This Bulletin is published at the direction of the Registrar and is for general information only. It is not to be used as evidence of its content, which, if required, should be proved by Certificate of the Registrar under the Seal of the Court. While every effort is made to ensure accuracy, no responsibility is assumed for errors or omissions. |
|
Ce Bulletin, publié sous l'autorité du registraire, ne vise qu'à fournir des renseignements d'ordre général. Il ne peut servir de preuve de son contenu. Celle‑ci s'établit par un certificat du registraire donné sous le sceau de la Cour. Rien n'est négligé pour assurer l'exactitude du contenu, mais la Cour décline toute responsabilité pour les erreurs ou omissions. |
|
|
|
Subscriptions may be had at $200 per year, payable in advance, in accordance with the Court tariff. During Court sessions it is usually issued weekly. |
|
Le prix de l'abonnement, fixé dans le tarif de la Cour, est de 200 $ l'an, payable d'avance. Le Bulletin paraît en principe toutes les semaines pendant les sessions de la Cour. |
|
|
|
The Bulletin, being a factual report of recorded proceedings, is produced in the language of record. Where a judgment has been rendered, requests for copies should be made to the Registrar, with a remittance of $10 for each set of reasons. All remittances should be made payable to the Receiver General for Canada. |
|
Le Bulletin rassemble les procédures devant la Cour dans la langue du dossier. Quand un arrêt est rendu, on peut se procurer les motifs de jugement en adressant sa demande au registraire, accompagnée de 10 $ par exemplaire. Le paiement doit être fait à l'ordre du Receveur général du Canada. |
|
|
|
CONTENTS TABLE DES MATIÈRES
Applications for leave to appeal filed
Applications for leave submitted to Court since last issue
Oral hearing ordered
Oral hearing on applications for leave
Judgments on applications for leave
Motions
Notices of appeal filed since last issue
Notices of intervention filed since last issue
Notices of discontinuance filed since last issue
Appeals heard since last issue and disposition
Pronouncements of appeals reserved
Headnotes of recent judgments
Weekly agenda
Summaries of the cases
Cumulative Index ‑ Leave
Cumulative Index ‑ Appeals
Appeals inscribed ‑ Session beginning
Notices to the Profession and Press Release
Deadlines: Motions before the Court
Deadlines: Appeals
Judgments reported in S.C.R. |
-
1157 - 1165
-
-
1166 - 1189
1190 - 1195
-
-
-
1196 - 1199
-
-
1200
1201 - 1206
-
-
-
-
-
1207
- |
Demandes d'autorisation d'appel déposées
Demandes soumises à la Cour depuis la dernière parution
Audience ordonnée
Audience sur les demandes d'autorisation
Jugements rendus sur les demandes d'autorisation
Requêtes
Avis d'appel déposés depuis la dernière parution
Avis d'intervention déposés depuis la dernière parution
Avis de désistement déposés depuis la dernière parution
Appels entendus depuis la dernière parution et résultat
Jugements rendus sur les appels en délibéré
Sommaires des arrêts récents
Ordre du jour de la semaine
Résumés des affaires
Index cumulatif ‑ Autorisations
Index cumulatif ‑ Appels
Appels inscrits ‑ Session commençant le
Avis aux avocats et communiqué de presse
Délais: Requêtes devant la Cour
Délais: Appels
Jugements publiés au R.C.S. |
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE
|
|
DEMANDES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
JUNE 13, 1997 / LE 13 JUIN 1997
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and Cory and McLachlin JJ. /
Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Cory et McLachlin
c. (25805)
- et -
Monsieur le Juge Sarto Cloutier (Crim.)(Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit criminel - Preuve - Procédure préalable au procès - Stupéfiants - Enquête préliminaire -Erreur de compétence - Application de l’arrêt Skogman c. R., [1988] 2 R.C.S. 93 - La Cour d’appel s’est-elle mal dirigée en droit en autorisant le juge qui effectue la révision de substituer son opinion à celle du juge enquêteur? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle une conception erronée de la suffisance de la preuve dans le contexte d’une libération à l’enquête préliminaire.
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 2 février 1995 Cour du Québec (Chambre criminelle) (Cloutier j.c.q.) |
|
Demandeur libéré de l’accusation énoncée à la dénonciation et renvoyer à subir son procès sous accusation de possession simple de cocaïne |
|
|
|
Le 3 octobre 1995 Cour supérieure (Chambre criminelle) (Tremblay j.c.s.) |
|
Requête de l’intimée en certiorari du jugement du juge de paix accueillie; Décision du juge de l’enquête préliminaire cassée; demandeur cité à procès sur accusation de possession de cocaïne en vue d’en faire le trafic |
|
|
|
Le 28 octobre 1996 Cour d’appel du Québec (LeBel, Brossard et Philippon (ad hoc) JJ.A.) |
|
Appel rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 3 février 1997 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
Wigmore Consultants Ltd. And Rodney Dennis Wigmore
v. (25901)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Procedure - Disclosure - Whether the Crown provided adequate disclosure to the Applicant - Incompetence of counsel - Whether Applicant’s counsel at trial was incompetent - Where the accused alleges incompetence of counsel, what is the appropriate inquiry for an appellate court - What is the standard of proof imposed upon an accused who alleges incompetence of trial counsel - Discretion of trial judge - Whether the trial judge properly exercised his discretion to prevent the Applicant from calling evidence at the close of the Crown’s case when the Applicant had previously been provided several opportunities to respond to the Crown’s case - Whether the Applicant waived his right to a jury trial.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
October 20, 1994 Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench (Matheson J.) |
|
Conviction: tax evasion (17 counts); false or deceptive statement in a return of income (32 counts); false or deceptive entries in records or books (10 counts) - convictions entered on 23 counts; balance conditionally stayed |
|
|
|
January 16, 1997 Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (Tallis, Wakeling, Gerwing JJ.A) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
March 17, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
John Campbell and Salvatore Shirose
v. (25780)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Abuse of process - Stay of proceedings - Reverse sting operation - Whether the reverse sting operation was an abuse of process warranting a stay of proceedings - Disclosure - Solicitor-client privilege - Whether there was a solicitor-client relationship between an RCMP officer and a lawyer with the Crown law office who advised him concerning the reverse sting operation - Whether material regarding communications between the RCMP officer and the Crown lawyer ought to have been disclosed - Whether the Crown proved the conspiracy charged - Whether the Applicants’ sentences should have been reduced as a result of the “illegal” police conduct.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 29, 1994 Ontario Court (General Division) (Caswell J.) |
|
Conviction: conspiracy to traffic in cannabis resin; conspiracy to possess cannabis resin for the purpose of trafficking |
|
|
|
January 23, 1995 Ontario Court (General Division) (Caswell J.) |
|
Application to stay the proceedings denied |
|
|
|
January 17, 1997 Ontario Court of Appeal (Brooke, McKinlay, Carthy JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
March 17, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
|
|
|
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Callow
v. (25891)
The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 45 (West Vancouver) and West Vancouver Teachers’ Association and The Attorney General for British Columbia (B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Standing - Labour Law - Labour Relations - Limitations on a union’s exclusive representation rights - Relationship between a court’s residual jurisdiction and a union’s exclusive representation right - Whether a court’s residual jurisdiction may be invoked to resolve a dispute arising under a collective agreement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 2, 1995 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Spencer J.) |
|
Petition dismissed
|
|
|
|
January 17, 1997
Court of Appeal for British Columbia
(Hollinrake, Newbury and Huddart, JJ.A)
Appeal dismissed
March 14, 1997
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and L’Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier JJ. /
Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé et Gonthier
Marc St-Cyr, Nicholas Kwok, Nancy Kwok et François Dupuis
c. (25785)
The Mutual Trust Company (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit International - Procédure - Droit international privé - Procédure civile - Jugements et ordonnances - Reconnaissance et exécution de jugement émanant d’une autre province canadienne - Irrecevabilité d’une requête sous les art. 165(1) et 165(4) du Code de procédure civile du Québec et règle audi alteram partem - Portée des contestations admissibles à l’encontre d’une requête en exemplification d’un jugement canadien - Admissibilité exceptionnelle des contestations reposant sur des dispositions d’application impératives ou d’ordre public - Compétence de la Cour supérieure d’entendre une demande reconventionnelle à l’encontre d’une requête en exemplification de jugement - Prescription des recours sous la Loi des valeurs mobilières, L.R.Q., ch. V-1.1, et incidence des délais fixés pour entamer des procédures judiciaires en vertu de cette loi.
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 11 avril 1996
Cour supérieure (Vaillancourt j.c.s.)
Requêtes en irrecevabilité de l’intimée pour rejet des défenses et demandes reconventionnelles des demandeurs rejetées
Le 29 mai 1996
Cour d’appel du Québec (Brossard j.c.a.)
Requête pour permission de faire appel d’un jugement interlocutoire accordée
Le 21 novembre 1996
Cour d’appel du Québec
(Rothman, LeBel et Rousseau-Houle jj.c.a.)
Appel accueilli; défenses et demandes reconventionnelles des demandeurs rejetées
Le 20 janvier 1997
Cour suprême du Canada
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier and Major JJ. /
Les juges La Forest, Gonthier et Major
Terry Kerr and William Wright
v. (25865)
Police Complaints Commissioner (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law - Judicial review - Police - Evidence - Hearsay - Whether extracts from the notebooks kept by police officers should be admitted into evidence at a board of inquiry hearing into allegations of misconduct and criminal allegations against those officers - Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. P. 15 - R. v. Fitzpatrick, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 154 - R. v. Hawkins, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1043.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 13, 1993 Board of Inquiry (Fuerst, Seychuk, Baker) |
|
Complaint dismissed |
|
|
|
December 13, 1994 Divisional Court (McMurtry C.J.O.C., Steele and Flinn JJ.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
January 9, 1997 Court of Appeal for Ontario (McKinlay, Catzman, Weiler JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed |
|
|
|
March 10, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Dr. Philip I. Polimeni
v. (25881)
Dr. Rudolph G. Danzinger and Dr. John Foerster (Man.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Torts - Intentional torts - Conspiracy - Inducement or procurement of breach of contract - Interference with employment relations or economic interests.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 9, 1995 Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba (Beard J.) |
|
Applicant’s claim dismissed |
|
|
|
January 15, 1997 Court of Appeal of Manitoba (Twaddle, Kroft and Monnin JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed
|
|
|
|
March 13, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Nancy Elizabeth Rose Jennings
v. (25946)
Canada (Minister of Health Canada) (F.C.A.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law - Civil rights - Human Rights - Canadian Human Rights Commission decision dismissing Applicant’s complaint - Interpretation of “having regard to all the circumstances of a complaint”, in sections 44(3) (a)(b)(i) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, in regard to Canadian Human Rights Commission’s adjudicative discretion and Commission’s investigative duties - Whether this provision implies duty of investigative thoroughness notwithstanding the external manifestations of procedural fairness - Whether lower courts erred in law on the role of a Commission investigator in report writing in respect of the Commission’s jurisdiction under section 44(1) of the Act - Whether lower courts erred in law by refusing to set aside the Commission’s decision.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 13, 1995 Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (Wetston J.) |
|
Application for judicial review dismissed |
|
|
|
February 12, 1997 Federal Court of Appeal (Pratte, Linden and Robertson JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
April 10, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
S. Bryant Smith
v. (25902)
New Brunswick Human Rights Commission (N.B.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural law - Actions - Civil Procedure - Pre-trial procedure - Motion to strike a statement of claim - Is the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission a suable entity? - Whether a legislature may limit the application of the Charter so as to restrict a Charter remedy.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 3, 1996 Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick (Russell J.) |
|
Respondent’s motion allowed in part striking out portions of the Applicant’s Statement of Claim |
|
|
|
January 28, 1997 New Brunswick Court of Appeal (Rice, Turnbull, Bastarache JJ.A.) |
|
Respondent’s appeal allowed: Statement of Claim struck out against it; Applicant’s cross-appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
March 24, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Ronald Ottens
v. (25871)
Her Majesty The Queen In The Right Of The Province Of Nova Scotia (N.S.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Labour law - Statutes - Interpretation - Collective Agreement - Discharge - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that an employee employed for seven years without a written contract and three years with a written contract of employment was not discharged pursuant to s. 71(1) of the Labour Standards Code R.S.N.S. 1989 c.246 when the written contract ended - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reversing findings of fact of the Tribunal.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 6, 1996 Nova Scotia Labour Standards Tribunal (S. Ashley (Chair)) |
|
Applicant’s complaint allowed: reinstatement ordered |
|
|
|
January 10, 1997 Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (Clarke, C.J.N.S., Hallett and Flinn JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed |
|
|
|
March 6, 1997
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and Iacobucci JJ. /
Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et Iacobucci
Paul Fitzpatrick
v. (25819)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to address in their reasons every issue raised on appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal on the basis of the trial judge’s findings of credibility and fact when the errors alleged by the Applicant infected and undermined the validity of the trial judge’s findings of fact and credibility.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 2, 1995 Ontario Court (General Division) (Marchand J.) |
|
Conviction: sexual assault |
|
|
|
January 29, 1997 Ontario Court of Appeal (McMurtry C.J.O., Osborne, Moldaver JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
April 1, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Bui Nhu Hung
c. (25755)
L’Archevêché de Montréal, représentant de l’Église Catholique Romaine (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Procédure - Procédure civile - Appel - Action du demandeur contre l’intimé rejetée aux motifs qu’il n’avait pas l’intérêt suffisant pour ester en justice et que la demande ne possédait aucun fondement en droit - Appel du demandeur rejeté en raison de son caractère abusif et dilatoire - Requête en récusation des juges de la Cour d’appel rejetée - Requête en rétractation de jugement rejetée par la Cour d’appel - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 5 janvier 1995 Cour supérieure du Québec (Vaillancourt j.c.s.) |
|
Requête en irrecevabilité accueillie et action du demandeur rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 9 septembre 1996 Cour d’appel du Québec (Gendreau, Delisle et Nuss jj.c.a.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Requête du demandeur en récusation des juges de la Cour d’appel rejetée; requête de l’intimé en rejet d’appel accueillieLe 9 décembre 1996 Cour d’appel du Québec (Vallerand, Otis et Zerbisias jj.c.a.) |
|
Requête en rétractation du jugement de la Cour d’appel accueillant la requête de l’intimé en rejet d’appel rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 17 janvier 1997 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
Marie Sarah Eurig as executor of the estate
of Donald Valentine Eurig
v. (25866)
The Registrar of the Ontario Court (General Division)
and the Attorney General of Ontario (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Property law - Wills - Executors and administrators - Probate fees - Can a province raise revenue by means of a levy that is an estate tax return in all but name without debate or passage in the legislature? - Can a province avoid the constitutional prohibition on indirect taxation, by describing as a probate a “fee” a levy that is an indirect tax in all but name? - Does the statutory power to impose a “fee” authorize an ad valorem levy that bears no relationship whatsoever to the cost of the service for which the fee is levied? - Whether the Courts below erred in refusing to invalidate the Ontario regulation requiring the payment of probate fees.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
October 14, 1994 Ontario Court (General Division) (Morrison J.) |
|
Applicant’s application to have payment of probate fees required pursuant to O.Reg. 293/92 declared unlawful dismissed |
|
|
|
January 16, 1997 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Morden A.C.J.O., Brooke and Moldaver JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
March 5, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Chief Victor Buffalo acting on his own behalf and on behalf of all the other members of the Samson Indian Nation Band and The Samson Indian Nation and Band
v. (26018)
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and The Minister of Finance
AND BETWEEN:
Chief John Ermineskin, Lawrence Wildcat, Gordon Lee, Art Littlechild, Maurice Wolfe, Curtis Ermineskin, Gerry Ermineskin, Earl Ermineskin, Rick Wolfe, Ken Cutarm, Brian Lee, Lester Fraynn, the elected Chief and Councillors of the Ermineskin Indian Band and Nations suing on their own behalf and on behalf of all the other members of the Ermineskin Indian Band and Nation
v.
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada and the Honourable Thomas R. Siddon, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and The Honourable Donald Mazanowski, Minister of Finance (F.C.A.)(Alta.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural Law - Appeal - Whether the Associate Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Canada’s decision to withdraw a judge assigned to a trial before the trial commences and after an question of a reasonable apprehension of bias has been raised is a judgment or an order subject to appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 16, 1996 Federal Court (Trial Division) (Jerome A.C.J.) |
|
Trial judge withdrawn from case |
|
|
|
May 28, 1997
Federal Court (Court of Appeal) (Isaac C.J.)
Notice of appeal returned
May 30, 1997
Supreme Court of Canada
Applications for leave to appeal, certiorari, remand, stay of execution, expedited hearing and oral hearing filed by Chief Victor Buffalo et al.
June 6, 1997
Supreme Court of Canada
Applications for leave to appeal, certiorari, remand, stay of execution, expedited hearing and oral hearing filed by Chief John Ermineskin et al.; Letter submitted reiterating request for oral hearings
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -- REHEARING
DEMANDE DE RÉEXAMEN -- NOUVELLE AUDITION
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and L’Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka JJ. /
Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé et Sopinka
Bernard St-Aubin c. Le Curateur Public du Québec (Qué.)(25764)
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and Cory and McLachlin JJ. /
Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Cory et McLachlin
Jozsef Lakotos v. Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.)(25548)
JUDGMENTS ON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE |
|
JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION |
JUNE 19, 1997 / LE 19 JUIN 1997
25703 COOPÉRATIVE DE COMMERCE “DES MILLES-ÎLES”, ANDRÉ MALO, PAUL BÉLANGER, PIERRE LAPORTE - c. - SOCIÉTÉ DES ALCOOLS DU QUÉBEC (S.A.Q.) ET LE PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL DU QUÉBEC (Qué.)
CORAM: Le Juge en chef et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé et Cory
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée. La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.
The application for extension of time is granted. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Couronne - Droit commercial - Droit administratif - Responsabilité civile - Contrats - Obligation - Injonction - Dommages-intérêts - Appel d’offres au public - Vente de succursales de la Société des alcools du Québec - Injonction permanente - Responsabilité de l’état - Dommages moraux - Exécution forcée de l’obligation de livrer une succursale - Tentative avortée de privatiser un certain nombre de succursales de la Société des alcools du Québec - Un contrat a-t-il été valablement formé entre la Société des alcools du Québec et les demandeurs, soumissionnaires, compte tenu que les décisions du Conseil des ministres remplacent celles du Conseil du trésor? - Le gouvernement et la Société des alcools du Québec sont-ils responsables en dommages à l’égard des demandeurs? - Application de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q. c. C-12, et de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - Entente de procéder au moyen d’une cause-type - Effet d’un jugement dans une cause-type.
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 28 février 1994
Cour Supérieure du Québec (Trudeau j.c.s.)
Action des demandeurs accueillie en partie
Le 23 août 1996
Cour d’appel du Québec
(Lebel, Tourigny et Proulx jj.c.a.)
Appel principal des demandeurs rejeté; appel incident de la Société des alcools du Québec accueilli
Le 19 décembre 1996
Cour suprême du Canada
Demande d’autorisation d’appel et demande de prorogation de délai déposées
25745 DOMENICO MANNO - v. - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -AND - MINISTER OF JUSTICE OF CANADA (Crim.)(Qué.)
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 - Extradition - Double criminality - Extradition of fugitive sought on American offence of continuing criminal enterprise, which crime does not have an equivalent in Canadian law - Court of Appeal holding that the extradition judge had improperly considered foreign law in arriving at the conclusion that the extradition request could not be granted on the continuing criminal enterprise count - Whether Court of Appeal erred in law by confusing the test required for double criminality with the standard of evidence required pursuant to s. 13 of the Extradition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-23.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 17, 1996 Superior Court of Quebec (Béliveau J.S.C.) |
|
Warrant of committal on counts 1 through 8; Applicant discharged on count of continuing criminal enterprise |
|
|
|
November 19, 1996 Court of Appeal of Quebec (Proulx, Delisle and Chamberland JJ.C.A.) |
|
Appeal of the Respondent allowed; Applicant committed on the charge of continuing criminal enterprise; warrant of committal corrected |
|
|
|
January 29, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada (L’Heureux-Dubé J.S.C.) |
|
Application for extension of time granted |
|
|
|
February 7, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
25792 SENTINEL SELF-STORAGE CORPORATION - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - and between - ON-GUARD SELF-STORAGE LIMITED - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (F.C.A.)(Alta.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Cory 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
Taxation - Assessment - Assessment of Goods and Services Tax - Whether the additional amounts paid by the defaulting tenants were a financial service or a taxable supply - Did the Federal Court of Appeal err in law by dismissing the Applicants’ appeals from assessment pursuant to the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C, 1985, c.E-15 - Did the Federal Court of Appeal err in law by overturning findings of fact made by the Tax Court judge.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 31, 1996 Tax Court of Canada (McArthur J.T.C.C.) |
|
Applicants’ appeals from assessment made under Excise Tax Act allowed; Applicants’ claim for Input Tax Credits dismissed |
|
|
|
November 28, 1996 Federal Court of Appeal (Strayer, Linden and Robertson JJ.A.) |
|
Respondent’s appeals allowed |
|
|
|
January 27, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
25830 QUINTUS PERERA AND IRIS ALOYSIUS - v. - ARISTEA STAVROPOULOS (Qué.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and L’Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier JJ.
The application for extension of time is granted. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée. La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Civil Code - Property law - Real rights - Latent defect - Purchase with legal warranty - Action to recover the costs of repairing latent defects.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 2, 1992 Superior Court of Québec (Marx, J.) |
|
Applicants ordered to pay the Respondent $28,998, plus interest on $23,498 and costs of experts |
|
|
|
November 21, 1996 Court of Appeal of Québec (Gendreau, Fish and Forget JJ.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
February 12, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal and an extension of time filed |
|
|
|
25862 SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE - c. - DANIEL COOK (Crim.)(Qué.)
CORAM: Le Juge en chef et les juges Cory et McLachlin
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit criminel - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en droit en ordonnant la tenue d’un nouveau procès pour deux motifs nullement invoqués par l’intimé, statuant ainsi ultra petita et violant la règle audi alteram partem? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en privant la demanderesse d’invoquer les dispositions réparatrices prévues à l’article 686(1)b)iii) du Code criminel?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 25 septembre 1993 Cour supérieure du Québec (Pinard J.C.S.) |
|
Déclaration de culpabilité: meurtre au premier degré |
|
|
|
Le 22 janvier 1997 Cour d’appel du Québec (Gendreau, Baudouin et Fish, JJ.C.A.) |
|
Appel accueilli, ordonnance de nouveau procès |
|
|
|
Le 26 février 1997 Cour suprême du canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
25821 YVES BISSON - c. - SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE (Crim.)(Qué.)
CORAM: Le Juge en chef et les juges Cory et McLachlin
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée quant aux questions en litige 1 et 2 seulement.
The application for leave to appeal is granted on issues 1 and 2 only.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit criminel - Preuve - Directives au jury - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en concluant que le comportement du juge envers les avocats lors du procès ne constituait pas une atteinte aux droits constitutionnels du demandeur justifiant la tenue d’un nouveau procès? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en concluant que les directives du juge du procès relativement à la conscience coupable n’étaient pas erronées? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en entérinant les directives du juge du procès qui avait omis de dire au jury que la déclaration du policier Girard, faite sur les ondes-radio de la Sûreté du Québec dans le cours des événements ayant mené à l’arrestation du demandeur, pouvait non seulement servir à titre de déclaration antérieure incompatible mais faisait également preuve de son contenu?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 24 février 1993 Cour supérieure (Chambre criminelle) (Boilard j.c.s.) |
|
Verdict de culpabilité: meurtre au premier degré |
|
|
|
Le 13 janvier 1997 Cour d’appel du Québec (Gendreau, Baudoin et Fish [dissident] jj.c.a) |
|
Appel rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 12 mars 1997 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation déposée |
|
|
|
25682 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. R.C. (Crim.)(Nfld.)
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier and Major JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Sentencing - Dangerous Offender - Does the hearing judge have a discretion as regards both a determination of dangerousness and the sentence to be imposed - Is there a right of appeal from a finding of dangerous offender or only from the sentence imposed - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in considering an issue not raised by counsel - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in distinguishing between individuals who are only a danger to their families and those who constitute a danger to strangers - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the predicate offence must meet a threshold test of seriousness - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in describing the sexual abuse by the Respondent of his children as being insufficient as predicate offences for a dangerous offender application because they were minor.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 14, 1988 Supreme Court of Newfoundland (Trial Division) (Halley J.) |
|
Conviction: sexual assault (2 counts) |
|
|
|
September 29, 1988 Supreme Court of Newfoundland (Trial Division) (Halley J.) |
|
Respondent found to be a dangerous offender; indeterminate sentence imposed |
|
|
|
October 21, 1996 Supreme Court of Newfoundland (Court of Appeal) (Gushue C.J.N., Marshall and Steele JJ.A.) |
|
Conviction appeal dismissed; indeterminate sentence set aside; new hearing ordered |
|
|
|
December 10, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
25631 CCLC TECHNOLOGIES INC. v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (F.C.A.)
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier 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
Taxation - Assessment - Disallowance of investment tax credit - Whether amounts provided by the Province of Alberta pursuant to a Coal Research Agreement were “assistance” within subparagraph 12(1)(x)(iv) or subsections 127(11.1) and 127(9) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.1- Whether the amounts provided were an acquisition of an interest in property for the purposes of subparagraph 12(1)(x)(viii).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 10, 1995
Federal Court Trial Division
(Rouleau J.)
Appeal of tax assessment allowed
September 19, 1996
Federal Court of Appeal
(Hugessen, Strayer and Desjardins JJ.A.)
Appeal allowed
November 15, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
25628 RAYMOND GAUVREAU and KAREN GAUVREAU v. LIBERO C. PACI (Ont.)
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier and Major JJ.
The application for extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural Law - Civil Procedure - Evidence - Solicitor’s negligence - Proof of Standard of Care - A solicitor retained in the purchase of residential property failed to conduct an engineering search that would have disclosed that the sewer line for the property ran through abutting land pursuant to a terminable license that was about to expire - Whether expert testimony was required to prove the standard of care required of a solicitor in residental real estate transaction.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 4, 1993 Ontario Court (General Division) (Gordon J.) |
|
Damages awarded to Applicants |
|
|
|
June 28, 1996 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Houlden, Catzman and Rosenberg JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed |
|
|
|
November 15, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Applicants’ motion for extension of time filed; Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
25713 BRADLEY RALLISON v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier and Major JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Constitutional law - Division of powers - Jurisdiction - Whether s. 259(5)(b)(i) of the Criminal Code, which makes it an offence to drive while under suspension pursuant to a provincial statute, is ultra vires the Parliament of Canada as an impermissible interdelegation of the Federal criminal law power to the provincial legislatures.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 20, 1993 Ontario Court (Provincial Division) (Hunter J.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Acquittal: driving while under suspension; s. 259(5)(b)(i) declared unconstitutional February 4, 1994 Ontario Court (General Division) (Byers J.) |
|
Summary conviction appeal allowed |
|
|
|
October 29, 1996 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Labrosse, Abella and Doherty JJ.A) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
December 23, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
25698 B.J. KERN & SON LTD. and DOUGLAS B. KERN v. SETTLERS SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE CORP. INC. (Sask.)
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier 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
Commercial law - Guaranty/suretyship - Property law - Mortgages - Did the court err in construing the Applicant’s, Kern, undertaking to be a guarantee of the mortgage loan of the corporate Applicant - Principles of interpretation in construing the nature of the agreement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
September 15, 1995 Court of Queen’s Bench of Saskatchewan (Matheson J.) |
|
Respondent’s action for balance due on a mortgage allowed; Applicants’ counterclaim for damages dismissed |
|
|
|
November 7, 1996 Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (Tallis, Cameron and Wakeling JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
December 18, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed
|
|
|
|
25660/25661 MERCK & CO. INC. and ZENECA PHARMA INC. v. THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE and APOTEX INC. (F.C.A.)
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier and Major JJ.
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed, and the request for an oral hearing is denied, the whole with costs.
Les demandes d’autorisation d’appel sont rejetées, de même que la requête en obtention d’une audition, le tout avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Property law - Patents - Statutes - Interpretation - Section 56 of the Patent Act R.S.C., 1985, c. P-4 - Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations - Does s. 56 create an exception to infringement or an immunity from liability - Did Federal Court of Appeal err in holding that an allegation of non-infringement based on s. 56 was justified under the Regulations?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 26, 1995 Federal Court (Trial Division) (Richard J.) |
|
Respondent’s application for prohibition order granted |
|
|
|
October 10, 1996 Federal Court of Appeal (Strayer, Robertson and McDonald JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed |
|
|
|
December 9, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Applications for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
25726 JAMES WALTER TAYLOR v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(N.S.)
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier and Major 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 - Provincial offences - Right to counsel - Legal Aid - Whether Legal Aid must provide counsel to an indigent accused.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 7, 1995 Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (Archibald P.C.J.) |
|
Judicial stay of proceedings entered |
|
|
|
March 26, 1996 Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Scanlan J.) |
|
Summary conviction appeal allowed |
|
|
|
November 8, 1996 Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (Pugsley, Hart and Bateman JJ.A.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Appeal dismissedJanuary 2, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
25759 ALTOBA DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. SASKPOWER (Sask.)
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier 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
Commercial law - Contracts - Building contracts - Tender calls - Action for breach of contract - Did the trial judge err in finding that the Applicant’s tender failed to comply with the terms of the call for tenders.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 27, 1995 Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan (MacLean J.) |
|
Applicant’s action for damages for breach of contract dismissed |
|
|
|
November 12, 1996 Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (Vancise, Sherstobitoff and Jackson JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
January 13, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
25757 SASKATOON CITY HOSPITAL v. SASKATCHEWAN UNION OF NURSES (Sask.)
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier 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
Judicial Review - Standard of Review - Contracts - Interpretation of a collective agreement - Anti-discrimination clauses - Applicability of jurisprudence under the Charter and human rights legislation to an interpretation of an anti-discrimination clause in a collective agreement - Whether declining to extend a normal retirement age for fiscal reasons constitutes discrimination on the basis of age.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 15, 1995 Labour Arbitration Board |
|
Grievance allowed |
|
|
|
February 15, 1996 Court of Queen’s Bench of Saskatchewan (Sirois J.) |
|
Grievance quashed |
|
|
|
October 17, 1996 Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (Vancise and Gerwing JJ.A.; Wakeling J.A. dissenting) |
|
Appeal allowed |
|
|
|
January 16, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Applications for extension of time and for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
25783 EILEEN GRACE BAHLSEN v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN as represented by the Minister of Transport (F.C.A.)
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier 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
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Civil rights - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal misapplied the minimal impairment branch of the proportionality test under s.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal effectively reversed the burden of proving that a limitation under s.15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society - Whether cases in employment law under human rights legislation should have been applied - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law by effectively reversing the onus under s.1 of the Charter.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 30, 1995 Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (Gibson J.) |
|
Declaration that section 3.18 of the Transport Canada Air Personnel Licensing Handbook is unconstitutional |
|
|
|
November 25, 1996 Federal Court of Canada, Court of Appeal (Isaac C.J., Pratte and McDonald JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed |
|
|
|
January 25, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
25706 DOUBLE BAR L RANCHING LTD. v. BAYVET CORP. and MILES LABORATORIES INC. (Sask.)
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier 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
Torts - Negligence -Evidence - Manufacturer’s failure to warn - Did the Court of Appeal err in law in imposing an onus or legal obligation on the consumer to follow the manufacturer’s instructions to seek directions beyond its product’s insert and to consult with governmental recommendations (which, in effect, by imposing such obligations, resulted in the manufacturer passing on the risk to the consumer?) - Did the Court of Appeal err in law in holding that the manufacturer’s instructions were not misleading and gave an adequate warning of the foreseeable risks? Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the instructions taken from the identical product of the same manufacturer being used in the United States was of no significance? - Did the Court of Appeal err in law in failing to adhere and follow the principles underscored in Lambert v. Lastoplex Chemicals Co. Ltd. [1972] S.C.R. 569 in respect to its commitment to explicitness in labelling?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 22, 1993 Court of Queen’s Bench (MacLean J.) |
|
Applicant’s negligence action dismissed |
|
|
|
October 21, 1996 Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (Cameron, Gerwing and Jackson JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
December 19, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
25882 CALDWELL & ROSS LTD. v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(N.B.)
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier and Major JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Procedure - Whether trial judge erred in permitting Crown to amend Information at the close of the Crown’s case “to conform with the evidence led at trial” when the information in question was known to the Crown before the Information was laid - Whether amendment of the Information at the close of the Crown’s case denied the Applicant the right to make a full answer and defence.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 26, 1995 Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Savoie P.C.J.) |
|
Conviction: releasing a contaminant into water contrary to subs.12(1)of the Clean Water Act, S.N.B. 1989, c. C-6.1 |
|
|
|
April 30, 1996 Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick (Miller J.) |
|
Summary conviction appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
January 9, 1996 Court of Appeal of New Brunswick (Hoyt C.J.N.B. and Ryan and Turnbull JJ.A.) |
|
Application for leave to appeal denied |
|
|
|
March 10, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
25397 THOMAS WHITE v. WOOLWORTH CANADA INC. (Nfld.)
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier and Major JJ.
The applications for leave to appeal and to cross-appeal are dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
Les demandes d’autorisation d’appel et d’appel incident sont rejetées. Il n’y a pas d’ordonnance quant aux dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Labour law - Commercial law - Contracts - Damages - Master and servant - Workers’ compensation - Whether the Court of Appeal errred in assessing damages for wrongful dismissal - Whether workers with back injuries require extended notice periods - Whether the manner of dismissal in this case requires punitive or aggravated damages - Applicability of the rule against double compensation in the context of an action for wrongful dismissal - Set-off of workers’ compensation benefits against pay in lieu of notice - Calcuation of the commencement of the notice period for the wrongful dismissal of an employee receiving workers’ compensation.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 17, 1993 Supreme Court of Newfoundland (Riche J.) |
|
Judgment for Plaintiff |
|
|
|
April 23, 1996 Supreme Court of Newfoundland, Court of Appeal (Goodridge C.J.N., Marshall and Steele JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
June 19, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
25587 FRANCIS WAYNE MacDONALD v. JAMES MOMBOURQUETTE and THE ROMAN CATHOLIC & EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF ANTIGONISH (N.S.)
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier and Major JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Torts - Equity - Fiduciary duty - Intentional torts - Limitation of actions - Prescription - Vicarious liability - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the action against the Respondent was statute barred - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the Church was not vicariously liable for the acts of Mombourquette - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no fiduciary relationship between the Applicant and the Church.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 2, 1995 Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Goodfellow J.) |
|
Applicant’s action allowed; damages and cost at trial awarded
|
|
|
|
July 10, 1996 Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (Hart and Jones JJ.A. and Clarke C.J.N.S.) |
|
Appeal allowed |
|
|
|
October 29, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
25527 THE SAULT STE. MARIE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF POLICE and BARRY V. KING v. TOM MAKILA (Ont.)
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier and Major JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The application for extension of time to cross-appeal and the cross-appeal and the ancillary motion are dismissed.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée. La demande de prorogation de délai imparti pour former l’appel incident, de même que l’appel incident et la requête accessoire sont rejetées.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law - Judicial review - Remedies - Natural justice - Fairness - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial judge’s finding that the Respondent had been denied procedural fairness - Whether the Court of Appeal failed to consider and apply the law as set out in Re Nicholson and Haldiman-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioner of Police, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311 and s. 27(b) of Regulation 791 of the Police Act, R.S.O. 1990 as amended - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial judge’s decision that the Respondent had been wrongfully dismissed as a probationary police constable - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the award of damages in the sum of $138,180.58.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 17, 1995 Ontario Court (General Division) (Warren J.) |
|
Respondent’s action for wrongful dismissal allowed: Applicant Board ordered to reinstate Respondent as probationary constable and pay him damages in the amount of $138,180.58 |
|
|
|
June 24, 1996 Court of Appeal of Ontario (Robins, Finlayson and Weiler JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed to the extent of deleting paragraphs 2 through 6 in trial judge’s formal order: damage award remains undisturbed but Court “not taken as agreeing with all reasons given by the trial judge in deciding that Respondent wrongfully dismissed”. |
|
|
|
October 4, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
25608 FRIENDS OF THE LUBICON, KEVIN THOMAS, ED BIANCHI, STEPHEN KENDA, JANE DOE, JOHN DOE and PERSONS UNKNOWN v. DAISHOWA INC. (Ont.)
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier and Major 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
Administrative law - Injunction - Torts - Whether the Divisional Court erred in granting an injunction enjoining the Applicants from intentionally interfering with Daishowa’s contractual and economic relations by unlawful means, including picketing and threats of picketing aimed at Daishowa’s customers - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application for leave to appeal from the Divisional Court’s decision - Whether a secondary picketing in a non-labour context is legal in Canada.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 30, 1995
Ontario Court (General Division) (Kiteley J.)
Injunction against the Applicant granted in part
January 23, 1996
Ontario Court (General Division) (Divisional Court)
(O’Leary, McRae and Corbett JJ.)
Injunction against the Applicant granted
April 24, 1996
Court of Appeal for Ontario
(Finlayson, McKinlay and Arbour JJ.A.)
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed
November 7, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
25644 GORDON GARLAND v. THE CONSUMERS’ GAS CO. LTD. (Ont.)
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier and Major JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Interest - Criminal rate of interest - Late payment penalties - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying Nelson v. C.T.C. Mortgage Corp. (1984), 16 D.L.R. (4th) 139 (B.C.C.A.), aff’d [1986], 1 S.C.R. 749 - Whether the late payment penalties charged by the Respondent fall under s.347 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 13, 1995 Ontario Court (General Division) (Winkler J.) |
|
Respondent’s motion for summary judgment granted |
|
|
|
September 18, 1996 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Doherty, Abella and Charron JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
November 15, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
25710 COOPERS & LYBRAND LTD., in its representative capacity as the Trustee in Bankruptcy of Manning Mercury Sales Ltd. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY OF CANADA LTD. and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Canada), as represented by the Minister of the Department of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) (Sask.)
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier and Major JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is remanded to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal to be dealt with in accordance with this Court’s decision in Royal Bank of Canada v. Sparrow Electric Corp., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 411.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est renvoyée à la Cour d’appel de la Saskatchewan pour être tranchée conformément à l’arrêt de notre Cour Banque royale du Canada c. Sparrow Electric Corp., [1997] 1 R.C.S. 411.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Bankruptcy - Banks/banking operations - Creditor & debtor - Securities - Did the Court of Appeal err in law in concluding that the Minister of Revenue’s claim for unremitted source deductions deemed trusts took priority over the bank’s Bank Act, S.C. 1991, c. B.1.01 security - Did the Court of Appeal err in law in its determination of priority to funds realized by the sale of inventory in the ordinary course of business.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 9, 1994 Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan (Halvorson J.) |
|
Respondent Minister of Revenue’s claim for unremitted source deductions to take priority over the bank’s s. 427 Bank Act security |
|
|
|
October 22, 1996 Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (Bayda C.J., Jackson and Tallis JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
December 20, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
25704 MURRAY RYAN v. THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF VICTORIA, THE ESQUIMALT AND NANAIMO RAILWAY CO. and CANADIAN PACIFIC LTD./CANADIEN PACIFIQUE LTÉE (B.C.)
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier and Major JJ.
The application for extension of time and the application for leave to appeal are granted.
Les demandes de prorogation de délai et la demande d’autorisation d’appel sont accordées.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Torts -Negligence - Nuisance - Defence of Statutory Authority - Whether railways should benefit from special rules regarding the defence of statutory authority and regarding the common law of nuisance.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 25, 1994 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Owen-Flood J.) |
|
Respondents jointly and severally liable in negligence; Railways liable in nuisance |
|
|
|
October 3, 1996 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Goldie, Rowles and Finch JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed in part |
|
|
|
December 19, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Applications for extension of time and for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
25777 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. GREGORY JACOB PARSONS (Crim.)(Nfld.)
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier and Major JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Evidence - Hearsay Evidence - Whether all of the hearsay evidence should have been admitted at trial where much of it was repetitive - Whether the necessity requirement for hearsay evidence involves a consideration of the amount of evidence.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 15, 1994 Supreme Court of Newfoundland (Trial Division) (Lang J.) |
|
Conviction: second degree murder |
|
|
|
December 3, 1996 Supreme Court of Newfoundland (Court of Appeal) (Gushue C.J.N., O’Neill and Steele JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed, new trial ordered |
|
|
|
January 23, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
25760 BARBICAN PROPERTIES INC. v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (F.C.A.)
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier 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
Taxation - Assessment - Statutes - Interpretation - Whether the Tax Court erred in its interpretation and application of paragraphs 20(1)(c) and 18(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 16, 1996 Tax Court of Canada (Margeson J.) |
|
Appeal from reassessments dismissed |
|
|
|
November 20, 1996 Federal Court of Appeal (McDonald, Henry JJ.A. and Isaac C.J.) |
|
Appeal dismissed
|
|
|
|
January 15, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
25550 ERIC WILLIAM HUTCHINGS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(B.C.)
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier and Major 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
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law ‑ Narcotics ‑ Unreasonable search and seizure ‑ Validity of warrant ‑ Evidence ‑ Admissibility of evidence ‑ Expectation of privacy ‑ Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that gathering evidence under the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority Electric Tariff was not an unreasonable search and seizure - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the outside of a barn - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the use of a forward looking infra-red device and the information obtained with the forward looking infra-red device did not constitute a search within the meaning of s. 8 of the Charter.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
March 23, 1994 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Selbie J.) |
|
Conviction of one count of possession of a narcotic, one count of cultivation of a narcotic and one count of theft |
|
|
|
October 17, 1996 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (McEachern C.J., MacFarlane and Prowse JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
January 30, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
25775 RICHARD GERRY WHITE v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier and Major JJ.
The application for extension of time and the application for leave to appeal are granted.
La demande de prorogation de délai et la demande d’autorisation d’appel sont accordées.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal Law - Evidence - Whether consciousness of guilt evidence must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - Whether trial judge failed to instruct jury properly regarding the need for evidence to support or confirm a witness’s testimony - Whether trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding evidence of planning and deliberation - Whether trial judge erred by excluding from the jury the possibility that reasonable doubt might arise from a lack of evidence - Whether trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding motive - Whether trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding verdicts - Whether trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding use of prior criminal records.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 24, 1990 Supreme Court of Ontario (Isaac J.) |
|
Convictions: first degree murder Sentences: life imprisonment |
|
|
|
June 28, 1996 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Morden C.J., Catzman, Carthy, Doherty and Laskin JJ.A.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals dismissedJanuary 23, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada
January 23, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Applications for extension of time and for leave to appeal filed by Richard Gerry White
Applications for extension of time and for leave to appeal filed by Yves Rheal Cote |
|
|
|
25854 YVES RHÉAL CÔTÉ v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)
CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier and Major JJ.
The application for extension of time and the application for leave to appeal are granted.
La demande de prorogation de délai et la demande d’autorisation d’appel sont accordées.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal Law - Evidence - Whether consciousness of guilt evidence must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - Whether trial judge failed to instruct jury properly regarding the need for evidence to support or confirm a witness’s testimony - Whether trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding evidence of planning and deliberation - Whether trial judge erred by excluding from the jury the possibility that reasonable doubt might arise from a lack of evidence - Whether trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding motive - Whether trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding verdicts - Whether trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding use of prior criminal records.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 24, 1990 Supreme Court of Ontario (Isaac J.) |
|
Convictions: first degree murder Sentences: life imprisonment |
|
|
|
June 28, 1996 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Morden C.J., Catzman, Carthy, Doherty and Laskin JJ.A.) |
|
Appeals dismissed |
|
|
|
January 23, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada
January 23, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Applications for extension of time and for leave to appeal filed by Richard Gerry White
Applications for extension of time and for leave to appeal filed by Yves Rheal Cote |
|
|
|
25809 RADCLIFFE MARK HALL v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Alta.)
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and Iacobucci JJ.
The application for extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Unreasonable verdict - Whether the verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence - Defences - Honest but mistaken belief in consent - Whether the trial judge erred in not charging the jury on the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 22, 1994 Court of Queen Bench of Alberta (Brennan J.) |
|
Conviction: sexual assault |
|
|
|
September 15, 1995 Court of Appeal of Alberta (Kerans, Irving and Russell JJ.A) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
February 6, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal and motion for the extension of time filed |
|
|
|
25905 M.C.L. v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Alta.)
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka 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 - Young Offenders - Transfer to ordinary court - What is the correct approach when determining whether the conditions for transfer have been met - What is the effect of s. 3 of the Young Offenders Act on the test for transfer - Is there a legal burden on the young person to establish that he is capable of being rehabilitated - What effect should the possibility of a post-conviction placement hearing have on the test for transfer - What is the correct standard of review for an appellate court reviewing a transfer order.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
March 4, 1996 Family and Youth Court (Jordan P.C.J.) |
|
Application for transfer of young person to ordinary court denied |
|
|
|
November 6, 1996 Alberta Court of Appeal (Irving, Conrad, Coté JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed; transfer ordered |
|
|
|
March 21, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
25806 LEONARDO G. GALUEGO v. CAROL HENSLEY and DARYL BEAN (Ont.)
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and Iacobucci JJ.
The application to add the Public Service Staff Relations Board as a party to the application for leave to appeal and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.
La demande d’ajout de la Commission des relations de travail dans la Fonction publique comme partie à la demande d’autorisation d’appel et la demande d’autorisation d’appel sont rejetées avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Jurisdiction - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal properly exercised its discretion when it dismissed an application to reconsider an order quashing an application for judicial review.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
March 14, 1996
Public Service Staff Relations Board
(Dumoulin D., Registry Officer)
September 3, 1996
Federal Court of Appeal
(Marceau, Stone and Robertson JJ.A)
Hearing re-scheduled until November 1996
Application for judicial review quashed
December 10, 1996
Federal Court of Appeal
(Marceau, Stone and Robertson JJ.A)
Application for reconsideration dismissed
February 6, 1997
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
25804 GORDON H. FREUND PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION AND BRUCE G. MacDONALD PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, CARRYING ON BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF MacDONALD & FREUND v. PAUL HALJAN (Alta.)
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and Iacobucci JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural law - Judgments and orders - Duties arising upon the making of an order of a court for the protection of a creditor - Whether the solicitor was in breach of an undertaking.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 3, 1994 Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Lewis J.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Applicant’s action dismissedJanuary 8, 1997 Court of Appeal of Alberta (Hetherington, Irving and McFadyen JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
February 3, 1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
25801 JOE W. HARRIS v. CINABAR ENTERPRISES LTD. and LARRY B. NUGENT (Alta.)
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and Iacobucci JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Property law ‑ Mines and minerals ‑ Commercial law - Contracts ‑ Interpretation ‑ Oil and gas ‑ Law pertaining to mineral royalties - Overriding royalties in Crown petroleum and natural gas leases - Whether the beneficiary of restrictive covenant relating to property will have an effective remedy in law or equity against the promisor where there is no privity of contract - Unjust enrichment and restitution where the beneficiary is not party to the contract containing the covenant and where the covenant was imposed and assumed for services and benefits rendered by the beneficiary.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 1, 1995 Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (MacLeod J.) |
|
Applicant’s action allowed |
|
|
|
December 2, 1996 Court of Appeal of Alberta (Lieberman, Coté and Hunt JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed |
|
|
|
January 31,1997 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
25678 RÉAL MELANSON c. L’UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL, LA FACULTÉ DE MÉDECINE DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL et DR. PIERRE BOIS (Qué.)
CORAM: Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et Iacobucci
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit administratif - Justice naturelle - Contrôle judiciaire - Preuve - Recours en mandamus et en dommages du demandeur demandant qu’il soit ordonné qu’on lui décerne le diplôme de doctorat en médecine qu’on lui refuse au motif qu’il aurait échoué un examen en fin de 5ième année d’étude - Preuve d’expert - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en ne reprochant pas au premier juge d’avoir substitué, selon le demandeur, son opinion personnelle à une conclusion découlant d’une preuve claire à l’effet que le demandeur n’a subi aucun échec durant sa 5ième année? - La Cour d’appel et le juge de première instance ont-ils manifestement erré en droit en recherchant, selon le demandeur, la démonstration effective d’un parti pris et d’un préjugé réels pour invalider les décisions contestées (nemo judex)? - La Cour d’appel et le juge de première instance ont-ils manifestement erré en fait et en droit en ne concluant pas dans les circonstances à la violation flagrante par les intimés d’autres règles élémentaires de justice naturelle? - Les intimés ont-ils manqué à leurs obligations contractuelles de fair-play?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 24 mai 1988 Cour supérieure du Québec (Reeves j.c.s.) |
|
Recours en mandamus et en dommages rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 15 octobre 1996 Cour d’appel du Québec (Vallerand, Gendreau et Proulx jj.c.a.) |
|
Appel rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 12 décembre 1996 Cour suprême du Canada (Major j.c.s.) |
|
Demande de prorogation de délai accordée |
|
|
|
Le 15 janvier 1997 Cour suprême du Canada
|
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
25743 ANAMOR INVESTMENTS INC. c. LEVY PILOTTE ET ASSOCIÉS INC. et PETER WOLKOVE (Qué.)
CORAM: Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et Iacobucci
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit commercial - Faillite - Législation - Interprétation - Ordre de priorité - Articles 72(1), 136(1) et 146 de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité, L.R.C. 1985, ch. B-3 - Conséquences en matière de faillite d’une sûreté dont les conditions de formation n’ont pas été respectées - Article 1979h du Code civil du Bas-Canada stipulant que le privilège du créancier nanti n’est pas opposable au locateur avant la notification du nantissement - En matière de faillite, l’article 1979h permet-il au locateur, créancier privilégié aux termes de l’art. 136(1)f) de la Loi, d’être payé avant le créancier nanti, créancier garanti aux termes de l’art. 136(1), lorsque le nantissement ne lui a pas été notifié? - Husky Oil Operations Ltd. c. Ministre du Revenu national, [1995] 3 R.C.S. 453.
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 11 mars 1993 Cour supérieure du Québec (Kennedy j.c.s.) |
|
Requête en réformation de la décision du syndic accueillie; syndics intimés condamnés à verser 52 000$ à la demanderesse |
|
|
|
Le 12 novembre 1996 Cour d’appel du Québec (Vallerand, Brossard [dissident] et Zerbisias jj.c.a.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Pourvoi accueilliLe 13 janvier 1997 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
25681 ERIC YU-HUA CHU - v. - HUBERMAN CRISTALL HUTCHINSON (B.C.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Cory and McLachlin JJ.
The application for reconsideration is dismissed.
La demande de nouvel examen est rejetée.
23388 GEORGES GUAY c. SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE (Crim.)(Qué.)
CORAM: Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et Gonthier
La demande de réexamen est rejetée avec dépens.
The application for reconsideration is dismissed with costs.
MOTIONS |
|
REQUÊTES
|
12.6.1997
Before / Devant: IACOBUCCI J.
Motion to extend the time in which to file the notice of appeal
Oskar Chan
v. (26027)
Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer l’avis d’appel
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to May 22, 1997.
12.6.1997
Before / Devant: IACOBUCCI J.
Motion to extend the time in which to apply for leave to appeal
Anthony Carl Moore
v. (26044)
Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)
Requête en prorogation du délai pour obtenir l'autorisation d'appel
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to May 27, 1997.
12.6.1997
Before / Devant: IACOBUCCI J.
Motion for leave to intervene
BY/PAR: Canadian Bankers’ Association
IN/DANS: Continental Bank Leasing Corp.
v. (25532)
Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)
Requête en autorisation d’intervention
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
1. The application for intervention is granted; the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length and to present oral argument not to exceed 15 minutes;
2. The applicant shall not be entitled to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record apart from its factum and oral submissions.
13.6.1997
Before / Devant: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER
Motion to extend the time to file additional documents forming part of case on appeal
In the matter of Section 53 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, Chap. S-26; and in the matter of a Reference by the Governor in Council concerning certain questions relating to the secession of Quebec from Canada, as set out in Order in Council P.C. 1996-1947, dated the 30th day of September 1996;
Dans l’affaire de l’art. 53 de la Loi sur la Cour suprême, L.R.C. (1985), ch. S-26; et dans l’affaire d’un renvoi par le gouverneur en conseil au sujet de certaines questions concernant la sécession du Québec du reste du Canada, formulées dans le décret C.P. 1997-1497 en date du 30 septembre 1996 (25506) (Ont.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer les documents additionnels faisant partie du dossier conjoint
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
UPON APPLICATION by Counsel on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada for an order extending the time to file and serve the following additional documents as part of the Case on Appeal:
À LA REQUÊTE de l’appelant le Procureur général du Canada visant à obtenir une ordonnance prorogeant le délai imparti pour déposer les documents additionnels suivants au dossier conjoint:
1. News release from the Office of the Premier of Quebec dated May 7, 1997, entitled: Processus d’accession à la souveraineté: Le rappel des faits;
1. Communiqué du Cabinet du premier ministre du Québec, en date du 7 mai 1997, intitulé: Le processus d’accession à la souveraineté: le rappel des faits.
2. Questions and answers concerning the Premier of Quebec’s knowledge of Mr. Jacques Parizeau’s intentions with respect to a possible unilateral sovereignty proclamation; Oral questions and answers, Journal des débats, National assembly of Quebec, May 7, 1997, pp. 6496-6504;
2. Connaissance par le premier ministre des intentions de M. Jacques Parizeau quant à une éventuelle proclamation unilatérale de souveraineté; Questions et réponses orales, Journal des débats, Assemblée nationale du Québec, 7 mai 1997, pp. 6496-6504.
3. News release by former Premier Mr. Jacques Parizeau to journalists of the press gallery in Quebec City, May 8, 1997;
3. Communiqué de l’ancien premier ministre M. Jacques Parizeau aux journalistes de la tribune de la presse à Québec, 8 mai 1997.
4. Questions and answers concerning the Premier of Quebec’s knowledge of Mr. Jacques Parizeau’s intentions with respect to a possible unilateral sovereignty proclamation; Oral questions and answers, Journal des débats, National assembly of Quebec, May 8, 1997, pp. 6552-6558;
4. Connaissance par le premier ministre des intentions de M. Jacques Parizeau quant à une éventuelle proclamation unilatérale de souveraineté; Questions et réponses orales, Journal des débats, Assemblée nationale du Québec, 8 mai 1997, pp. 6552-6558.
5. Excerpt from Mr. Jacques Parizeau’s book, Pour un Québec souverain, VLB éditeur, published on May 13, 1997; Introduction, “La reconnaissance internationale d’un Québec souverain”, pp. 281-288;
5. Extraits de l’ouvrage de M. Jacques Parizeau, Pour un Québec souverain, VLB éditeur, publié le 13 mai 1997, «La reconnaissance internationale d’un Québec souverain, Introduction», pp. 281 à 288.
6. Decision of the Cabinet of the Government of Quebec on the fifteenth anniversary of the coming into force of the Constitution Act, 1982; Decision No 97-092, April 16, 1997.
6. Décision du Conseil des ministres du gouvernement du Québec lors du quinzième anniversaire de l’entrée en vigueur de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982, Décision no 97-092, 16 avril 1997.
UPON CONSIDERING the materials filed by the Attorney General of Canada in respect thereof;
APRÈS AVOIR EXAMINÉ les documents déposés par le procureur général du Canada à cet égard;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1) The application for an extension of time is granted; and
IL EST ORDONNÉ PAR LES PRÉSENTES CE QUI SUIT:
(1) la demande de prorogation de délai est accordée, et
2) The application to serve and file the additional documents is granted;
(2) la demande de signification et de dépôt des documents additionnels est accordée.
16.6.1997
Before / Devant: McLACHLIN J.
Hearing of miscellaneous motions allowing the applicant to file confidential exhibits identified as vol. III of the application for leave to appeal
Telus Communications Inc.
v. (26045)
The Attorney General of Canada (Alta.)
Audience sur diverses requêtes permettant au requérant de déposer des pièces confidentielles décrites comme vol. III de la demande d’autorisation d’appel
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
16.6.1997
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent’s factum
Brian William Frederick Allender
v. (25179)
Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l’intimée
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to June 2, 1997.
16.6.1997
Before / Devant: McLACHLIN J.
Motion to strike out
Air Canada
v. (25984)
Air Treads of Canada Ltd. (Ont.)
Requête en radiation
DISMISSED / REJETÉE
16.6.1997
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file an intervener’s factum
BY/PAR: EGALE
IN/DANS: Delwin Vriend et al.
v. (25285)
Her Majesty The Queen in right of Alberta (Alta.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire d’un intervenant
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to June 4, 1997.
12.6.1997
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the appellant’s factum
Nancy Law
v. (25374)
Minister of Human Resources Development (B.C.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l’appelante
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to July 31, 1997.
17.6.1997
Before / Devant: McLACHLIN J.
Motion to extend the time in which to file additional material
M.J.B. Enterprises Ltd.
v. (25975)
Defence Construction (1951) Ltd. et al. (Alta.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer des documents additionnels
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
17.6.1997
Before / Devant: LE REGISTRAIRE
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer la réponse des intimés
Lévesque, Beaubien, Geoffrion Inc.
c. (25966)
Christiane Bouchard et al. (Qué.)
Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondents’ response
Avec le consentement des parties.
ACCORDÉE / GRANTED Délai prorogé au 6 juin 1997.
17.6.1997
Before / Devant: McLACHLIN J.
Motion for leave to intervene
BY/PAR: Attorney General of Canada;
Grand Council of the Crees et al.;
Attorney General of Alberta;
Federation of Saskatchewan Indians Nations;
Attorney General of Manitoba;
Attorney General of B.C.
IN/DANS: Minister of Finance for New Brunswick et al.
v. (25427)
Union of N.B. Indians et al. (N.B.)
Requête en autorisation d’intervention
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
UPON APPLICATION by the applicants Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Estchee) et al., Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Alberta, Federation of Saskatchewan Indians Nations, Attorney General of British Columbia, Attorney General of Manitoba
AND HAVING READ the material filed;
It is hereby ordered that:
1. The motion for leave to intervene of the applicants Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Estchee) et al. is granted. Leave is granted to file a factum not to exceed 20 pages and to present oral argument limited to 15 minutes.
2. The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Attorney General of Canada is granted. Leave is granted to file a factum not to exceed 20 pages and to present oral argument limited to 15 minutes.
3. The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Attorney General of Alberta is granted. Leave is granted to file a factum not to exceed 20 pages and to present oral argument limited to 15 minutes.
4. The motion for leave to intervene of the applicants Federation of Saskatchewan Indians Nations is granted. Leave is granted to file a factum not to exceed 20 pages and to present oral argument limited to 15 minutes.
5. The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Attorney General of British Columbia is granted. Leave is granted to file a factum not to exceed 20 pages and to present oral argument limited to 15 minutes.
6. The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Attorney General of Manitoba is granted. Leave is granted to file a factum not to exceed 20 pages and to present oral argument limited to 15 minutes.
The intervenors shall have four weeks from the date of this order to serve and file their factums.
17.6.97
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the intervener’s factum
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l'intervenant
Winnipeg Child & Family Services
v. (25508)
G. (D.F.) (Man.)
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time to file the factum of the intervener, Southeast Child and Family Services et al extended to June 10, 1997.
APPEALS HEARD SINCE LAST ISSUE AND DISPOSITION |
|
APPELS ENTENDUS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION ET RÉSULTAT
|
16.6.97 to/au 17.6.97
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin and Major JJ.
Delgamuukw, a.k.a. Earl Muldoe, suing on his own behalf and on behalf of all the members of the House of Delgamuukw et al.
v. (23799)
Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia et al. (B.C.)
Stuart Rush, Q.C., Peter Grant, Michael Jackson, Louise Mandell and David Paterson, for the appellants / respondents on cross-appeal The Gitksan Hereditary Chiefs et al.
Marvin R. V. Storrow, Q.C., Joanne R. Lysyk and Joseph C. McArthur, for the appellants / respondents on cross-appeal Wet’Suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs et al.
Arthur Pape, Harry A. Slade, Peter Hogg and Jean Taillet, for the intervener the First Nations Summit.
Jack Woodward and Albert C. Peeling, for the intervener Westbank First Nation.
Marvin R.V. Storrow, Q.C., Joanne R. Lysyk and Joseph C. McArthur, for the interveners the Musqueam Indian Band et al.
Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C., Mark G. Underhill and Brenda Edwards, for the respondent / appellant on cross-appeal Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia.
Graham Garton, Q.C., Judith Bowers, Q.C., Murray T. Wolf and Geoffrey S. Lester, for the respondent the A.G. of Canada.
J. Keith Lowes, for the interveners the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association et al.
Charles F. Willms, for the intervener Skeena Cellulose Inc.
J. Edward Gouge, Q.C. and Jill M. Marks, for the intervener Alcan Aluminium Ltd.
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Indians - Land - Aboriginal Rights - Whether Court of Appeal erred in its definition of the nature, extent and status of aboriginal rights.
Nature de la cause:
Indiens - Terres - Droits ancestraux -- La Cour d'appel a-t-elle commis une erreur dans sa définition de la nature, de l'étendue et du statut de droits ancestraux?
18.6.1997
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
Winnipeg Child and Family Services (Northwest Area)
v. (25508)
G. (D.F.) (Man.)
Heather Leonoff, Q.C. and Norman Cuddy for the appellant.
David A.W. Phillips, Joe Aiello and Darren Sawchuk for the Respondent.
Shawn Greenberg for the Intervener Attorney General of Manitoba.
Howard Kushner and Thomas Ullyett for the Intervener Government of Yukon.
David M. Brown and Danielle Shaw for the Interveners Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, et al.
William J. Sammon for the Intervener Catholic Group for Health, Justice and Life.
Angela M. Costigan and Marcelle Crouse for the Intervener Alliance for Life.
Hugues Létourneau et Viviaine Primeau pour l’intervenante Association des Centres de jeunesse du Québec.
Jeffrey F. Harris and Edward J. Gilson for the Interveners Southeast Child and Family Services, et al.
John B. Laskin and Cynthia L. Tape for the Intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Beth Symes and Lucy K. McSweeney for the Intervener Canadian Abortion Rights Action League.
Sheilah Martin and Sharon McIvor for the Intervener Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund.
Arne Peltz and John Myers for the Interveners Women’s Health Clinic Inc., et al.
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Torts - Family law - Statutes - Interpretation - S. 56 of the Mental Health Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. M110 - Exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction - Foetal rights - Legal status of unborn child - Does a birth mother who has chosen to carry a fetus to full term owe a duty of care to the fetus? - If the answer to question 1 is “yes”, in what circumstances, if any, should a Court intervene to enforce compliance with the duty of care?
Nature de la cause:
Responsabilité délictuelle - Lois - Interprétation - Article 56 de la Loi sur la santé mentale, S.R.M. 1987, ch. M110 - Exercice de la compétence parens patriae - Droits du foetus - Statut juridique de l'enfant à naître - Est-ce que la mère par le sang qui a décidé de mener sa grossesse à terme a une obligation de diligence envers le foetus? - Dans l'affirmative, dans quelles circonstances une cour de justice devrait-elle intervenir pour assurer le respect de cette obligation de diligence?
19.6.1997
CORAM: La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
Husky Oil Operations Ltd.
v. (24855)
Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. et al.
and between
Bow Valley Industries Ltd.
v.
Saint John Shipbuilding et al.
and between
Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd.
v.
Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. et al.
and between
Raychem Canada Ltd. et al.
v.
Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. et al.
and between
Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd.
v.
Anthony J. Jordan, Q.C., Eric P. Groody and Susan M. Purcell for Husky Oil Operations Ltd.
W. Ian C. Binnie, Q.C., Harry Underwood, Bonita Croft and Camille A. Nelson for Bow Valley Industries Ltd.
Michael F. Harrington, Q.C. and Colm St. R. Seviour for Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd.
J. Edgar Sexton, Q.C., John F. Rook, Q.C., Stephen J. May and Donald D. Hanna for Saint John Shipbuilding Limited.
W. Wylie Spicer, Q.C. and Aidan J. Meade for Raychem Canada Limited, et al.
Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. et al. (Nfld.)
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Torts - Commercial law - Property law - Negligence - Contracts - Damages - Remedies - Contributory negligence - Breach of contract - Right of recovery for pure economic loss - Whether the Appellants are entitled to recover under the principles adopted in Canadian National Railway Co. v. Norsk Pacific Steamship Co. Ltd. et al., [1992] S.C.R. 1021 - Whether a duty to warn creates the necessary proximity to ground a claim for pure economic loss - Existence of joint venture or co-adventure - Relational economic loss - Duty to warn - Liability for negligent manufacture or supply - Rights of a co-contractant to damages for loss of use of property owned by another.
Nature de la cause:
Responsabilité délictuelle - Droit commercial - Droit des biens - Négligence - Contrats - Dommages-intérêts - Réparation - Négligence contributive - Rupture de contrat - Droit de recouvrement pour une perte purement économique - Les appelantes ont-elles droit de recouvrer en vertu des principes adoptés dans l'arrêt Compagnie des chemins de fer nationaux du Canada c. Norsk Pacific Steamship Co. Ltd. et autres, [1992] 1 R.C.S. 1021? - Une obligation de mise en garde crée-t-elle le lien étroit nécessaire pour fonder une réclamation rattachée à une perte purement économique? - Existence d'une entreprise conjointe ou d'une coentreprise - Perte économique relationnelle - Obligation de mise garde - Responsabilité en cas de négligence dans la fabrication ou l'approvisionnement - Droits d'un cocontractant à des dommages-intérêts au titre de la perte d'usage d'un bien appartenant à une autre personne.
WEEKLY AGENDA |
|
ORDRE DU JOUR DE LA SEMAINE
|
AGENDA for the week beginning June 23, 1997.
ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 23 juin 1997.
Date of Hearing/ Case Number and Name/
Date d'audition Numéro et nom de la cause
25/06/97 Canadian Red Cross Society et al. v. The Honourable Horace Krever, Commissioner of the Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada (F.C.A.)(Ont.)(25810)
26/06/97 Erichs Tobiass v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration - and between - Helmut Oberlander v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration - and between - Johann Dueck v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Crim.)(F.C.A.)(Ont.)(25811)
27/06/97 André Côté, et al. v. George Addy (F.C.A.)(Qué.)(25262)
NOTE:
This agenda is subject to change. Hearing dates should be confirmed with Process Registry staff at (613) 996-8666.
Cet ordre du jour est sujet à modification. Les dates d'audience devraient être confirmées auprès du personnel du greffe au (613) 996-8666.
SUMMARIES OF THE CASES |
|
RÉSUMÉS DES AFFAIRES |
25810 The Canadian Red Cross Society et al and Bayer, Inc. and Baxter Corporation v. The Honourable Horace Krever, Commissioner of the Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada
Administrative law - Public inquiries under the Inquiries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.I-11 - Whether the procedures adopted by the Commissioner were appropriate - Jurisdiction of Commissioner to issue notices of misconduct under section 13 of the Inquiries Act - Whether findings of criminal or civil responsibility against named persons were threatened in the notices of misconduct - Whether such findings are beyond the power of the Commissioner - Whether the Commissioner lost jurisdiction to issue notices of misconduct.
On October 4, 1993, the Government of Canada appointed the Honourable Horace Krever to review and report on the blood system in Canada in a Commission issued under the Inquiries Act. The Commission held public hearings throughout Canada. An interim report, released in February, 1995, included notice to the Red Cross under s. 13 of the Act. The final report is due following this Court’s judgment.
By memorandum on October 26, 1995, Commission counsel invited all parties to inform the Commission of the findings of misconduct they intended to urge on the Commission in respect of other persons by November 10, 1995. These confidential submissions would be read only by Commission counsel, and would be considered for inclusion in notices issued by the Commissioner. On December 21, 1995, the final day for hearings, forty-five confidential notices naming ninety-five individuals, corporations and governments, each containing between one and one hundred allegations, were delivered under section 13 of the Act. The recipients were given until January 10, 1996 to decide whether to respond to the notices in their final submissions or in another way.
A number of the recipients of notices brought applications for judicial review. Richard J. declared that no findings of misconduct could be made against forty-seven of the Appellants for judicial review, but otherwise dismissed the applications for judicial review. Many recipients whose notices were not quashed appealed. The Federal Court of Appeal quashed the notices against Dr. Craig Anhorn, but dismissed the remaining appeals.
Origin of the case: Federal Court of Appeal
File No.: 25810
Judgment of the Court of Appeal: January 17, 1997
Counsel: Earl A. Cherniak Q.C., Kirk F. Stevens and Christopher I. Morrison for the Appellants The Canadian Red Cross et al
Randy T. Hughes and Tracey Patel for the Appellant Bayer, Inc.
Philip Spencer Q.C. for the Appellant Baxter Corporation.
Paul Lamek Q.C. and Angus T. McKinnon for the Respondent
25810 La Société canadienne de la Croix-Rouge et autres, et Bayer Inc., et Baxter Corporation c. L’honorable Horace Krever, Commissaire de l’enquête sur le système d’approvisionnement en sang au Canada
Droit administratif — Enquête publique en vertu de la Loi sur les enquêtes, L.R.C. (1985), ch. I‑11 — Les procédures adoptées par le commissaire étaient-elles appropriées? — Compétence du commissaire de délivrer des préavis en vertu de l’art. 13 de la Loi sur les enquêtes relativement à une possible conclusion de faute — Les personnes nommées dans ces préavis ont-elles été menacées de conclusions engageant leur responsabilité civile ou criminelle? — De telles conclusions sont-elles du ressort du commissaire? — Le commissaire a-t-il perdu la compétence de délivrer des préavis relativement à une possible conclusion de faute?
Le 4 octobre 1993, le gouvernement du Canada a chargé l’honorable Horace Krever de faire un examen du système canadien de collecte et de distribution du sang et de présenter un rapport dans le cadre d’une Commission établie en vertu de la Loi sur les enquêtes. La Commission a tenu des audiences publiques dans tout le pays. Un rapport provisoire rendu public en février 1995 comportait un préavis adressé à la Croix-Rouge en vertu de l’art. 13 de la Loi. Le rapport final sera présenté à la suite de l’arrêt que rendra la Cour.
Par une note en date du 26 octobre 1995, les avocats de la Commission ont demandé à toutes les parties d’informer la Commission, au plus tard le 10 novembre 1995, de toutes les conclusions de faute qu’elles se proposaient de recommander à la Commission à l’égard d’autres personnes. Seuls les avocats de la Commission prendraient connaissance de ces allégations faites confidentiellement, qui seraient prises en considération quant à leur inclusion dans les préavis délivrés par le commissaire. Le 21 décembre 1995, le denier jour des audiences, quarante-cinq préavis confidentiels où étaient désignés quatre-vingt-quinze particuliers, personnes morales et gouvernements, chacun contenant d’une à cent allégations, ont été délivrés en vertu de l’art. 13 de la Loi. Les destinataires ont eu jusqu’au 10 janvier 1996 pour décider s’ils répondraient aux préavis dans leurs observations finales ou par un autre moyen.
De nombreux destinataires des préavis ont déposé des demandes de contrôle judiciaire. Le juge Richard a déclaré qu’aucune conclusion de faute ne pouvait être tirée contre quarante-sept des requérants à la procédure de contrôle judiciaire, mais, à tous autres égards, il a rejeté les demandes de contrôle judiciaire. De nombreux destinataires dont les préavis n’ont pas été annulés ont interjeté appel. La Cour d’appel fédérale a annulé les préavis décernés contre le Dr Craig Anhorn, mais a rejeté les autres appels.
Origine : Cour d’appel fédérale
No du greffe : 25810
Arrêt de la Cour d’appel : Le 17 janvier 1997
Avocats : Earl A. Cherniak, c.r., Kirk F. Stevens et Christopher I. Morrison, pour les appelants La Croix-Rouge canadienne et autres.
Randy T. Hughes et Tracey Patel, pour l’appelante Bayer, Inc.
Philip Spencer, c.r., pour l’appelante Baxter Corporation.
Paul Lamek, c.r., et Angus T. McKinnon, pour l’intimé.
25811 Helmut Oberlander v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; Erichs Tobiass v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; Johann Dueck v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Procedural Law - Courts - Judges - Independence of judiciary - Reasonable apprehension of bias - Whether the majority of the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the Respondent Minister has a right of appeal from the stay of proceedings in light of the explicit prohibition against appeals in s. 18(3) of the Citizenship Act - Whether ex parte meeting and correspondence between an Assistant Deputy Attorney General of the Department of Justice of the Government of Canada and the Chief Justice of Federal Court regarding Appellants’ cases, and an intervention by the Chief Justice of the Federal Court in the cases, raised a reasonable apprehension of bias and warranted stays of proceedings.
The Respondent filed three Notices of Reference with the Federal Court, Trial Division, alleging that each Appellant had been admitted to Canada for permanent residence and granted Canadian citizenship based on false representations, fraud, or known concealment of material circumstances. The Minister of Citizenship sought a declaration that would allow him to make a report to the Governor in Council, seeking the cessation of the Appellants’ citizenships. On June 30, 1995, the Associate Chief Justice, who was responsible for managing the three cases, ordered the matters joined for the purposes of resolving the questions regarding procedure and disclosure. On December 12, 1995, oral argument commenced on the motions for disclosure but only one party had time to make submissions, therefore, a continuation of oral arguments was scheduled for May 15 and 16, 1996.
On March 1, 1996, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court and the Assistant Deputy Attorney General of the Department of Justice met and discussed the Appellants’ cases without the Appellants’ counsel being present at the meeting or being notified of the meeting. The Assistant Attorney General wrote that in the meeting he had advised the Chief Justice that the Attorney General of Canada was being asked to consider taking a Reference to this Court to determine some preliminary points of law regarding the Appellants’ cases primarily because the Federal Court, Trial Division was unable or unwilling to proceed with the cases expeditiously. The Chief Justice replied in writing that he had discussed the concerns raised by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General with the Associate Chief Justice and that the Associate Chief Justice was prepared to take all reasonable steps possible to avoid a Reference to this Court.
The correspondence was disclosed to counsel for the Appellants approximately one week after the meeting. On April 30, 1996, the Associate Chief Justice decided that carriage of these cases should be turned over to another judge. The parties were notified of his decision on May 6, 1996. The Appellants then successfully brought motions to stay the proceedings before Cullen J. of the Federal Court, Trial Division. The Respondent appealed. A majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed motions to quash the appeals and the same panel unanimously allowed the appeal.
Origin of the case: Federal Court of Appeal
File No.: 25811
Judgment of the Court of Appeal: December 12, 1996
Counsel: Michael Code for the Appellant Oberlander
Gesta J. Abols for the Appellant Tobiass
Donald Bayne for the Appellant Dueck
George Thomson for the Respondent
25811 Helmut Oberlander c. Le ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration; Erichs Tobiass c. Le ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration; Johann Dueck c. Le ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration
Droit procédural - Tribunaux - Juges - Indépendance du pouvoir judiciaire - Crainte raisonnable de partialité - Les juges majoritaires de la Cour d'appel fédérale ont-ils commis une erreur de droit en statuant que le ministre intimé a le droit d'interjeter appel d'une suspension des procédures compte tenu du fait que l'art. 18(3) de la Loi sur la citoyenneté interdit explicitement les appels? - Une rencontre ex parte et un échange de lettres entre un sous-procureur général adjoint du ministère de la Justice du gouvernement du Canada et le juge en chef de la Cour fédérale relativement aux affaires des appelants, et une intervention du juge en chef de la Cour fédérale dans ces affaires, ont-ils soulevé une crainte raisonnable de partialité et justifiaient-ils les suspensions des procédures?
L'intimé a déposé auprès de la Section de première instance de la Cour fédérale trois avis de renvoi dans lesquels il affirmait que chaque appelant a obtenu l'admission au Canada à titre de résident permanent puis la citoyenneté canadienne par fraude ou au moyen d'une fausse déclaration ou de la dissimulation intentionnelle de faits essentiels. Le ministre de la Citoyenneté a demandé le prononcé d'un jugement déclaratoire qui lui permettrait d'adresser au gouverneur en conseil un rapport demandant la révocation de la citoyenneté des appelants. Le 30 juin 1995, le juge en chef adjoint, qui était responsable de la gestion des trois instances, a ordonné la jonction des instances afin de régler les questions touchant la procédure et la communication de documents. Le 12 décembre 1995, les débats ont commencé dans le cadre des requêtes en communication, mais une seule partie a eu le temps de présenter ses arguments, de sorte que la poursuite des débats a été fixée aux 15 et 16 mai 1996.
Le 1er mars 1996, le juge en chef de la Cour fédérale et le sous-procureur général adjoint du ministère de la Justice se sont rencontrés pour discuter des affaires des appelants sans que les avocats des appelants n'assistent à la rencontre ou ne soient informés de sa tenue. Le sous-procureur général adjoint a écrit que, lors de cette rencontre, il a informé le juge en chef que le procureur général du Canada était invité à envisager de présenter un renvoi à notre Cour pour régler certaines questions de droit préliminaires concernant les affaires des appelants, principalement parce que la Section de première instance de la Cour fédérale ne pouvait pas ou ne voulait pas instruire les affaires avec diligence. Le juge en chef a répondu par écrit qu'il avait discuté des préoccupations exprimées par le sous-procureur général adjoint avec le juge en chef adjoint et que ce dernier était disposé à prendre toutes les mesures nécessaires pour éviter un renvoi devant notre Cour.
L'échange de lettres a été porté à la connaissance des avocats des appelants environ une semaine après la rencontre. Le 30 avril 1996, le juge en chef adjoint a décidé que l'instruction de ces affaires devrait être confiée à un autre juge. Les parties ont été informées de sa décision le 6 mai 1996. Les appelants ont ensuite présenté des requêtes en suspension des procédures, auxquelles le juge Cullen de la Section de première instance a fait droit. L'intimé a interjeté appel. La Cour d'appel à la majorité a rejeté des requêtes en annulation des appels et la même formation a accueilli l'appel à l'unanimité.
Origine : Cour d'appel fédérale
No du greffe : 25811
Arrêt de la Cour d'appel : Le 12 décembre 1996
Avocats : Michael Code pour l'appelant Oberlander
Gesta J. Abols pour l'appelant Tobiass
Donald Bayne pour l'appelant Dueck
George Thomson pour l'intimé
25262 André Côté et al. v. George Addy
Proceedings - Courts - Appeal - Jurisdiction - Judicial review - Legislation - Interpretation - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Search - Seizure - Search warrants issued under s. 15 of the Competition Act - Motion to rescind the search warrants based, inter alia, on ss. 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter - Motion dismissed by the Trial Division - Arguments based on ss. 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter found premature - Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction - No right to appeal - Whether the majority of the Federal Court of Appeal erred in finding that it had no jurisdiction to ascertain the propriety of a judgment in review of an order issuing search warrants - Application of s. 27(1) of the Federal Court Act.
In 1994, in accordance with the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, one of the Respondent’s representatives investigated the services provided by the Appellants, notaries in the Rimouski and Rivière du Loup area, with respect to immovable transactions. On March 16 and 22, 1995, in an information laid before McGillis J. of the Federal Court - Trial Division, he alleged that between January 1994 and February 1995, the Appellants had unlawfully conspired to unduly lessen competition in services provided with respect to immovable transactions, contrary to s. 45(1)(c) of the Competition Act. On March 16 and 22, 1995 respectively, on an ex parte application, McGillis J. issued search warrants authorizing the Director of Investigation and Research and his representatives to search certain premises, including the Appellants’ offices, for records and other things and to copy them or seize them for examination and copying.
On April 24, 1995, the Appellants filed a motion to have the orders made ex parte by McGillis J. rescinded, to have all the things seized and the copies and extracts thereof returned and to have all the records and things seized placed in escrow pending final judgment. In their motion under Rule 330 of the Federal Court Rules, the Appellants argued that McGillis J.’s orders violated ss. 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter and were not authorized by s. 15(1) of the Competition Act in so far as the information did not establish any reasonable grounds to believe that an offence had been committed. The Appellants also argued that the description of the things to be seized was too broad and that the authorization to search was an abuse of process.
On October 17, 1995, Richard J. of the Federal Court - Trial Division found that there were grounds justifying the issuance of the search warrants. He also ruled that the arguments based on ss. 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter were premature. He therefore dismissed the Appellants’ motion. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellants’ appeal for want of jurisdiction. Décary J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal, permitted the Appellants to apply to the Court for review of the ex parte orders and, rendering the judgment that he felt should have been rendered, would have allowed the application for review, rescinded the search warrants and ordered that all the things seized be returned to the Appellants.
Origin of the case: Quebec
File No.: 25262
Judgment of the Court of Appeal: February 5, 1996
Counsel: Bruno J. Pateras, Q.C., and Danielle Barot for the Appellants
François Rioux for the Respondent
25262 M. André Côté et al c. M. George Addy
Procédures - Tribunaux - Appel - Compétence - Contrôle judiciaire - Législation - Interprétation - Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - Perquisitions - Saisie - Mandats de perquisition décernés en application de l’art. 15 de la Loi sur la concurrence - Requête en annulation des mandats de perquisition fondée inter alia sur les art. 7 et 8 de la Charte canadienne - Requête rejetée en Section de première instance - Arguments fondés sur les art. 7 et 8 de la Charte canadienne jugés prématurés - Appel à la Cour d’appel fédérale rejeté, faute de compétence - Inexistence du droit d’appel - La Cour d’appel fédérale, à la majorité, a-t-elle erré en concluant qu’elle n’a pas compétence pour vérifier le bien-fondé d’un jugement en révision d’une ordonnance portant délivrance de mandats de perquisition? - Application du par. 27(1) de la Loi sur la Cour fédérale.
En 1994, conformément à la Loi sur la concurrence, L.R.C. (1985), chap. C-34, un représentant de l’intimé fait enquête sur les services offerts par les Appelants, des notaires de la région de Rimouski et de Rivière du Loup, en matière de transactions immobilières. Les 16 et 22 mars 1995, dans une dénonciation déposée devant le juge McGillis de la Section de première instance de la Cour fédérale, il reproche aux Appelants d’avoir, entre les mois de janvier 1994 et février 1995, illégalement comploté en vue de réduire indûment la concurrence dans les services offerts en matière de transactions immobilières, contrevenant ainsi à l’alinéa 45(1)c) de la Loi sur la concurrence. Les 16 et 22 mars 1995 respectivement, dans une demande ex parte, le juge McGillis délivre des mandats de perquisition autorisant le directeur des enquêtes et recherches et ses représentants à perquisitionner certains lieux, dont les bureaux des Appelants, en vue d’obtenir des documents et autres objets et d’en faire copie ou de les emporter pour examen ou pour en faire copie.
Le 24 avril 1995, les Appelants déposent une requête visant à faire annuler les ordonnances rendues ex parte par le juge McGillis, à ordonner le retour de tous les effets saisis ainsi que copies et extraits de ceux-ci et à faire entiercer tous les documents et effets saisis en attendant jugement final. Dans une requête fondée sur l’art. 330 des Règles de la Cour fédérale, les Appelants prétendent que les ordonnances du juge McGillis portent atteinte aux art. 7 et 8 de la Charte canadienne, ne sont pas autorisées par le par. 15(1) de la Loi sur la concurrence dans la mesure où la dénonciation n’établit aucun motif raisonnable de croire qu’une infraction a été commise. Les Appelants prétendent également que la description des effets à saisir est trop large et que l’autorisation de perquisitionner constitue un abus de procédures.
Le 17 octobre 1995, le juge Richard de la Section de première instance de la Cour fédérale conclut à l’existence de motifs justifiant la délivrance des mandats de perquisition. Quant aux arguments fondés sur les art. 7 et 8 de la Charte canadienne, le juge Richard les estime prématurés. Il rejette donc la requête des Appelants. La Cour d’appel fédérale rejette l’appel des Appelants, faute de compétence. Le juge Décary, dissident, aurait accueilli l’appel, permis aux Appelants de s’adresser à la Cour en révision des ordonnances rendues ex parte et, rendant le jugement qui aurait dû être rendu à son avis, il aurait accueilli la demande de révision, annulé les mandats de perquisition et ordonné que tous les effets saisis soient retournés aux Appelants.
Origine: Québec
No du greffe: 25262
Arrêt de la Cour d’appel: Le 5 février 1996
Avocats: Bruno J. Pateras Q.C. et Danielle Barot pour l’appelants
François Rioux pour l’intimé
DEADLINES: APPEALS
|
|
DÉLAIS: APPELS |
The Fall Session of the Supreme Court of Canada will commence October 6, 1997.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court Act and Rules, the following requirements for filing must be complied with before an appeal will be inscribed and set down for hearing:
Case on appeal must be filed within three months of the filing of the notice of appeal.
Appellant's factum must be filed within four months of the filing of the notice of appeal.
Respondent's factum must be filed within eight weeks of the date of service of the appellant's factum.
Intervener's factum must be filed within four weeks of the date of service of the respondent's factum.
The Registrar shall inscribe the appeal for hearing upon the filing of the respondent's factum or after the expiry of the time for filing the respondent's factum.
|
|
La session d’automne de la Cour suprême du Canada commencera le 6 octobre 1997.
Conformément à la Loi sur la Cour suprême et aux Règles, il faut se conformer aux exigences suivantes avant qu'un appel puisse être inscrit pour audition:
Le dossier d'appel doit être déposé dans les trois mois du dépôt de l'avis d'appel.
Le mémoire de l'appelant doit être déposé dans les quatre mois du dépôt de l'avis d'appel.
Le mémoire de l'intimé doit être déposé dans les huit semaines suivant la signification de celui de l'appelant.
Le mémoire de l'intervenant doit être déposé dans les quatre semaines suivant la signification de celui de l'intimé.
Le registraire inscrit l'appel pour audition après le dépôt du mémoire de l'intimé ou à l'expiration du délai de signification du mémoire de l'intimé. |
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE
CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME
- 1997 -
APRIL - AVRIL |
|
MAY - MAI |
|
JUNE - JUIN |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
|
1 |
m 2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
|
4 |
m 5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
|
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
|
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
20 |
m 21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
|
18 |
h 19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
|
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sittings of the court: Séances de la cour: |
|
|
Motions: Requêtes: |
M |
|
Holidays: Jours fériés: |
H |
18 sitting weeks / semaines séances de la cour 83 sitting days / journées séances de la cour 8 motion and conference days / journées requêtes, conférences 1 holidays during sitting days / jours fériés durant les sessions |
|
||
|
|
|