Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

November 14, 1997  2009 - 2041                                                       le 14 novembre 1997

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Steven Olah

Irwin Koziebrocki

v. (26280)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

Catherine Cooper

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 3.11.1997

NOVEMBER 7, 1997 / LE 7 NOVEMBRE 1997

                                                   CORAM:  Chief Justice Lamer and Cory and McLachin JJ. /

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Cory et McLachlin

                                                                                    The Minister of Justice

                                                                                                v. (26129)

                                                     Glen Sebastian Burns and Atif Ahmad Rafay (Crim.)(B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Extradition - Mobility Rights - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that in the absence of assurances that the requesting state would not seek the death penalty the surrender of the Respondent would violate their rights under s. 6(1)  of the Charter  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister failed to properly exercise his discretion in deciding not to seek assurances that the requesting state would not seek the death penalty.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                 Glen Sebastian Burns and Atif Ahmad Rafay

                                                                                                v. (26211)

                                                                  The United States of America (Crim.)(B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Extradition - Police - Confessions - Whether the extradition judge erred in finding the confessions of the Applicant to be voluntary in law.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                     Nicholas Yvon Bonamy

                                                                                                v. (26247)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Theft - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that it was not suggested that the requisite animus furandi was not made beyond a reasonable doubt - Whether the Court of Appeal erred when qualifying its decision by applying s. 683(1)(g) in the alternative.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                       Wellington Insurance Company / La Compagnie d’Assurance Wellington

                                                                                                v. (26220)

John Grayson, Joan Costello-Grayson, S.E.E. Electronic Engineering Inc.

and Quantum Marketing International Ltd. (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Insurance - Contracts - Interpretation - “Advertising injury” - Does coverage for advertising injury in a commercial liability insurance policy afford indemnity when the advertising activity was not the direct and proximate cause of the underlying complaint, but merely contributed to the injury resulting from a copyright and patent infringement - Did the British Columbia Court of Appeal err in asking whether there was a “possibility” that the claim, as pleaded, was within the coverage of the policy rather than determining, on the balance of probabilities, in an objective and retrospective manner, whether the case, as concluded, is within the coverage of the policy?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Bastarache JJ. /

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache

                                                       Suzie Lebel et Jean Morneau, tous deux faisant affaires

sous les nom et raison sociale de Les immeubles L.M. Enr.

                                                                                                c. (25958)

                                                                                Banque nationale du Canada

et

Noëlla Boisvert, Bernard Morneau et

Jean Boucher, ès qualité d’officier du registre foncier du bureau de 

la publicité des droits de la circonscription foncière de Sherbrooke (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Banques - Hypothèques - Code civil - Dommages-intérêts - Abus de droit contractuel - Action de l’intimée en dation en paiement accueillie - Demande reconventionnelle des demandeurs en dommages moraux pour abus de droit accueillie en partie - Appel des demandeurs rejeté - Appel incident de l’intimée quant à la demande reconventionnelle accueillie, demande reconventionnelle rejetée - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en refusant d’appliquer les principes de l’arrêt Houle c. Banque Nationale du Canada, [1990] 3 R.C.S. 122, au transport de loyer en matière de convention de prêt hypothécaire?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

                                                                                         Donald C. Loiselle

                                                                                                c. (26070)

                                                                                Société Canada Trust (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail - Employeur et employé - Association - Contrats - Dommages-intérêts - Refus du demandeur, agent d’immeuble, de signer le contrat d’emploi préparé par l’intimée au motif que certaines clauses lui paraissent abusives - Intimée mettant fin à leur association - Action du demandeur intentée contre l’intimée lui réclamant une indemnité à titre de délai congé, des commissions non payées et des dommages-intérêts - Action rejetée par la Cour supérieure et la Cour d’appel.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

                                                                                         Donald C. Loiselle

                                                                                                c. (26105)

                                                                          Sa Majesté la Reine (C.A.F.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Appel - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle erré en rejetant la requête du demandeur visant à obtenir la nomination d’un procureur?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 18 décembre 1996

Cour fédérale du Canada, section

de première instance (Denault j.)

Requête de l’intimée visant à faire radier la déclaration du demandeur au motif qu’elle ne révèle aucune cause raisonnable d’action accueillie; action du demandeur rejetée

Le 5 mai 1997                                        

Cour d’appel fédérale (Décary j.c.a.)

Requête du demandeur visant la nomination d’office d’un procureur compétent et intègre pour le représenter rejetée

Le 2 juillet 1997

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

                                                                                            Yvette de L’Isle

                                                                                                v. (26190)

                                     La succession de feu Jochem Carton and Notrac Investments Limited (Qué.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Civil Code - Commercial law - Contracts - Creditor & debtor - Partnership - Unjust enrichment - Property law - Estates - Family law - Should a woman involved in a quasi-matrimonial relationship be without any recourse at the end of such relationship? - Does public policy support that a quasi-matrimonial relationship give rise to an enforceable obligation? - Once an undertaking or promise of compensation is legally proven in a court of law, does the nature of the personal relationship make the undertaking unenforceable? - Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the Applicant had no legal remedy to enforce her claim? - Do the theories of unconscionability, unjust enrichment or equity apply to quasi-matrimonial relationships?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM: Sopinka, Iacobucci and Major JJ. /

Les juges Sopinka, Iacobucci et Major

                                                                                    Her Majesty the Queen

                                                                                                v. (26064)

                                                                   Nova Corporation of Alberta (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Use of rollover provisions of the Income Tax Act to move unrealized capital losses between arm’s length corporations through changes of corporate control - Whether transactions unduly or artificially reduced income.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

June 8, 1995

Tax Court of Canada (Bell J.)

Appeal of 1985 taxation year assessment allowed

May 1, 1997

Federal Court of Appeal

(Marceau, McDonald and Desjardins JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

July 24, 1997

Supreme Court of Canada (Cory J.)

Extension of time for leave to appeal granted

September 22, 1997

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

                                                                                  Carousel Travel 1982 Inc.

                                                                                                v. (26162)

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

AND BETWEEN:

                                                                     Central Supply Company (1972) Limited

                                                                                                v. (26164)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Short term purchases of partnership units to flow cumulative Canadian exploration expenses through to purchasers as deductions from income - Whether transactions unduly or artificially reduced income of purchasers.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

ROBERT LOVELACE, on his own behalf and on behalf of the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation and Allies, the ARDOCH ALGONQUIN FIRST NATION AND ALLIES, and CHIEF KRIS  NAHRGANG, on behalf of Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation, the KAWARTHA NISHNAWBE FIRST NATION, CHIEF ROY MEANISS on his own behalf and on behalf of the Beaverhouse First Nation, and the BEAVERHOUSE FIRST NATION, CHIEF THERON MCCRADY on his own behalf and on behalf of the POPLAR POINT OJIBWAY FIRST NATION, and the BONNECHERE MÉTIS ASSOCIATION

- and -

BE-WAB-BON MÉTIS AND NON-STATUS INDIAN ASSOCIATION and ONTARIO MÉTIS ABORIGINAL ASSOCIATION

                                                                                                v. (26165)

                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO and THE CHIEFS OF ONTARIO (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional law - Canadian Charter  - Civil - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Section 15 - Indians - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the agreement between Ontario and Ontario’s Indian Bands registered pursuant to the Indian Act to develop the Casino Rama project does not discriminate against the Applicants who were excluded from negotiations and participation in the project - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that Ontario’s decision not to include the Applicants in the Casino Rama project does not violate s.91(24)  of the Constitution Act, 1867 .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -- REHEARING /

DEMANDE DE RÉEXAMEN -- NOUVELLE AUDITION

CORAM: Gonthier, Major and Bastarache JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Major et Bastarache

Bara Academy of Business Sciences Ltd. et al. v. Her Majesty The Queen in right of Alberta et al. (Alta.)(26036)

Bara Academy of Business Sciences Ltd. et al. v. Her Majesty The Queen in right of Alberta et al. (Alta.)(26037)

NOVEMBER 13, 1997 / LE 13 NOVEMBRE 1997

26076                    W. LEE HUCK - v. - KOMOL PLASTICS CO. LTD. (B.C.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Cory and McLachlin JJ.

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

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Arbitration - Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in determining that the Applicant did not have the right to a new arbitration hearing, on grounds of breach of rules of natural justice, bias, and fundamental denial to be heard.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26229                    M.S. - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(B.C.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Cory and McLachlin JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Applicant applying for habeas corpus following conviction while appeal was pending - Whether Supreme Court of British Columbia is a court of competent jurisdiction, to hear and decide the application for relief under s. 10(c)  of the Charter  by an individual who is in custody in violation of ss. 7 , 9 , 11(d)  and (f) of the Charter  - Whether the Court of Appeal should have sat as five to reconsider its decision in the conviction appeal on the question of ineligible juror - Whether the principle of res judicata applies given delay - Whether habeas corpus should be denied simply because the applicant has meanwhile been released from prison but is still subject to statutory restraints on his liberty until warrant expiry on March 16, 1999 -Whether the applicant’s constitutional and statutory rights to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal, a jury, was violated rendering the trial court coram non judice.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26196                    GILBERT TERRY GENAILLE - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Man.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Cory and McLachlin JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Right to remain silent - Whether s. 7 or s. 11(c) of the Charter  require the authorities to advise an arrestee of his or her constitutional right to remain silent and if so what words must be used or ideas conveyed in informing the arrestee of this right.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

August 21, 1996

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

Conviction: Armed robbery and wearing a disguise

June 19, 1997

Manitoba Court of Appeal

(Philp, Helper, Monnin JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

September 18, 1997

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

26159                    STEWART LESTER EGGLESTON - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(B.C.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Cory and McLachlin JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Defences - Self-defence - Whether the trial judge correctly charged the jury with respect to the defence of self-defence - Whether the trial judge erred in charging the jury on s. 41  of the Criminal Code  (defence of house or real property) - Whether the trial judge erred in charging the jury on the Liquor Control and Licensing Act - Assignment of counsel - Whether the Applicant should have legal assistance with respect to his application for leave to appeal and any subsequent appeal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26077                    TOD MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT LTD. - v. - BRUCE DEILDAL (B.C.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Cory and McLachlin JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Commercial law - Contracts - Damages - Wrongful dismissal - Can an employee recover damages for an increased notice entitlement or aggravated damages in a wrongful dismissal case where the loss complained of flows from statements made by the employer well after the employee is terminated? - Can an employee recover damages for loss of reputation in a wrongful dismissal case, under the rubric of an increased notice entitlement or aggravated damages? - Vorvis v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1085.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26160                    THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF LANGLEY - v. - T & T MUSHROOM FARM LTD. AND THE COALITION OF CONCERNED CITIZENS OF LANGLEY (B.C.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Cory and McLachlin JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Municipal law - Zoning by-law - Property law - Whether the Court of Appeal must specifically find palpable and overriding error before allowing an appeal based on findings of fact - Where a court is to determine a question of a permitted use under a municipality’s zoning by-law, may that court review practices outside the municipality - If regulations made pursuant to provincial legislation conflict with validly enacted zoning by-laws, which is to take precedence?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26099                    BUDDY LEE v. THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION and THE BRITISH COLUMBIA MARITIME EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION (F.C.A.)(B.C.)

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

The application for an oral hearing and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.

La demande pour une audition et la demande d'autorisation d'appel sont rejetées avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Evidence - Whether impressionistic evidence was relied upon to prove a bona fide occupational requirement - Whether Guidelines issued under section 27(2) of the Canadian Human Rights Act were revoked retroactively or could have been relied upon in the absence of a reference to the Guidelines in a Notice of Appeal - Whether the use of the word “misfit” was discriminatory.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26153                    THOMAS WILLIAM ZEGIL v. DIANE CAROL OPIE (Ont.)

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

The application for leave to appeal and the application for leave to cross-appeal are dismissed with costs.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel et la demande d’autorisation d’appel incident sont rejetées avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Real property - Remedies - Gift of one-half interest in real property held as joint tenants - Change in donor’s intention - Subsequent enhancement of real property by donor - What is the effect of the change of intention on completion of a gift - What is the effect of the change of intention on the availability of equitable relief in relation to real property transferred by way of gift - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider the donor’s lack of intent to enhance the gift or the incomplete nature of the gift - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in characterizing the Respondent’s interest in the real property - Whether the Court of Appeal failed to apply or improperly applied principles of equitable relief or unjust enrichment in refusing the Applicant a remedy against the claim to a one-half interest in the real property.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26142                    P.H.D.L. HOLDINGS LIMITED, PAUL LARKIN, CAVENDISH MARINA & BEACH RESORT INC., DALE C. LARKIN, LORNA LARKIN, CHEZ YVONNE LTD., and LINDA LARKIN v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (F.C.A.)(P.E.I.)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Standard of Review - Application of Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v. Southam Inc., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748 - Whether appellate court erred by not applying appropriate standard of review.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

May 5, 1997

Federal Court of Appeal

(Isaac C.J., Stone and MacDonald JJ.A.)

Application for judicial review dismissed

August 6, 1997

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25904                    LÉGER DUCHESNE c. JEAN GIASSON (Qué.)

CORAM:               Les juges L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache

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

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

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit municipal - Municipalités - Contrats - Preuve - Adjudication d’un contrat par voie de soumissions publiques - Travaux supplémentaires exécutés sur l’ordre du demandeur, maire de la municipalité - Le demandeur a-t-il contrevenu à l’art. 935 du Code municipal du Québec, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. C-27.1? - Le juge Beauregard de la Cour d’appel a-t-il erré en substituant son opinion à celle du juge de première instance relativement à la crédibilité des témoins? - Le juge Nuss de la Cour d’appel a-t-il erré en interprétant les conditions donnant ouverture à une déclaration d’inhabilité à exercer une charge municipale en vertu de l’art. 935? - Dans l’affirmative, ces erreurs ont-elles eu pour effet de porter atteinte irrégulièrement au droit du demandeur de continuer à exercer la charge de maire?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

26145                    MARILYN WILLIAMS c. SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE (Crim.)(Qué.)

CORAM:               Les juges L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Police - Preuve - La Cour d’appel  a erré en droit en concluant que l’initiation et la commission d’actes indécents par la police ne déconsidèrent pas l’administration de la justice de manière à ordonner un arrêt des procédures à l’encontre des personnes qui furent arrêtées en tout ou en partie conséquemment à l’initiation et à la commission des actes indécents par la police - La Cour du Québec a erré en droit en concluant que l’intérêt public est servi en tolérant l’initiation et la commission d’actes indécents par des policiers au cours d’enquêtes servant à identifier des maisons de débauche - La Cour du Québec a erré en droit en statuant que la commission de ces actes illégaux et indécents par les policiers ne constitue pas une violation des droits de l’accusé protégés par les articles 7 et 11 d) de la Charte , même si le comportement des policiers ne constitue pas de la provocation policière traditionnelle telle qu’énoncé par cette Cour dans R. c. Mack et R. c. Barnes.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

26149                    MICHAEL JOHN MERCURY v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF MANITOBA (Man.)

CORAM:               Sopinka, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Municipal law - Expropriation - Assessment - Statutes - Interpretation - Whether the Court of Appeal misapplied the “palpable and overriding error” test with respect to findings of fact made by the trial judge - Whether section 27(2)(b) of the Expropriation Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. E190 prevent a trier of fact from taking into account the advantages or disadvantages to the expropriated property resulting from prior expropriations of other properties in the area?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26127                    EDDIE MCDOWALL v. TAMARA TERRY-ANNE SHOWDRA AND SYLVIA KIESSLING (Ont.)

CORAM:               Sopinka, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

The application for extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed without costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Motor vehicles - Damages - Loss of income - Respondent admitting liability for motor vehicle accident - Applicant representing self at jury trial and consenting to abandon action against Respondent, Kiessling, and to limit claim for damages to Applicant’s alleged financial loss flowing from two year delay in marketing of compact disk as a result of injuries sustained in accident - Jury concluding that Respondent suffered no financial loss as a result of the marketing delay -Procedural law - Trial - Applicant appealing dismissal of action on grounds that trial judge failed to adequately protect his interests by not advising jury of offer to settle,  Respondent’s liability and loss of income - Whether trial judge erred in advising jury of monetary amount of the Applicant’s claim - Whether Applicant abandoned his right to argue other heads of damage - Whether Court of Appeal properly considered discussion concerning acceptance or rejection of offer to settle.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

February 28, 1995

26096                    DR. FELIX RAVIKOVICH v. THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO (Ont.)

CORAM:               Sopinka, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Physicians and surgeons - Professional misconduct - Whether the Divisional Court applied the proper standard for judicial review - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in refusing to grant leave to appeal when it upheld the decision of the Discipline Committee that an error of judgment was equivalent to professional misconduct.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

July 22, 1996

Ontario Court of Justice (Divisional Court)

(O’Brien, Then, Winkler JJ.)

Applicant’s appeal from the Discipline Committee’s decision and penalty dismissed

November 4, 1996

Ontario Court of Appeal (Moldaver J.A.)

Applicant’s motion dismissed

January 28, 1997

Ontario Court of Appeal (Goudge J.A.)

Applicant’s motion dismissed

March 4, 1997

Ontario Court of Appeal

(Robins, Labrosse, Doherty JJ.A.)

Applicant’s motions dismissed

April 22, 1997

Ontario Court of Appeal

(Rosenberg, Southey JJ.A., McMurtry C.J.)

Applicant’s motion for leave to appeal dismissed

June 20, 1997

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

7.11.1997

Before / Devant: L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ J.

Motion to extend the time in which to apply for leave

Steven Olah

    v. (26280)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

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

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to November 3, 1997.

10.11.1997

Before / Devant: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER

Motion to extend the time for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Manitoba

IN/DANS:              Joseph Ronald Winko

v. (25856)

The Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute et al. (B.C.)

                                                and

Gordon Wayne Bese

v. (25855)

The Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute et al.  (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour obtenir l’autorisation d’intervenir

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to October 28, 1997.

10.11.1997

Before / Devant: L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ J.

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

J. Juniour

    v. (26282)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

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

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to January 12, 1997.

12.11.1997

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondents’ response

Corporation of the Town of Wasaga Beach

    v. (26102)

Murray M. Sinclair et al. (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer la réponse des intimés

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to October 31, 1997.

12.11.1997

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file the factum of an intervener

BC Gas Utility Ltd.

    v. (25259)

West Coast Energy Inc. (B.C.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to November 3, 1997.

12.11.1997

Before / Devant: L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ J.

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

Canadian Mobile Sign Association et al.

    v. (26277)

Corporation of the City of Burlington et al. (Ont.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to December 5, 1997.

12.11.1997

Before / Devant: LE JUGE L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Olymel, Société en commandite

IN/DANS:              2903113 Canada Inc.

c. (26256)

La Régie des marchés agricoles et alimentaires du Québec (Qué.)

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

7.11.1997

M.J.B. Enterprises Ltd.

   v. (25975)

Defence Construction (1951) Ltd. et al. (Alta.)

12.11.1997

Florent Des Champs

    c.  (25898)

Conseil des écoles séparées catholiques de langue française de Prescott-Russell et al. (Ont.)

12.11.1997

Alfred Abouchar

    c. (25899)

Conseil scolaire de langue française d’Ottawa-Carleton - Section publique et al. (Ont.)

12.11.1997

Donald John Marshall, Jr.

    v. (26014)

Her Majesty The Queen (N.S.)

12.11.1997

Royal Bank of Canada

    v. (26081)

W. Got & Associates Electric Ltd. et al. (Alta.)

12.11.1997

Gail Taylor-Jacobi et al.

   v. (26041)

Boys’ and Girls’ Club of Vernon et al. (Ont.)

12.11.1997

Sail Labrador Ltd.

     v. (26083)

The Owners, Navimar Corp. Ltee and all others interested in the Ship “Challenge One” (F.C.A.)

12.11.1997

Attorney General of Canada

    v. (25944)

Canadianoxy Chemicals Ltd. et al. (B.C.)

12.11.1997

Vincent Godoy

   v. (26078)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

AS OF RIGHT

12.11.1997

Gaétan Delisle

    v. (25926)

The Attorney General of Canada (Qué.)

AS OF RIGHT / DE PLEIN DROIT

6.11.1997

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

Nelson M. Skalbania

    v. (25539)

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

Leonard T. Doust, Q.C. and Peter Leask, Q.C., for the appellant.

Teresa R. Mitchell-Banks, for the respondent.

Robert Frater and Chantal Proulx, for the intervenr the A.G. of Canada.

M. David Lepofsky, for the intervener the A.G. of Ontario.

Jacques Gauvin, pour l’intervenant le procureur général du Québec.

No one appearing for the intervener the A.G. of Alberta.

McLACHLIN J. (orally for the Court) -- We would all dismiss the appeal.

The appellant raises four issues.

LE JUGE McLACHLIN (oralement au nom de la Cour) -- Nous sommes tous d’avis de rejeter l’appel.

L’appelant a soulevé quatre questions.

The first issue is whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.  The appellant argues that the trial judge’s conclusion that he lacked the intention (or mens rea) required for the offence is a finding of fact.  Since appeals lie only on questions of law, it follows, he argues, that there can be no appeal from his acquittal by the trial judge.

La première question est de savoir si la Cour d’appel avait compétence pour entendre l’appel en l’espèce.  L’appelant fait valoir que la conclusion du juge du procès selon laquelle il n’avait pas l’intention (ou mens rea) requise pour commettre l’infraction est une conclusion de fait.  Vu que les appels ne peuvent porter que sur une question de droit, il s’ensuit, selon lui, que son acquittement par le juge du procès ne peut pas faire l’objet d’un appel.

This argument fails on the ground that the issue raised in the Court of Appeal (and  this Court) was not a question of fact, but an issue of law:  namely what mental state or mens rea suffices to establish guilt under s. 332(1)  of the Criminal Code ,   R.S.C., 1985, c .  C-46 .  The issue is whether the trial judge erred in law in holding that to convict there must be “an intent to steal”, and consequently in acquitting the appellant.

Cet argument échoue pour le motif que la question soulevée en Cour d’appel (et devant notre Cour) était non pas une question de fait, mais une question de droit:  il s’agissait de savoir quel élément moral ou mens rea suffit pour établir la culpabilité en vertu du par. 332(1)  du Code criminel , L.R.C. (1985), ch. C-46 .  La question est de savoir si le juge du procès a commis une erreur de droit en statuant que, pour prononcer une déclaration de culpabilité, il doit y avoir [traduction] «une intention de voler», et par conséquent, en acquittant l’appelant.

It follows that the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Il s’ensuit que la Cour d’appel avait compétence pour entendre l’appel.

The second issue concerns the mens rea required for conviction under s. 332(1).  We agree with Rowles J.A. in the British Columbia Court of Appeal that an intentional misappropriation, without mistake, suffices to establish mens rea under s. 332(1):  see Lafrance v. The Queen, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 201; R. v. Williams, [1953] 1 Q.B. 660 (C.A.).  The word “fraudulently”, as used in this section, connotes no more than this.  The dishonesty inherent in the offence lies in the intentional and unmistaken application of funds to an improper purpose.

We also agree with Rowles J.A. that the findings of fact of the trial judge establish both the actus reus and mens rea of the offence.  The actus reus is not in issue.  On mens rea, the trial judge concluded:

La deuxième question concerne la mens rea requise pour prononcer une déclaration de culpabilité en vertu du par. 332(1).  Nous sommes d’accord avec le juge Rowles de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie-Britannique pour dire qu’un détournement intentionnel, et non par erreur, est suffisant pour établir la mens rea requise en vertu du par. 332(1):  voir Lafrance c. La Reine, [1975] 2 R.C.S. 201; R. c. Williams, [1953] 1 Q.B. 660 (C.A.).  Le mot «frauduleusement» utilisé dans ce paragraphe ne connote rien de plus  La malhonnêteté inhérente à l’infraction réside dans l’affectation intentionnelle, et non par erreur, de fonds à une fin irrégulière.

Nous sommes également d’accord avec le juge Rowles pour dire que les conclusions de fait du juge du procès établissent l’existence à la fois de l’actus reus et de la mens rea de l’infraction.  L’actus reus n’est pas en cause. Quant à la mens rea, le juge du procès a conclu ceci:

I find that Mr. Skalbania was at all material times the controlling mind of Prime Realty Limited, to whom Mr. Gooch’s cheque was paid.  I find that Mr. Skalbania through Prime Realty applied Gooch’s money for a purpose other than that directed by Mr. Gooch.

In short, the trial judge found:  that the appellant knew that the money belonged to Mr. Gooch; that the appellant knew the purpose to which the money was supposed to be applied; and that the appellant knowingly, without mistake, applied the money to different purposes.

[traduction] Je conclus que M. Skalbania était, à toute époque pertinente, l’âme dirigeante de Prime Realty Limited, à qui le chèque de M. Gooch a été versé.  Je conclus que M. Skalbania a, par l’intermédiaire de Prime Realty, affecté l’argent de Gooch à une autre fin que celle prescrite par ce dernier.

Bref, le juge du procès a conclu que l’appelant savait que l’argent appartenait à M. Gooch, que l’appelant savait à quelle fin l’argent était censé être affecté, et que l’appelant a sciemment, et non par erreur, affecté cet argent à d’autres fins.

It follows that the Court of Appeal did not err in concluding that the elements required for conviction were established.           

Il s’ensuit que la Cour d’appel n’a commis aucune erreur en statuant que l’existence des éléments nécessaires pour prononcer une déclaration de culpabilité avait été établie.

The third issue is whether s. 686(4) (b)(ii) of the Criminal Code , which permits a Court of Appeal to substitute a guilty verdict for an acquittal on a trial by a judge sitting alone, but not on a trial by a judge and jury, is unconstitutional.

La troisième question soulevée a trait à la constitutionnalité du sous-al. 686(4) b)(ii) du Code criminel , qui permet à une cour d’appel de substituer un verdict de culpabilité à l’acquittement prononcé à la suite d’un procès devant un juge seul, mais non à la suite d’un procès devant un juge et un jury.

The appellant argues that s. 686(4)(b)(ii) violates the s. 7  Charter  right not to be deprived of one’s liberty except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for two related reasons:  (1) that permitting the substitution of a conviction in cases where the trial was by judge alone but not where it was by judge and jury, is arbitrary; and (2) that this is contrary to the alleged principle of fundamental justice that criminal proceedings must be consistent.

L’appelant soutient que le sous-al. 686(4)b)(ii) viole le droit, garanti par l’art. 7  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libert é s , de n’être privé de liberté qu’en conformité avec les principes de justice fondamentale, et ce, pour deux raisons connexes:  (1) parce qu’il est arbitraire de permettre la substitution d’un verdict de culpabilité dans les cas où le procès s’est déroulé devant un juge seul, mais non dans ceux où il s’est déroulé devant un juge et un jury, et (2), parce que cela est contraire au principe de justice fondamentale qui prescrirait la cohérence des procédures criminelles.

In our view, the impugned distinction is neither arbitrary nor inconsistent and does not trammel the s. 7 guarantee of fair process.

There is a distinction between trial by judge alone and trial by judge and jury that justifies the different procedures.  Judges sitting alone give reasons that can be examined for findings of fact and errors of law.  Juries, by contrast, do not give reasons.  It cannot, therefore, be known if the jury has made the findings of fact necessary to support a conviction.  For this reason, the Court of Appeal cannot substitute a conviction for the acquittal and a new trial must be held.

We conclude that s. 686(4)(b)(ii) does not violate s. 7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .

The final issue raised by the appellant is whether he was entitled to be sentenced by the judge who presided at trial.  Since that judge had retired at the time of the Court of Appeal’s decision, sentence was passed by a new judge.

À notre avis, la distinction contestée n’est ni arbitraire ni incohérente et n’entrave pas la garantie d’équité procédurale prévue à l’art. 7.

Il y a, entre le procès devant un juge seul et le procès devant un juge et un jury, une différence qui justifie les différentes procédures.  Les juges siégeant seuls exposent des motifs que l’on peut examiner pour trouver des conclusions de fait ou des erreurs de droit.  Par contre, les jurys n’exposent aucun motif.  Il est donc impossible de savoir si le jury a tiré les conclusions de fait nécessaires pour justifier une déclaration de culpabilité.  Pour cette raison, la Cour d’appel ne saurait substituer une déclaration de culpabilité à l’acquittement et un nouveau procès doit être tenu.

Nous concluons que le sous-al. 686(4)b)(ii) ne viole pas l’art. 7  de la Charte .

La dernière question soulevée par l’appelant est de savoir s’il avait droit à la détermination de sa peine par le juge qui a présidé le procès.  Vu que ce juge avait pris sa retraite à l’époque de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel, la peine a été imposée par un nouveau juge.

In our view, there is no merit in this submission.  Section 686(4)(b)(ii) provides that the case be remitted to the “trial court”, not the “trial judge”.  Section 669.2 confirms this.  The constitutionality of these provisions in relation to whether a particular judge can pass sentence was not challenged.  Any other system would be unworkable.  We note, without prejudice to any outstanding proceedings in relation to sentence, that transcripts of the trial were available and the hearing occupied three days.

Selon nous, cet argument n’est pas fondé.  Le sous-al. 686(4)b)(ii) prévoit que l’affaire  doit être renvoyée au «tribunal de première instance» et non pas au «juge de première instance».  L’article 669.2 le confirme.  La constitutionnalité de ces dispositions n’a pas été contestée relativement à la question de savoir si un juge en particulier peut imposer une peine.  Tout autre système serait impossible à appliquer.  Nous soulignons, sans préjudice de toutes procédures en cours en matière de peine, que la transcription du procès était disponible et que l’audience a duré trois jours.

In conclusion, we are unable to accept any of the grounds of appeal advanced by the appellant.  We would dismiss the appeal, affirm the conviction, and answer the constitutional question in the negative.

En conclusion, il nous est impossible d’accepter l’un ou l’autre moyen d’appel avancé par l’appelant.  Nous sommes d’avis de rejeter l’appel, de confirmer la déclaration de culpabilité et de répondre par la négative à la question constitutionnelle.

7.11.1997

CORAM:               Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci et Bastarache

L.S.L.

   c. (25894)

C.S. (Qué.)

André Carbonneau, pour l’appelante.

Gerald D. Chipeur et Barbara B. Johnston, for the intervener the Seventh-Day Adventist Church.

Pierre-Yves Morin, pour l’intimé.

L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ J. (orally) -- In cases involving the best interest of a child, we feel that it is appropriate to render judgment as soon as possible.  We are ready to render judgment now.

LE JUGE L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ (oralement) --  Dans les affaires soulevant la question du meilleur intérêt de l’enfant, nous estimons qu’il convient de rendre jugement le plus tôt possible.  Nous sommes maintenant prêts à le faire.

Under the jurisprudence of this Court in these matters, the test is the best interest of the child.  In the circumstances of this case, given the evidence before us, we are not satisfied that the best interest of the child has been compromised by the practices of the custodial parent.

En vertu de la jurisprudence de la Cour, le test est le meilleur intérêt de l’enfant dans ces matières.  Dans les circonstances de l’espèce, vue la preuve devant nous,  nous sommes satisfaits que le meilleur intérêt de l’enfant n’a pas été compromis par les pratiques du parent gardien.

Consequently, we are all of the view to allow this appeal in part, to quash the judgment of the Court of Appeal to modify the custody order rendered by the trial judge on June 9, 1995, to the extent of removing the restrictions imposed upon the appellant as regards the activities which she is entitled to do with or in the presence of her child.  As for the balance of the order, the access rights of the Respondent are maintained as ordered by the trial judge.

En conséquence, nous sommes tous d’avis d’accueillir en partie le pourvoi de l’appelante, d’infirmer en partie l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel, et de modifier l’ordonnance de garde prononcée par le juge de première instance le 9 juin 1995 afin de supprimer les restrictions imposées à l’appelante quant aux activités qu’elle peut faire avec ou en présence de son enfant.  Quant au reste, les droits d’accès et de sortie de l’intimé sont maintenus tels que déterminés par le juge de première instance.

Each party to pay its costs throughout.

Chaque partie payant ses frais devant toutes les cours.

7.11.1997

CORAM:               Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci et Bastarache

Claude Labrecque

   c. (25651)

Sa Majesté La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

Gervais Labrecque et Louise Plamondon, pour l’appelant.

Robert Parrot, pour l’intimée.

LE JUGE L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ (oralement au nom de la Cour) -- Ceci est un appel de plein droit.  Nous sommes tous d’avis de rejeter l’appel essentiellement pour les motifs de Madame le juge Rousseau-Houle auxquels la Cour d’appel du Québec a souscrit à l’unanimité.  Le pourvoi est donc rejeté.

L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ J. (orally for the Court) -- This is an appeal as of right.  We are all of the view that the appeal should be dismissed essentially for the reasons given by Madam Justice Rousseau-Houle, in which the Quebec Court of Appeal unanimously concurred.  The appeal is therefore dismissed.

10.11.1997

CORAM:               Chief Justice Lamer and L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Major and Bastarache JJ.

Terence Lawrence Caslake

    v. (25023)

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

John A. MacIver and Donald Neil MacIver, for the appellant.

David G. Frayer, Q.C. and Clyde R. Bond, for the respondent.

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

Maurice Galarneau et Gilles Laporte, pour l’intervenant le procureur général du Québec.

William D. Delaney, for the intervener the A.G. of Nova Scotia.

Graham J. Sleeth, Q.C., for the intervener the A.G. of New Brunswick.

Gregory J. Fitch, for the intervener the A.G. of British Columbia.

No one appearing for the intervener the A.G. of Alberta.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Criminal law - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Evidence - Narcotics - Police - Search incidental to arrest - Whether a warrantless search violated s. 8  of the Charter  -  Whether the evidence was admissible despite a s. 8  Charter  violation.

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel — Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  — Preuve — Stupéfiants — Police — Fouille ou perquisition accessoire à l’arrestation — La fouille ou perquisition effectuée sans mandat a-t-elle violé l’art. 8  de la Charte ? — La preuve était-elle admissible en dépit de la violation de l’art. 8  de la Charte ?

12.11.1997

CORAM:               L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache JJ.

BC Gas Utility Ltd.

    v. (25259)

Westcoast Energy Inc. et al. (B.C.)

W.S. Martin and C.B. Johnson, for the appellant.

George H. Copley, Q.C., for the respondent the A.G. of B.C.

No one appearing, for the intervener the A.G. of N.S.

Robert J. Normey and Jill Page, for the intervener the A.G. of Alberta.

No one appearing, for the intervener the A.G. of Saskatchewan.

W. Ian C. Binnie, Q.C., Robin M. Sirett and Bruce E. Pydee, for the respondent Westcoast Energy Inc.

Judith Bowers, Q.C. and Simon Fothergill, for the respondent the A.G. of  Canada.

Peter W. Noonan and Lori Ann B. Boychuk, for the respondent the National Energy Board.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Constitutional law - Statutes - Administrative law - Jurisdiction - Division of powers - Interpretation - Reference - Whether given the division of legislative authority between the Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of the provinces in the Constitutions Acts, 1867-1982, are sections 29 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 47 , 52 , 58  and 59  of the National Energy Board Act , R.S.C., 1985 c. N-7 , applicable to the facilities proposed to be constructed by Westcoast Energy Inc.

Nature de la cause:

Droit constitutionnel ─ Lois ─ Droit administratif ─ Compétence ─ Répartition des compétences ─ Interprétation ─ Renvoi ─ Vu le partage du pouvoir législatif entre le Parlement du Canada et les législatures des provinces prévu dans les Lois constitutionnelles de 1867 à 1982, les articles 29, 30, 31, 33, 47, 52 58 et 59 de la Loi sur l'Office national de l'énergie , L.R.C. (1985), ch. N-7 , s'appliquent-ils aux installations que Westcoast Energy Inc. propose de construire?

AGENDA for the week beginning November 17, 1997.

ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 17 novembre 1997.

Date of Hearing/                           Case Number and Name/    

Date d'audition                             Numéro et nom de la cause

The Court is not sitting this week

La Cour ne siège pas cette semaine

NOTE: 

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

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

Counsel are reminded of the following principles respecting costs in matters before the Supreme Court of Canada.

Discontinuances

The rule applied is that costs should be awarded unless there is a consent to a discontinuance without costs or a judge or the Court orders that the discontinuance be made without costs.  In this regard, counsel are referred to Rules 25 and 43.

Applications for leave

The Court will consider costs only in those cases where costs are requested.  This applies to applications for leave only.

For further information, please contact Louise Meagher, Deputy Registrar, at (613) 996‑7520.

Les avocats sont priés de tenir compte des principes suivants en ce qui concerne les dépens dans les affaires devant la Cour suprême du Canada.

Désistements

Le principe est que les dépens sont accordés sauf s’il y a consentement au désistement sans dépens ou si un juge ou la Cour ordonne qu’il y ait désistement sans dépens.  Les avocats sont priés de consulter les articles 25 et 43 des Règles.

Demandes d’autorisation

Dans le cadre des demandes d’autorisation, la Cour n’examine la question des dépens que si ceux-ci sont demandés.

Pour de plus amples renseignements, communiquez avec Louise Meagher, registraire adjoint, au (613) 996‑7520.

                                                                                                    Anne Roland

                                                                                            Registrar - Registraire

November 1997                                                                                                                                                                        Novembre 1997

                                                                               SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

                                                                                    CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME

- 1997 -