27.1.94                                                                                                                                                                                    2372(93)                                            94(94)

Deshane v. Deere & Co. (Ont.), 23870, *01 28.4.94                                                                                                                                206(94)                                               695(94)

Desloges v. Canadian Kennel Club (Ont.), 23981, *01 14.4.94                                                                                                            446(94)                                               558(94)

Devereaux v. Morrow (Ont.), 23798, *A                                                                                                                                                      2068(93)

Dewald v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24363, *B                                                                                                                                         1774(94)

Di Rubbo c. Corporation municipale de Dollard-Des-Ormeaux

   (Qué.), 24181, *02 22.9.94                                                                                                                                                                      1061(94)                                            1341(94)

Dick v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24059, *B                                                                                                                                               730(94)

Dilling v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 23759, *01 16.6.94                                                                                                                           527(94)                                               1034(94)

Didone c. Didone-Gagnon (Qué.), 24440, *A                                                                                                                                             1895(94)

Disco Gas & Oil Ltd. v. Petro-Canada Inc. (B.C.), 24379, *B                                                                                                                  1856(94)

District of Chilliwack v. Jesperson's Brake & Muffler Ltd.

   (B.C.), 24104, *02 11.8.94                                                                                                                                                                       932(94)                                               1220(94)

Doman v. Superintendent of Brokers (B.C.), 23938, *02 2.6.94                                                                                                           528(94)                                               947(94)

Doman v. Superintendent of Brokers (B.C.), 23979 *02 2.6.94                                                                                                            528(94)                                               947(94)

Dominique c. Abramowitz (Qué.), 24044, *02 1.9.94                                                                                                                               882(94)                                               1262(94)

Dompierre c. Provost (Qué.), 24049, *02 30.6.94                                                                                                                                      545(94)                                               1157(94)

D'Onofrio v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24277, *B                                                                                                                                     1510(94)

Dorscheid v. The Queen (Alta.), 24420, *A                                                                                                                                                  1798(94)

Dow Corning Corporation v. Hollis (B.C.), 23776, *03

   10.3.94   2202(93)                                                                                                                                                                                      412(94)

Dubé c. Salomon (Qué.), 24136, *02 1.9.94                                                                                                                                                1059(94)                                            1264(94)

Dubé c. Ville de Hull (Qué.), 24112, *02 11.8.94                                                                                                                                        882(94)                                               1220(94)

Dubois c. Raymond, Chabot, Fafard, Gagnon Inc. (Qué.),

   23993, *03 6.10.94                                                                                                                                                                                    685(94)                                               1520(94)

Duchesneau c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 23716, *01 3.3.94                                                                                                                     2290(93)                                            354(94)

Dunn v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24041, *03 2.6.94                                                                                                                               533(94)                                               946(94)

Dupuy c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 24088, *01 11.8.94                                                                                                                              804(94)                                               1218(94)

Eakin v. The Queen (Ont.), 24451, *A                                                                                                                                                           1952(94)

EBCO Industries Ltd. v. ICAM Technologies Corporation (B.C.),

   23963, *05 7.4.94                                                                                                                                                                                       397(94)                                               594(94)

Edwards v. Solicitor General of Ontario (Ont.), 23932, *01

   2.6.94      279(94)                                                                                                                                                                                        950(94)

Elgersma v. Attorney General for Ontario (Ont.), 24347, *A                                                                                                                 1674(94)

Elliot v. Elliot (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23896, *01 2.6.94                                                                                                                                            395(94)                                               934(94)

Ellis-Don Ltd. v. Ontario Labour Relations Board (Ont.),

   24243, *B                                                                                                                                                                                                      1324(94)

Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Burns (Ont.), 24054, *02

   23.6.94   682(94)                                                                                                                                                                                        1063(94)

Eneas v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24086, *B                                                                                                                                             732(94)

Engerdahl v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 23758, *01 2.6.94                                                                                                                      340(94)                                               940(94)

English v. The Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.), 23832, *01 31.3.94                                                                                                                        2287(93)                                            554(94)

Ernst & Young Inc., Trustee in Bankruptcy v. Price Waterhouse

   Ltd. (Ont.), 24259, *B                                                                                                                                                                                1329(94)

Eryomin v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (F.C.A.),

   23383, *A                                                                                                                                                                                                      4(93)

F.J.U. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24159, *01 8.12.94                                                                                                                             1768(94)                                            1903(94)

Fabrikant c. The Queen (Crim.)(Qué.), 23795, *01 2.6.94                                                                                                                      532(94)                                               937(94)

Fadelle v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 24046, *01 2.6.94                                                                                                                            531(94)                                               937(94)

Fiqia v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23945, *01 2.6.94                                                                                                                                680(94)                                               939(94)

Fire v. Longtin (Ont.), 24148, *03 6.10.94                                                                                                                                                    1137(94)                                            1518(94)

Firscliff Development Inc. c. Raymond, Chabot, Fafard, Gagnon Inc.

   (Qué.), 23850, *02 10.2.94                                                                                                                                                                      2291(93)                                            222(94)

Firscliff Development Inc. c. Raymond, Chabot, Fafard, Gagnon Inc.

   (Qué.), 23851, *02 10.2.94                                                                                                                                                                      2292(93)                                            222(94)

Fiumara v. Commissioner of Corrections (F.C.A.)(Crim.)(Ont.),

   23735, *01 20.1.94                                                                                                                                                                                    2244(93)                                            22(94)

Flamand c. Corporation des religieuses de Jésus-Marie (Qué.),

   24196, *02 8.9.94                                                                                                                                                                                       1156(94)                                            1271(94)

Fletcher (Alllen T.) v. Scurry-Rainbow Oil Ltd. (Alta.), 24404, *A                                                                                                          1765(94)

Fletcher (J. Paul) v. Corporation of the Township of Scugog (Ont.),

   23699, *02 21.4.94                                                                                                                                                                                    79(94)                                                 562(94)

Flibotte c. Ville de St-Basile-Le-Grand (Qué.), 24165, *02 1.9.94                                                                                                        1029(94)                                            1263(94)

Floyd c. Attorney General of Canada (C.A.F.)(Qué.), 24018, *02

   11.8.94   517(94)                                                                                                                                                                                        1211(94)

Fong v. The Queen (Alta.), 24448, *A                                                                                                                                                            1951(94)

Foshay v. The Queen (Ont.), 24274, *A                                                                                                                                                        1304(94)

Foster v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23745, *01 13.1.94                                                                                                                           2047(93)                                            14(94)

Foyer de Val d'Or Inc. c. Syndicat des employés du Foyer de

  Val d'Or Inc. (Qué.), 23998, *02 5.5.94                                                                                                                                                   512(94)                                               749(94)

Frankie v. Commissioner of Corrections (F.C.A.)(Crim.)(Ont.),

   23736, *01 20.1.94                                                                                                                                                                                    2243(93)                                            21(94)

Fraternité des policiers de la communauté urbaine de Montréal c.

   Communauté urbaine de Montréal (Qué.), 24445, *A                                                                                                                 1951(94)

Friedman c. Sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec (Qué.), 23844, *02

   3.2.94      2253(93)                                                                                                                                                                                      171(94)

Friesen v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 23922, *03 28.4.94                                                                                                                        164(94)                                               692(94)

Funk v. Labus Investments Ltd. (B.C.), 24416, *A                                                                                                                                    1797(94)

G.L.B. c. M.P. (Qué.), 23744, *03 8.12.94                                                                                                                                                     1943(93)                                            1905(94)

Gaucher c. J. M. Asbestos Inc. (Qué.), 24441, *A                                                                                                                                       1895(95)

Gaulin (Pierre André) c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.),

   23874, *01 31.3.94                                                                                                                                                                                    167(94)                                               555(94)

Gaulin (Raymonde) c. Centre des services sociaux de la

   Gaspésie et des Îles de la Madeleine (Qué.), 23793, *02

   11.8.94   686(94)                                                                                                                                                                                        1216(94)

Gerber Scientific Instrument Co. v. Bell-Northern Research Ltd. (Ont.),

   24449, *A                                                                                                                                                                                                      1952(94)

Gestion Gilles Ménard Inc. c. Filion (Qué.), 24375, *B                                                                                                                             1858(94)

Gestions Jean-Pierre Bertrand Inc. c. Compagnie Trust Royal Ltée

   (Qué.), 24287, *02 24.11.94                                                                                                                                                                   1560(94)                                            1801(94)

Gilbert c. La Reine (C.A.F.)(Qué.), 23723, *02 24.3.94                                                                                                                             2371(93)                                            550(94)

Gill v. The Queen (B.C.)(Crim.), 23903, *01 24.3.94                                                                                                                                 202(94)                                               549(94)

Gillespie v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.B.), 22771, *01 27.1.94                                                                                                                      13(94)                                                 95(94)

Gillis v. The Queen (N.S.), 24453, *A                                                                                                                                                             1952(94)

Gladstone v. The Queen (B.C.), 23801, *03 10.3.94                                                                                                                                 83(94)                                                 408(94)

Glasz v. Glasz (Ont.), 24224, *02 8.12.94                                                                                                                                                     1852(94)                                            1904(94)

Godin c. Société conadienne de la Croix-Rouge (Qué.),

   23702, *01 13.1.94                                                                                                                                                                                    1751(93)                                            15(94)

Godon v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23790, *01 10.3.94                                                                                                                          6(94)                                                    406(94)

Goguen v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.B.), 24198, *01 24.11.94                                                                                                                     1311(94)                                            1800(94)

Gold v. Gold (B.C.), 23817, *02 13.1.94                                                                                                                                                        2254(93)                                            19(94)

Golden Horse Farms Inc. v. Household Trust Co. (B.C.),

   23710, *02 24.3.94                                                                                                                                                                                    89(94)                                                 551(94)

Goldstein c. London Life Insurance Co. (Qué.), 24130, *03

   6.10.94   880(94)                                                                                                                                                                                        1521(94)

Gordon Capital Corporation v. Guarantee Company of North

   America (Ont.), 24199, *02 6.10.94                                                                                                                                                     1205(94)                                            1515(94)

Government of Manitoba v. A.J (Man.), 23770, *01 3.3.94                                                                                                                   2250(93)                                            349(94)

Gratton c. Druker et Associés Inc. (Qué.), 24137, *02 13.10.94                                                                                                           931(94)                                               1571(94)

Gratton c. Druker et Associés Inc. (Qué.), 24138, *02 13.10.94                                                                                                           930(94)                                               1572(94)

Greenbaum c. Public Curator of Quebec (Qué.), 24434, *A                                                                                                                   1843(94)

Greenbaum c. Public Curator of Quebec (Qué.), 23700, *02

   13.1.94   2142(93)                                                                                                                                                                                      17(94)

Greenpeace Canada v. MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. (B.C.), 24437, *A                                                                                                      1895(94)

Greer v. Commission national des libérations conditionnelles

   (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23724, *01 13.1.94                                                                                                                                                        1844(93)                                            16(94)

Gresham v. Ernst & Young Inc. (Sask.), 22888, *A                                                                                                                                    716(92)

Grimard v. Berry (Sask.), 24079, *02 1.9.94                                                                                                                                                880(94)                                               1260(94)

Guessous c. Legrand (Qué.), 24271, *02 24.11.94                                                                                                                                    1631(94)                                            1802(94)

Guns N'Roses Missouri Storm Inc. c. Productions Musicales

   Donald K. Donald Inc. (Qué.), 24286, *B                                                                                                                                           1562(94)

Guzyk v. Hare (B.C.), 24373, *B                                                                                                                                                                      1851(94)

Gymnase Longueuil Inc. c. Construction Dupal Inc. (Qué.), 24348, *B                                                                                              1960(94)

Gyori v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23907, *01 3.3.94                                                                                                                              162(94)                                               356(94)

Gyorvari v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 23807, *01 28.4.94                                                                                                                                401(94)                                               696(94)

Hammou c. Ministère de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration

   (C.A.F.)(Qué.), 23990, *02 16.6.94                                                                                                                                                       804(94)                                               1035(94)

Hamon c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 23857, *01 27.1.94                                                                                                                            2289(93)                                            94(94)

Hanna v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24174, *01 22.9.94                                                                                                                          1142(94)                                            1338(94)

Hansen v. Westminer Canada Ltd. (N.S.), 24043, *01 3.11.94                                                                                                             683(94)                                               1688(94)

Hanson v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24037, *01 26.5.94                                                                                                                        680(94)                                               884(94)

Harrigan v. The Queen (Ont.), 22958, *A                                                                                                                                                     916(92)

Harvey v. Attorney General for New Brunswick (N.B.), 23968, *03

   2.6.94      203(94)                                                                                                                                                                                        939(94)

Harvey v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.B.), 23894, *01 19.5.94                                                                                                                        78(93)                                                 852(94)

Hasan v. Council of the College of Physicians and Surgeons

   of New Brunswick (N.B.), 24398, *A                                                                                                                                                   1765(94)

Haughton v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23665, *03 3.2.94                                                                                                                      1541(93)                                            173(94)

Hawrish v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 23898, *03 28.4.94                                                                                                                     202(94)                                               689(94)

Hecht v. Reid (B.C.), 23751, *02 13.1.94                                                                                                                                                      2209(93)                                            18(94)

Heggie v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24023, *02 2.6.94                                                                                                                          523(94)                                               943(94)

Helo Enterprises Ltd. v. Ernst & Young Inc. (B.C.), 23924, *03

   2.6.94      345(94)                                                                                                                                                                                        950(94)

Henry v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24384, *B                                                                                                                                             1958(94)

Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia v. Novia Scotia Utility and

   Review Board (N.S.), 24068, *02 1.9.94                                                                                                                                             848(94)                                               1258(94)

Herman v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24040, referred to the bench which

   will hear the appeal as of right/référée au banc qui entendra

   l'appel de plein droit 9.6.94                                                                                                                                                                     544(94)                                               981(94)

Hershkovitz c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 24417, *A                                                                                                                                     1798(94)

Hibbert v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23815, *03 10.2.94                                                                                                                        2198(93)                                            213(94)

Hill v. The Registrar, South Alberta Land Registration District

   (Alta.), 23650, *02 10.2.94                                                                                                                                                                      1753(93)                                            221(94)

Hinchey v. The Queen (Nfld.), 24430, *A                                                                                                                                                     1843(94)

Hinse c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 24320, *B                                                                                                                                                 1679(94)

Hobbs v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24247, *01 3.11.94                                                                                                                          1245(94)                                            1687(94)

Holt v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24362, *B                                                                                                                                                1769(94)

Hong Kong Bank of Canada v. Toyota Canada Inc. (Alta.), 24273,

   *02 1.12.94                                                                                                                                                                                                   1597(94)                                            1861(94)

Horan v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23855, *01 3.2.94                                                                                                                             10(94)                                                 177(94)

Howe v. Professional Conduct Committee (Ont.), 24275, *B                                                                                                               1333(94)

Human Rights Commission v. Board of School Trustees, District No. 15

   (N.B.), 24002, *03 13.10.94                                                                                                                                                                    507(94)                                               1565(94)

Hunt v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 23845, *01 23.6.94                                                                                                                           731(94)                                               1063(94)

Huot v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23849, *01 21.4.94                                                                                                                             163(94)                                               563(94)

Hutchins v. Commission nationale des libérations conditionnelles

   (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23725, *01 13.1.94                                                                                                                                                        1845(93)                                            16(94)

Hutter v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23950, *01 28.4.94                                                                                                                          268(94)                                               690(94)

Hynes v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 23718, *01 3.2.94                                                                                                                             2135(93)                                            174(94)

Imprimerie Quebecor Inc. - Quebecor Printing Inc. v. Rittel

   (B.C.), 24175, *02 22.9.94                                                                                                                                                                       1151(94)                                            1341(94)

Industrielle-Alliance, compagnie d'assurance-vie c. Deslauriers

   (Qué.), 23824, *02 28.4.94                                                                                                                                                                      89(94)                                                 699(94)

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v. Petersen (B.C.),

   23961, *02 16.6.94                                                                                                                                                                                    403(94)                                               1034(94)

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,

   District Lodge No. 692 v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters

   and Joiners of America, Local 2736 (B.C.), 24039, *02 11.8.94                                                                                                  737(94)                                               1217(94)

International Lottery Distributors Inc. v. Government of

   Manitoba (Man.), 23958, *02 11.8.94                                                                                                                                                510(94)                                               1211(94)

International Lottery Distributors Inc. v. Government of

   Manitoba (Man.), 24100, *02 11.8.94                                                                                                                                                802(94)                                               1215(94)

J.L.D. c. Vallée (Qué.), 24028, *03 6.10.94                                                                                                                                                   538(94)                                               1520(94)

J.W.S. v. H.A.D. (Alta.), 23915, *02 3.3.94                                                                                                                                                    12(94)                                                 355(94)

Jackson v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24241, *B                                                                                                                                         1247(94)

Jaffe v. Hatch (Crim.)(Ont.), 23755, *01 20.1.94                                                                                                                                        2049(93)                                            23(94)

Janes v. The Queen in right of Newfoundland (Nfld.), 22997, *01

   13.1.94   1544(93)                                                                                                                                                                                      20(94)

Janzen v. Attorney General for British Columbia (B.C.), 24213, *01

   3.11.94   1313(94)                                                                                                                                                                                      1689(94)

Jazra c. Banque de Montréal (Qué.), 24096, *02 1.9.94                                                                                                                          805(94)                                               1262(94)

Johnson (Clayton Norman) v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 24133, *B                                                                                                    1319(94)

Johnson v. The Queen (N.S.), 23593, after reconsideration of the

   application for leave to appeal, the granting of leave is quashed/

   après avoir réexaminé la demande d'autorisation d'appel,

   l'autorisation est annulée 4.10.94                                                                                                                                                        1523(94)                                            1523(94)

Johnstone v. The Queen (Ont.), 23996, *01 12.5.94                                                                                                                                 520(94)                                               807(94)

Jones (Ronald Stuart) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23667, *B                                                                                                              1467(93)

Jones (Scott David) v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 23916, *01

   24.3.94   162(94)                                                                                                                                                                                        549(94)

Jorgensen v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23787, *03 28.4.94                                                                                                                   160(94)                                               688(94)

K.S.V. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.), 24249, *01 8.12.94                                                                                                                           1246(94)                                            1899(94)

Kaban v. Sett (Man.), 24444, *A                                                                                                                                                                     1951(94)

Kalin v. City of Calgary (Alta.), 24418, *A                                                                                                                                                    1799(94)

Kansa General Insurance Co. v. Simcoe & Erie General

   Insurance Co. (B.C.), 24368, *A                                                                                                                                                             1676(94)

Kasvand v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24103, *02 1.9.94                                                                                                                       879(94)                                               1259(94)

Kean c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 23957, *01 11.8.94                                                                                                                                 536(94)                                               1215(94)

Keegstra v. The Queen (Alta.), 24296, *A                                                                                                                                                    1674(94)

Kettle River Sawills Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Crim.)(Ont.), 23944, *02

   2.6.94      448(94)                                                                                                                                                                                        942(94)

Khan v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23947, *01 5.5.94                                                                                                                               338(94)                                               742(94)

Kibale c. La Reine (C.A.F.)(Ont.), 24082, *02 23.6.94                                                                                                                               806(94)                                               1064(94)

Kieling v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool (Sask.), 24285, *B                                                                                                                        1556(94)

Kindret v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Crim.)(Man.), 24215, *B                                                                                                                          1331(94)

Kinsella v. Solicitor General of Canada (Crim.)(Ont.), 24014, *01

   2.6.94      516(94)                                                                                                                                                                                        936(94)

Kopen v. 61345 Manitoba Ltd. (Man.), 23498, *02 17.3.94                                                                                                                  940(93)                                               454(94)

Kreuzer v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24067, *01 11.8.94                                                                                                                       682(94)                                               1214(94)

Kujawa v. Milgaard (Crim.)(Sask.), 24382, *B                                                                                                                                            1855(94)

Kumar v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 23975, *01 5.5.94                                                                                                                             449(94)                                               747(94)

L.D. c. G.R. (Qué.), 24033, *02 9.6.94                                                                                                                                                            530(94)                                               980(94)

L.G.B. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24204, *01 8.9.94                                                                                                                             1155(94)                                            1271(94)

L.M. c. L.L. (Qué.), 23829, *01 17.2.94                                                                                                                                                          2253(93)                                            239(94)

LRSCO Investments Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada (Alta.),

    24166, *02 8.9.94                                                                                                                                                                                   1057(94)                                            1267(94)

Laboratories Nordic Inc. c. Gagnon (Qué.), 23977, *05 30.3.94                                                                                                           405(94)                                               594(94)

Lacoste c. Société nationale d'assurances (Qué.),

   24167, *02 1.9.94                                                                                                                                                                                       1060(94)                                            1264(94)

Lahey v. Craig (N.B.), 23828, *02 3.3.94                                                                                                                                                      2365(93)                                            350(94)

Laisa v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.W.T.), 23819, *01 13.1.94                                                                                                                        2199(93)                                            15(94)

Lajoie v. The Queen (Ont.), 21436, *A                                                                                                                                                          975(89)

Lakeview National Hotels Inc. v. Assessor for the City of

   Winnipeg (Man.), 23999, *02 2.6.94                                                                                                                                                   510(94)                                               943(94)

Landry c. La Reine (C.A.F.)(Qué.), 24370, *B                                                                                                                                              1854(94)

Langer v. MacMillan Bloedel (B.C.), 24437, *A                                                                                                                                         1951(94)

Lawson v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24331, *B                                                                                                                                          1850(94)

Lee v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23831, *01 3.3.94                                                                                                                                  2247(93)                                            347(94)

Lehndorff United Properties (Canada) Ltd. v. City of Edmonton

   (Alta.), 24412, *A                                                                                                                                                                                        1797(94)

Lelièvre c. Centre communautaire juridique du Bas

   St-Laurent Gaspésie (Qué.), 24124, *02 11.8.94                                                                                                                            881(94)                                               1219(94)

Lemky v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24454, *A                                                                                                                                           1951(94)

Leo v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24318, *01 8.12.94                                                                                                                               1680(94)                                            1901(94)

Leung v. Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (Alta.),

   24029, *01 2.6.94                                                                                                                                                                                       529(94)                                               948(94)

Lewery v. Governing Council of the Salvation Army in Canada

   (N.B.), 23775, *02 13.1.94                                                                                                                                                                       2048(93)                                            21(94)

Lewis v. The Queen (B.C.), 23802, *03 10.3.94                                                                                                                                          84(94)                                                 408(94)

Li v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24132, *01 8.9.94                                                                                                                                       977(94)                                               1269(94)

Liberati v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission

   (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23869, *01 3.3.94                                                                                                                                                           2368(93)                                            352(94)

Livaderis v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24311, *01 1.12.94                                                                                                                     1553(94)                                            1860(94)

Logozar v. Golder (Alta.), 24406, *A                                                                                                                                                              1766(94)

Lord v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 23943, *03 28.4.94                                                                                                                               271(94)                                               690(94)

Loubier c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 23969, *01 19.5.94                                                                                                                            343(94)                                               853(94)

Lozinski v. Agricultural Credit Corporation of Saskatchewan

   (Sask.), 24326, *B                                                                                                                                                                                      1681(94)

Ludwig v. Crick (B.C.), 24327, *B                                                                                                                                                                    1773(94)

Luke (Donald Arthur) v. Alexander (B.C.), 24163, *01 22.9.94                                                                                                             1153(94)                                            1339(94)

Luke (Irvin Andrew) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24229, *01

   10.11.94                                                                                                                                                                                                        1243(94)                                            1747(94)

Lunn v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23983, *01 14.4.94                                                                                                                             395(94)                                               557(94)

M.S. v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 23848, *01 13.1.94                                                                                                                               2251(93)                                            19(94)

M.S. v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24431, *A                                                                                                                                                1843(94)

MacCulloch v. Price Waterhouse Ltd. (N.S.), 23652, *02

   11.8.94   535(94)                                                                                                                                                                                        1213(94)

MacGillivray v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 23933, *03 28.4.94                                                                                                              399(94)                                               695(94)

MacIsaac v. MacNeil (N.S.), 24180, *B                                                                                                                                                        1957(94)

Mackie v. Milgaard (Crim.)(Sask.), 24382, *B                                                                                                                                            1855(94)

MacKinlay v. MacKinlay (N.S.), 23783, *02 10.2.94                                                                                                                                2073(93)                                            220(94)

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Youell (B.C.), 23899, *02 16.6.94                                                                                                                 344(94)                                               1033(94)

MacNeill v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.), 24231, *B                                                                                                               1322(94)

Maheu c. Ministère du Revenu national (C.A.F.)(Qué.), 23873, *02

   24.3.94   169(94)                                                                                                                                                                                        551(94)

Mainland Sand & Gravel Ltd. v. Tutinka (B.C.), 24003, *02

   2.6.94      525(94)                                                                                                                                                                                        945(94)

Mangion v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24061, *01 23.6.94                                                                                                                     730(94)                                               1063(94)

Manning v. Hill (Ont.), 24216, *03 27.10.94                                                                                                                                                1509(94)                                            1633(94)

Manship Holdings Ltd. v. Muise (N.B.), 23941, *02 2.6.94                                                                                                                    342(94)                                               941(94)

Manson Insulation Inc. v. Wallace Construction Specialties Ltd.

   (Sask.), 23784, *02 10.2.94                                                                                                                                                                     2137(93)                                            220(94)

Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. v. Marystown Shipyard Ltd.

   (Nfld.), 23901, *02 5.5.94                                                                                                                                                                        275(94)                                               743(94)

Martin v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23761, *01 14.4.94                                                                                                                          270(94)                                               556(94)

Martin & Stewart Inc. v. Superintendent of Pensions (Nova Scotia)

   (N.S.), 24021, *02 11.8.94                                                                                                                                                                       533(94)                                               1212(94)

Martselos Services Ltd. v. Arctic College (N.W.T.),

  24048, *02 1.9.94                                                                                                                                                                                          543(94)                                               1257(94)

Mastercraft Properties Ltd. v. El Ef Investments Inc.

   (Ont.), 23827, *02 3.2.94                                                                                                                                                                         2284(93)                                            172(94)

Mayer v. Mayer (B.C.), 23782, *02 3.3.94                                                                                                                                                   2248(93)                                            348(94)

Mayfield Investments Ltd. v. Stewart (Alta.), 23739,

   *03 10.2.94                                                                                                                                                                                                   77(94)                                                 213(94)

McAllister c. États-Unis d'Amerique (Crim.)(Qué.), 24238, *01 20.10.94                                                                                          1334(94)                                            1599(94)

McAllister c. États-Unis d'Amerique (Crim.)(Qué.), 24267, *01 20.10.94                                                                                          1334(94)                                            1599(94)

McCain Foods Ltd. v. National Transportation Agency

   (F.C.A.)(N.B.), 23318, *01 5.5.94                                                                                                                                                           483(93)                                               749(94)

McCann v. Environmental Compensation Corporation

   (Ont.), 22207, *02 1.9.94                                                                                                                                                                         928(94)                                               1260(94)

McCarten v. Government of Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.),

   24098, *02 25.8.94                                                                                                                                                                                    849(94)                                               1256(94)

McGillivary v. Province of New Brunswick (N.B.), 24336, *B                                                                                                               1848(94)

McMaster v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24395, *A                                                                                                                                   1764(94)

McPhillips v. British Columbia Ferry Corporation (B.C.),

   24246, *B                                                                                                                                                                                                      1329(94)

McRae v. McRae (B.C.), 24201, *02 8.9.94                                                                                                                                                 1149(94)                                            1270(94)

Mercer v. The Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.), 23838, *01 3.3.94                                                                                                                          2247(93)                                            348(94)

Mercier c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 24187, *01 1.9.94                                                                                                                              1141(94)                                            1265(94)

Merck & Co. v. Apotex Inc. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23905, *03 28.4.94                                                                                                             401(94)                                               697(94)

Merck Frosst Canada Inc. v. Minister of National Health and

   Welfare (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24260, *B                                                                                                                                                         1318(94)

Mercs v. Nanji (Alta.), 23497, *01 17.3.94                                                                                                                                                   939(93)                                               453(94)

Messinger v. Bramalea Ltd. (Ont.), 23797, *02 17.2.94                                                                                                                          2205(93)                                            238(94)

Metropolitan Properties Corporation v. Alberta Home Mortgage

   Corporation (Alta.), 24280, *02 3.11.94                                                                                                                                              1514(94)                                            1692(94)

Meubles du Québec Inspiration XIX^e Ltée c. Ville de

   Chicoutimi (Qué.), 24355, *B                                                                                                                                                                 1858(94)

Michaud c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.), 23764, *03

   8.12.94   2207(93)                                                                                                                                                                                      1905(94)

Midland Seafoods Inc. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24045, *01

   11.8.94   541(94)                                                                                                                                                                                        1213(94)

Milad v. Milad (Ont.), 23976, *02 5.5.94                                                                                                                                                      445(94)                                               742(94)

Milk Board v. Grisnich (B.C.), 23927, *03 2.6.94                                                                                                                                        346(94)                                               951(94)

Mills v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23728, *03 13.10.94                                                                                                                           1842(93)                                            1564(94)

Millstream Enterprises Ltd. v. Corporation of the City of New

   Westminster (B.C.), 23959, *02 5.5.94                                                                                                                                               278(94)                                               747(94)

Minister of Employment and Immigration v. Nguyen (F.C.A.)(Man.),

   23834, *01 17.2.94                                                                                                                                                                                    2204(93)                                            237(94)

Minister of Justice of Canada c. Jamieson (Crim.)(Qué.), 24253, *B                                                                                                   1777(94)

Modes Cohoes Inc. c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.),

   23929, *02 21.4.94                                                                                                                                                                                    451(94)                                               565(94)

Moisescu c. Garmaise (Qué.), 23949, *02 5.5.94                                                                                                                                      511(94)                                               748(94)

Monslave v. United States of America (Crim.)(Ont.), 24220, *01 29.9.94                                                                                        1206(94)                                            1343(94)

Montemurro v. Deloitte & Touche Inc. (Ont.), 24178, *02 29.9.94                                                                                                     1149(94)                                            1343(94)

Moore v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 23810, *03 17.2.94                                                                                                                          2198(93)                                            237(94)

Morgan v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23579, *01 24.3.94                                                                                                                       76(94)                                                 548(94)

Morley v. Kalaka Housing Co-Operative Ltd. (Alta.),

   23997, *02 5.5.94                                                                                                                                                                                       448(94)                                               746(94)

Morrissey v. Morrissey (P.E.I.), 24202, *B                                                                                                                                                   1322(94)

Moutisheva c. Solliciteur général du Canada (C.A.F.)(Qué.), 23884, *01

   21.4.94   449(94)                                                                                                                                                                                        565(94)

Mowers v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23891, *03 10.3.94                                                                                                                       200(94)                                               410(94)

Mumford v. Health Sciences Centre (F.C.A.)(Man.), 23715, *02 10.2.94                                                                                         1750(93)                                            217(94)

Municipalité de la paroisse de Ste-Rose-du-Nord c. Procureur

   général du Québec (Qué.), 24354, *B                                                                                                                                                 1854(94)

NTC Smokehouse Ltd. v. The Queen in right of the province

   of British Columbia (B.C.), 23800, *03 10.3.94                                                                                                                                 83(94)                                                 407(94)

Nagra v. Secretary of State of Canada (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24097, the application

   for leave to appeal is quashed/la demande d'autorisation d'appel est

   annulée 30.6.94                                                                                                                                                                                          847(94)                                               1157(94)

Nassif c. Nassif (Qué.), 23836, *02 13.1.94                                                                                                                                                 2210(93)                                            18(94)

National Automobile v. Wolverine Tube (Canada) Inc. (B.C.),

   23781, *01 17.3.94                                                                                                                                                                                    2245(93)                                            453(94)

National Hockey League Pension Society v. Bathgate (Ont.),

   24095, *01 28.7.94                                                                                                                                                                                    845(94)                                               1207(94)

National Parole Board v. Mooring (Crim.)(B.C.), 24436, *B                                                                                                                   1953(94)

National Party of Canada v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

   (Alta.), 23726, *02 3.2.94                                                                                                                                                                         2201(93)                                            170(94)

Naylor v. Naylor (Ont.), 23985, *02 21.4.94                                                                                                                                                444(94)                                               560(94)

Neuberger v. Connors (Ont.), 24346, *A                                                                                                                                                      1674(94)

Neuzen v. Korn (B.C.), 23773, *03 10.2.94                                                                                                                                                  2137(93)                                            221(94)

Neve v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23991, *01 21.4.94                                                                                                                            503(94)                                               561(94)

Nicholson v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23821, *01 3.2.94                                                                                                                      2133(93)                                            170(94)

Nikal v. The Queen in right of Canada (B.C.), 23804, *03 10.3.94                                                                                                       85(94)                                                 409(94)

No. 100 Sail View Ventures Ltd. v. Janwest Equities Ltd.

   (B.C.), 23965, *02 2.6.94                                                                                                                                                                          514(94)                                               947(94)

Nobert v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23952, *01 5.5.94                                                                                                                           277(94)                                               746(94)

Noble v. First City Trust Co. (Alta.), 24403, *A                                                                                                                                            1765(94)

Noftall v. The Queen (Nfld.), 24426, *A                                                                                                                                                        1799(94)

Noppers v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24019, *01 5.5.94                                                                                                                        518(94)                                               749(94)

Novak v. Pedersen (Alta.), 24083, *02 1.9.94                                                                                                                                             803(94)                                               1258(94)

O'Connor v. Mostyn (Ont.), 24208, *02 29.9.94                                                                                                                                        1201(94)                                            1343(94)

O'Leary v. The Queen (N.B.), 23928, *03 28.4.94                                                                                                                                     164(94)                                               693(94)

Olson v. Gullo (Ont.), 24176, *02 13.10.94                                                                                                                                                  1058(94)                                            1569(94)

Omineca Enterprises Ltd. v. Minister of Forests (B.C.),

   23939, *02 16.6.94                                                                                                                                                                                    345(94)                                               1033(94)

Ontario Chrysler (1977) Ltd. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.),

   24122, *01 25.8.94                                                                                                                                                                                    1026(94)                                            1253(94)

Ontario Homebuilders' Association v. York Region Board of

   Education (Ont.), 24085, *03 6.10.94                                                                                                                                                  847(94)                                               1518(94)

Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board v. Hugh (Ont.),

   23720, *02 3.2.94                                                                                                                                                                                       1944(93)                                            175(94)

Opetchesaht, an Indian Band v. The Queen in right of Canada

   (B.C.), 24161, *03 13.10.94                                                                                                                                                                     1059(94)                                            1570(94)

Orlesky v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23888, *01 10.3.94                                                                                                                       11(94)                                                 410(94)

Otto v. Hamilton & Olsen Surveys Ltd. (Alta.), 23840, *02

   3.3.94      2369(93)                                                                                                                                                                                      352(94)

Ouaknine c. Cohen (Qué.), 23858, *02 17.2.94                                                                                                                                          2371(93)                                            239(94)

P.E.M. v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24303, *01 8.12.94                                                                                                                           1626(94)                                            1898(94)

P.L. v. Director of Child Welfare (Nfld.), 23886, *B                                                                                                                                   2293(93)

P. (S.) c. R. (M.) (Qué.), 24251, *A                                                                                                                                                                   1239(4)

Pabani v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24222, *01 6.10.94                                                                                                                          1203(94)                                            1516(94)

Pacificador v. Republic of the Philippines (Ont.),

   23792, *01 28.4.94                                                                                                                                                                                    204(94)                                               693(94)

Pan Ocean Oil Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24290, *02

   17.11.94                                                                                                                                                                                                        1554(94)                                            1779(94)

Paramadevan v. Semelhago (Ont.), 24325, *B                                                                                                                                          1682(94)

Partridge v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23995, *01 5.5.94                                                                                                                        503(94)                                               741(94)

Patenaude c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.), 24415, *A                                                                                                             1797(94)

Patenaude c. Ville de Saint-Hubert (Qué.), 24076, *02 11.8.94                                                                                                            737(94)                                               1217(94)

Patrick Press Ltd. v. Pierre (B.C.), 23837, *A                                                                                                                                                2069(93)

Paulet v. Brandon University Faculty Association (Man.),

   22729, *A                                                                                                                                                                                                      4(92)

Peace Valley Ranch Ltd. v. Coconut Grove Management &

   Development Corporation (Ont.), 23814, *01 3.2.94                                                                                                                    2285(93)                                            172(94)

Pearson c. The Queen (Crim.)(Qué.), 24107, *01 4.8.94                                                                                                                         1025(94)                                            1253(94)

Peckham v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24401, *B                                                                                                                                      1955(94)

Pennie v. The Queen (Ont.), 24432, *A                                                                                                                                                         1843(94)

Peper v. Peper (Ont.), 24269, *02 24.11.94                                                                                                                                                 1559(94)                                            1801(94)

Perry v. City of Vancouver (B.C.), 24126, *01 13.10.94                                                                                                                           1141(94)                                            1572(94)

Peters v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 24391, *A                                                                                                                                          1764(94)

Petrini v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Crim.)(Ont.), 24433, *A                                                                                                                              1843(94)

Phillips v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24139, *01 13.10.94                                                                                                                      1057(94)                                            1569(94)

Pilon v. Bouaziz (B.C.), 23866, *02 21.4.94                                                                                                                                                  513(94)                                               566(94)

Pilote c. Corporation de l'Hôpital Bellechasse de Montréal

   (Qué.), 24419, *A                                                                                                                                                                                       1798(94)

Pinecliff Homes Inc. v. Disera (Ont.), 24209, *02 1.12.94                                                                                                                       1248(94)                                            1861(94)

Placements Tanguay (1979) Ltée c. L. G. Ross Ltd. (Qué.), 24145, *02

   22.9.94   1204(94)                                                                                                                                                                                      1340(94)

Portree v. Woodsmill Homes Ltd. (Man.), 24289, *B                                                                                                                               1557(94)

Powrmatic du Canada Ltée c. Boivin (Qué.), 24230, *02 3.11.94                                                                                                        1251(94)                                            1689(94)

Priestley v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24232, *01 3.11.94                                                                                                                      1310(94)                                            1687(94)

Prince Rupert Grain Ltd. v. International Longshoremen's and

   Warehousemen's Union, Ship and Dock Foremen, Local

   514 (F.C.A), 24428, *A                                                                                                                                                                              1799(94)

Prinse v. Fraser Valley Foods (B.C.), 23859, *02 14.4.94                                                                                                                        87(94)                                                 559(94)

Procureur général du Québec c. 2747-3174 Québec Inc. (Qué.),

   24309, *A                                                                                                                                                                                                      1797(94)

Procureur général du Québec c. Téléphones Guèvremont Inc.

   (Qué.), 23345, *03 10.2.94                                                                                                                                                                      2139(93)                                            222(94)

Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada v.

   Senate of Canada (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23934, *02 5.5.94                                                                                                                      276(94)                                               744(94)

Public Trustee for British Columbia v. Russ (B.C.),

   24152, *02 10.11.94                                                                                                                                                                                  1249(94)                                            1748(94)

Pugh v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24257, *01 27.10.94                                                                                                                          1308(94)                                            1633(94)

Pulker v. MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. (Crim.)(B.C.), 24171, *03 6.10.94                                                                                                   1056(94)                                            1519(94)

Quick v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 23757, *01 5.5.94                                                                                                                               273(94)                                               743(94)

Quinn v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24075, *01 9.6.94                                                                                                                              801(94)                                               980(94)

R. v. A. B. (Crim.)(Nfld.), 24182, *03 6.10.94                                                                                                                                               1143(94)                                            1517(94)

R. v. Adams (Crim.)(Alta.), 24252, *C                                                                                                                                                            1896(94)

R. c. Aubin (Crim.)(Qué.), 24350, *B                                                                                                                                                               1777(94)

R. v. Barrett (Crim.)(Ont.), 23749, *03 28.4.94                                                                                                                                           2000(93)                                            688(94)

R. v. Bernshaw (Crim.)(B.C.), 23748, *03 10.2.94                                                                                                                                      1999(93)                                            212(94)

R. v. Brown (Crim.)(N.S.), 24304, *01 15.12.94                                                                                                                                          1626(94)                                            1962(94)

R. v. C. A. M. (Crim.)(B.C.), 24027, *03 2.6.94                                                                                                                                             530(94)                                               938(94)

R. v. Calder (Ont.), 24323, *A                                                                                                                                                                           1745(94)

R. v. Campbell (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24288, *02 1.12.94                                                                                                                                     1597(94)                                            1862(94)

R. c. Charbonneau (Crim.)(Qué.), 23906, *01 10.3.94                                                                                                                              207(94)                                               411(94)

R. c. Chevrier (Qué.), 23126, *A                                                                                                                                                                       2510(92)

R. c. Côté (Qué.), 23707, *03 3.3.94                                                                                                                                                               1799(93)                                            353(94)

R. v. Crown Forest Industries Ltd. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23940, *03

   28.4.94   399(94)                                                                                                                                                                                        691(94)

R. v. E. T. (Crim.)(Ont.), 24022, *01 26.5.94                                                                                                                                                 520(94)                                               884(94)