Bulletins

BULLETIN OF BULLETIN DES

PROCEEDINGS PROCÉDURES 

February 2, 1996 127 - 150 le 2 février 1996 

Homefounders Development Joint Venture (86395 Ont. Inc.) et al.

Charles Zubovits

v. (25121)

Michael Piggott et al. (Ont.)

Kenneth T. Rosenberg

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson

FILING DATE 24.1.1996

Clarence Maxwell Shorting

Jeffrey F. Harris

Keyser, Harris

v. (25030)

Her Majesty The Queen (Man.)

R. Finlayson

Manitoba Justice

FILING DATE 22.1.1996

Tajdin Esmail

Raj Anand

Scott & Aylen

v. (25095)

Petro-Canada (Ont.)

Susan Adam Metzler

Holden, Day, Wilson

FILING DATE 23.1.1996

Margaret Kaban

Murdoch MacKay, Q.C.

Inkster, Christie, Hughes, MacKay

v. (25108)

Sikhor Nath Sett (Man.)

Helda D. Van Iderstine

Atkins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson

FILING DATE 23.1.1996

Charles F. Gill et al.

Brian Morgan

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt

v. (25109)

ScotiaMcLeod Inc. et al. (Ont.)

Robert S. Russell

Borden & Elliott

FILING DATE 22.1.1996

Mario Hudon et al.

Bernard Bélanger

Laurin, Laplante

c. (25110)

Stephen J. Frishling et al. (Qué.)

Gilles Poulin

Adessky, Poulin

FILING DATE 19.1.1996

Ernst & Young

Joseph W. Mik

Blake, Cassels & Graydon

v. (25111)

ScotiaMcLeod Inc. et al. (Ont.)

Robert S. Russell

Borden & Elliott

FILING DATE 22.1.1996

K.M. McCulloch

v. (25112)

Gordon Pauluik (Man.)

John M. Scurfield, Q.C.

Wolch, Pinx, Tapper, Scurfield

FILING DATE 23.1.1996

Canadian Airlines International Ltd.

V. Ross Ellison

Davis & Co.

v. (25113)

Albert Belloni et al. (F.C.A.)

Julius H. Grey

Grey Casgrain

FILING DATE 23.1.1996

Yang Tung Chiu

Malcolm N. Ruby

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson

v. (25114)

Kwok Woon Kung (Ont.)

Larry Pick

Bennett Best Burn

FILING DATE 24.1.1996

Aménagement Westcliff Ltée et al.

Élise Poisson

Lavery, de Billy, S.E.N.C.

c. (25115)

Société immobilière du Québec (Qué.)

Roch Maltais

Gilbert Maltais Bergeron & Rondeau

FILING DATE 26.1.1996

La Garantie Compagnie d’Assurance de l’Amérique du Nord

Claude Larose

Lavery, de Billy, S.E.N.C.

c. (25116)

Inter-Cité Construction Ltée et al. (Qué.)

Paul Guimond

Gagnon, Gauthier & Assoc.

FILING DATE 26.1.1996

Matériaux de Construction Lesage Ltée

Nathalie Deshaies

Prévost, Auclair, Fortin & Daoust

c. (25117)

Claude Simon et al. (Qué.)

André Rousseau

Laflamme, Rousseau

FILING DATE 26.1.1996

C.L.S.C. - N.D.G. Montréal-Ouest

Gilles Théorêt

c. (25118)

Syndicat des employés du C.L.S.C. - N.D.G. Montréal-Ouest (Qué.)

Pierre Cloutier

Sylvestre, Charbonneau

FILING DATE 26.1.1996

Vincent Chiara

Chiara & Assoc.

c. (25119)

Patrick Aboud et al. (Qué.)

Sarto Brisebois

FILING DATE 26.1.1996

Syndicat des employés de la société Asbestos Ltée

Hélène Dubreuil

Sauvé & Roy

c. (25120)

Maurice Rousseau (Qué.)

Gilles Ouellet

Warren Ouellet Ladouceur

FILING DATE 29.1.1996

Gabriel Gladue

Leonard (Tony) Mandamin

Mandamin & Assoc.

v. (25122)

Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.)

FILING DATE 29.1.1996

Her Majesty The Queen

F. Richard Connolly

Min. of the A.G.

v. (25124)

Gordon Stogdale (Ont.)

Brian H. Greenspan

FILING DATE 30.1.1996

Bumper Development Corp. Ltd.

David C. Rolf

Parlee McLaws

v. (25125)

The Union of India et al. (Alta.)

Kenneth J. Warren

Code Hunter Wittman

FILING DATE 31.1.1996

Charles Douglas Stuart Horrey et al.

Gordon R. McKenzie

Bishop & McKenzie

v. (25127)

Joycie Fay Litterst, formerly known as Joycie Fay Horrey (Alta.)

Louise Ares

Ares Kvill Rattan

FILING DATE 29.1.1996

Wilhelm Halwachs et al.

Guy Du Pont

Goodman Phillips & Vineberg

c. (25123)

The Deputy Minister of Revenue of Québec et al. (Qué.)

Jean Groleau

Veillette et assoc.

FILING DATE 29.1.1996

Sa Majesté la Reine

c. (24979)

Sadek Sadek (Crim.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Jury - Réponse du juge du procès à une question du jury portant sur le meurtre au premier degré - La Cour d’appel a t-elle erré en droit en considérant la réponse du juge de première instance à une question du jury comme erronée, malgré le fait que la Cour, unanimement, a considéré l’ensemble des directives conformes, voire même "indiscutables"? - La Cour d’appel a t-elle erré en omettant de statuer sur l’application des dispositions curatives de l’article 686(1)b)(iii) du Code criminel  et en ne les appliquant pas dans cette cause? - Article 231(5)  du Code criminel .

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 17 janvier 1992

Cour supérieure, juridiction criminelle

(Riopel j.c.s.)

Verdict: Intimé reconnu coupable de meurtre au premier degré, séquestration et voies de fait graves

Le 6 octobre 1995

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Vallerand, Baudouin et Robert jj.c.a.)

Appel accueilli; verdict cassé et nouveau procès sur l’accusation de meurtre au premier degré ordonné

Le 3 novembre 1995

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

United State of America

The Honourable Allan Rock

Minister of Justice for Canada

v. (24997)

Arye Dynar (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Extradition - Criminal law - Whether Respondent's conduct would constitute attempt or conspiracy in Canada - Whether an accused can be convicted of attempt when the offence was impossible to commit - Whether an accused can be convicted of conspiracy where the conspiracy was impossible to commit - What does it mean to "know" a fact - What is the scope of the requesting state’s duty of disclosure.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (24918)

Fibreco Pulp Inc.; Fibreco Export Inc. (F.C.A.)(B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major JJ. /

Les juges La Forest, Cory et Major

Richard Donald Kostiuk

v. (25052)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

January 30, 1995

Provincial Court of Alberta

(Ayotte P.C.J.)

Conviction: driving "over 80"

Acquittal: impaired driving

June 4, 1995

Court of Queen's Bench (Beilby J.)

Summary conviction appeal dismissed

October 16, 1995

Court of Appeal of Alberta

(Lieberman, Belzil and Coté JJ.A.)

Motion for leave to challenge correctness of decision in Lorincz dismissed;

Application for leave to appeal adjourned

October 24, 1995

Court of Appeal of Alberta (Coté J.A.)

Leave to appeal denied

December 27, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

Criminal law - Procedural law - Certiorari - Did the lower courts err in dismissing the application for an order in the nature of certiorari - Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that challenges to the constitutional validity of four sections of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 , based on alleged violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , which were raised in an application for an order in the nature of certiorari, were premature.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

William Lasecki

v. (24983)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Offences - Definition of assault and sexual assault - Whether sexual assault committed in circumstances - Applicability of de minimis non curat lex.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et McLachlin

Hugh Fraser

v. (25027)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Right to silence - Credibility - Applicant not volunteering a statement to police - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that the right to silence is engaged at the time that an individual who subsequently becomes an accused is questioned by the police, such that a trier of fact is not entitled to draw an adverse inference against an accused for exercising the right to silence and not volunteering a statement to police - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to hold that, whether or not the right to silence is engaged, an individual has the right not to volunteer a statement to the police, such that the trier of fact is not entitled to draw an adverse inference against an accused for not volunteering a statement to police - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to hold that the trial judge erred by measuring the credibility of witnesses the use of a three-step "might reasonably be true" test which resulted in a shifting of the burden of proof to the Applicant.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

January 6, 1994

Ontario Court (General Division) (Valin J.)

Conviction: assault causing bodily harm contrary to s. 267(1) (b) of the Criminal Code 

September 5, 1995

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Lacourciere, Labrosse and Austin JJ.A)

Appeal dismissed

December 6, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

Odelia Irene Quewezance and

Neressa Lynn Quewezance

v. (25021)

Her Majesty The Queen (Sask.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Jury address - Whether it is proper for the trial judge to put the Vetrovec caution to the jury where the evidence of the impugned Crown witness also aids the accused - Whether it is proper to provide the jury with copies of Criminal Code  provisions, and if so, whether a warning should be given as to the limited use to be made of them - Whether trial judge’s redirection on definition of murder and manslaughter using layman’s language was proper given that judge’s example of manslaughter was far less violent than offence that occurred.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family law - Division of property - Divorce - Maintenance -Whether economic disadvantage arising from marriage or its breakdown is properly a support consideration, a property consideration or, subject to avoiding double compensation, both? - What is the appropriate evidentiary foundation for an order aimed at redressing economic disadvantage, or should such an order be the presumptive rule?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

July 22, 1994

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Koegnisberg J.)

Respondent awarded custody, spousal and child support and a disproportionate share of family assets

September 26, 1995

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Cumming, Wood and Ryan JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

November 27, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

February 1, 1996 / le 1 février 1996

CORAM: The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

Droit du travail - Employeur et employé - Convention collective - Interprétation - L'application d'une disposition d'une convention collective peut-elle être une cause juste et suffisante de congédiement au sens de l'art. 124 de la Loi sur les normes du travail, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. N-1.1? - Le syndicat peut-il renoncer au nom des salariés membres de l'unité de négociation au bénéfice d'une disposition d'ordre public, tel l'art. 124 de la Loi, conformément aux conditions établies par l'arrêt Garcia Transport Ltée c. Compagnie Trust Royal, [1992] 2 R.C.S. 499.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

CORAM: The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.

The application for leave to appeal and application for stay are dismissed with costs.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel et la demande d'arrêt des procédures sont rejetées avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Injunction - Division of powers - Apprehension of bias - Motion for stay of proceedings - Whether an applicant challenging the jurisdiction of a disciplinary tribunal on the basis of apprehension of bias, conflict of interest, and failure to comply with its own process, has recourse to the courts prior to submitting to the jurisdiction of the tribunal at first instance - Whether, where an administrative tribunal acts without jurisdiction, prerogative relief is precluded by the existence of a right of appeal - Is An Act to incorporate Canadian Institute of Actuaries, S.C. 1964-65, c. 76 ultra vires the Canadian Parliament - Canadian Pacific Limited et al. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.

The application for an extension of time for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

La demande de prorogation de délai pour une demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.

Administrative law - Judicial review - Procedural law - Law of professions - Barristers and solicitors - Statutes - Interpretation - Applicant found guilty of professional misconduct - When a professional society is given, by statute, the right to make punitive findings against a practising member and when the only redress from such a decision is an appeal to the Court of Appeal, is the Court of Appeal, in exercising its jurisdiction, bound by findings of fact where there is no identifiable evidence to support the findings of fact and when the society and the court have been challenged to identify the evidence of which the findings have allegedly been based and have failed to do so?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.

The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.

Les demandes d'autorisation d'appel sont rejetées avec dépens.

Procedural Law - Civil Procedure - Evidence - Summary Judgment - Whether a fiduciary or other special relationship existed between the litigants - Whether the Applicants have a fundamental right to have the merits of their claims heard by a trial judge - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting summary determinations of claims remaining to be litigated between the parties on the grounds of res judicata and issue estoppel - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in making credibility findings without affording the applicants the right to be tried by a trial judge.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Supreme Court of Canada

REQUÊTES



25.1.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

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

John Robert Verdun

v. (24604)

The Toronto-Dominion Bank (Ont.)

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

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

25.1.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Miscellaneous motion on appeal accepting appellant’s factum without marginal numbering

Manulife Bank of Canada

v. (24499)

John Joseph Conlin (Ont.)

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

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE



25.1.1996

Before / Devant: LE REGISTRAIRE

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

Century 21 Direct Courtier Inc.

c. (25028)

Michel Mailhot (Qué.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

25.1.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file the applicant’s reply

City of Prince George

v. (24966)

A.L. Sims & Sons Ltd. (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de dépôt de la réplique de la requérante

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

29.1.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

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

Yvan Morin

v. (24894)

Her Majesty The Queen (Sask.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

26.1.1996

W.W.D.S.

v. (24631)

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

J.C. Marc Richard and Christa A. Bourque, for the appellant.

John J. Walsh and Graham J. Sleeth, Q.C., for the respondent.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Criminal law - Evidence - Charter  - Seizures of hair, buccal swabs and tooth impressions - Seizures of tissue from a waste receptacle - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the seizure of the discarded tissue was not done in a manner which infringed or denied the Appellant's rights as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the evidence obtained in a manner which infringed or denied the Appellant's rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  should not be excluded pursuant to section 24(2) of the said Charter .

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel - Preuve - Charte  - Saisies de poils, d'écouvillons et d'empreintes dentaires - Saisie de papier hygiénique dans un panier à rebuts - La Cour d'appel à la majorité a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en statuant que la saisie de papier hygiénique jeté aux rebuts n'a pas été faite d'une manière qui violait ou niait les droits de l'appelant garantis par la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ? - La Cour d'appel à la majorité a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en statuant que la preuve obtenue d'une manière qui violait ou niait les droits et libertés de l'appelant garantis par la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  ne devrait pas être écartée en application de l'art. 24(2)  de la Charte ?

26.1.1996

Wendel Dewald

v. (24363)

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

Irwin Koziebrocki, for the appellant.

Rick Libman, for the respondent.

SOPINKA J.

LE JUGE SOPINKA

decision in R. v. Bernshaw, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254. As a result, there occurred a breach of the appellant's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .

conforme au par. 254(2)  du Code criminel , L.R.C. (1985), ch. C-46 , selon l'interprétation que la Cour en a donnée dans R. c. Bernshaw, [1995] 1 R.C.S. 254. En conséquence, il y a eu violation des droits garantis à l'appelant par la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés .

In the circumstances, the case of Rilling v. The Queen, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 183 has no application. With respect to s. 24(2), we are of the opinion that in all the circumstances, the admission of the evidence did not render the trial unfair. The breach of the Charter  was technical and the police officer acted in good faith. The admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Dans les circonstances, l'arrêt Rilling c. La Reine, [1976] 2 R.C.S. 183, ne s'applique pas. Pour ce qui est du par. 24(2)  de la Charte , nous sommes d'avis que, compte tenu de toutes les circonstances, l'utilisation de la preuve n'a pas rendu le procès inéquitable. La violation de la Charte  était de pure forme et le policier a agi de bonne foi. L'utilisation n'est pas susceptible de déconsidérer l'administration de la justice.

The appeal is dismissed.

Le pourvoi est rejeté.

29.1.1996

Stephen Edward Fitt

v. (24628)

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

and between

Spyro Kouyas

v. (24513)

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

Ralph W. Ripley, for the appellants.

Kenneth W.E. Fiske, Q.C. and Peter G. MacKay, for the respondent.

Monique Rousseau et Gilles Laporte, pour l’intervenant le procureur général du Québec.

These appeals come to us as of right. The appeals are dismissed, substantially for the reasons given by Mr. Justice Hallett.

Les présents pourvois, qui nous ont été présentés de plein droit, sont rejetés, essentiellement pour les motifs formulés par le juge Hallett.

30.1.1996

Donald Leo R.

v. (24766)

Her Majesty The Queen

and between

Donald George W.

v.

Her Majesty The Queen

and between

Helen Susan R.

v.

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

Roger J. Kergoat, for the appellant Donald Leo R.

John D. Hillson, for the appellant Helen Susan R.

Donald L. MacKinnon, for the appellant Donald George W.

Kenneth W. MacKay, Q.C., for the respondent.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

LE JUGE EN CHEF

In the case of D.R. and H.R., the appeal is allowed and a new trial is ordered. Dissenting, Justice L’Heureux-Dubé would dismiss.

Dans l’affaire D.R. et H.R., le pourvoi est accueilli et un nouveau procès est ordonné. Dissidente, le juge L’Heureux-Dubé rejetterait le pourvoi.

Reasons to follow.

Motifs à suivre.

31.1.1996

Sinnadurai Paramadevan et al.

v. (24325)

Bernard Semelhago (Ont.)

John Swan and Barbra H. Miller, for the appellants.

Martin Scliszizi and Orlando Da Silva, for the respondent.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Commercial law - Contracts - Damages - Whether a plaintiff can recover more for breach of contract than he would have made had the contract been performed

Nature de la cause:

Droit commercial - Contrats - Dommages-intérêts - Relativement à un manquement à un contrat, un plaignant peut-il recouvrer plus que le montant auquel il aurait eu droit s'il y avait eu exécution du contrat?

31.1.1996

Her Majesty The Queen

v. (24486)

Norman Rolland Austin (Crim.)(B.C.)

Wendy Rubin, for the appellant.

Christine Birnie, for the respondent.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

LE JUGE EN CHEF

1.2.1996

Prince Rupert Grain Ltd.

v. (24428)

International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, Ship and Dock Foremen, Local 514 et al. (F.C.A.)(B.C.)

R. Alan Francis, for the appellant.

Peter A. Gall, Maryse Tremblay and Andrea Zwack, for the respondent Canadian Labour Relations Board.

Bruce Laughton, for the respondent International Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Labour law - Administrative law - Judicial review - Certification - Jurisdiction - Interpretation -Application of s. 33 of the Canada Labour Code - International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Ship and

Nature de la cause:

Droit du travail - Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Accréditation - Compétence - Interprétation - Application de l'art. 33 du Code canadien du travail - Rejet par le Conseil canadien des relations du travail de la demande d'accréditation pour un groupe de

Dock Foremen, Local 514, application for certification for a unit of foremen employed by the Appellant dismissed by the Canada Labour Relations Board - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal's finding that the Board could not certify a larger unit without the union's consent deprived the Board from holding that the smaller unit applied for was inappropriate - Whether the Board has the authority to decide that a bargaining unit relating to a single employer is inappropriate and that a multi-employer unit is the appropriate unit?

contremaîtres employés par l'appelante, présentée par le Syndicat international des débardeurs et magasiniers, Ship and Dock Foremen, section locale 514 - La conclusion de la Cour d'appel fédérale que le Conseil ne pouvait accréditer une unité plus grande sans le consentement du syndicat empêchait-elle le Conseil de décider que l'unité plus restreinte proposée n'était pas appropriée? - Le Conseil a-t-il compétence pour décider qu'une unité de négociation relative à un employeur unique n'est pas appropriée et qu'une unité multipatronale l'est?

AGENDA for the week beginning February 5, 1996.

ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 5 février 1996.

Date of Hearing

Date d'audition

NOTE: