Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

February 14, 1997  281 - 334 (INDEX)                                                  le 14 février 1997

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

The C.S.L. Group Inc. et al.

Sean J. Harrington

McMaster Meighen

c. (25769)

The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority et al. (Qué.)

Pierre Fournier

Fournier, Perron

DATE DE PRODUCTION 27.1.1997

Richard Gerry White

David E. Harris

v. (25775)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

Ken Campbell

Crown Law Office, Criminal

FILING DATE 23.1.1997

Rolande Blackburn-Moreault et al.

Suzanne Côté

Stikeman, Elliott

c. (25776)

Henri Moreault et al. (Qué.)

Sylvie Roussel

Noël Berthiaume

DATE DE PRODUCTION 14.1.1997

Sentinel Self-Storage Corp.

Donald N. Cherniawsky

Felesky Flynn

v. (25792)

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

Louis A.G. Williams

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 27.1.1997

FEBRUARY 7, 1997 / LE 7 FÉVRIER 1997

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

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Cory et McLachlin

                                                                Mark Edward Grant

                                                                        v. (25629)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Prior convictions - R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670 - Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to grant the Applicant’s Corbett application - Whether Corbett can apply where an accused does not testify - Defences- Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to charge the jury on alibi.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

September 12, 1995

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

Conviction: sexual assault; choking to overcome resistance

September 20, 1996

Court of Appeal for Manitoba

(Huband, Helper and Kroft JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

November 18, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

                                                                                          Adi Boman Irani

                                                                                                v. (25655)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Verdicts - Appellate review - Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 686(1) (a)(i) - Whether s. 686(1)(a)(i) confers on an appellate court the power to set aside a verdict that is unsafe.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                      Thomson Newspaper Company Limited,

                                                 doing business as The Globe and Mail, The Evening Telegram,

                                                   Winnipeg Free Press and Times-Colonist, and Southam Inc.

                                                                                                v. (25593)

                                                                      The Attorney General of Canada (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Statutes - Interpretation - Freedom of expression - Right to vote - S. 322.1 of Canada Elections Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-2 banning broadcast, publication or dissemination of results of public opinion polls for several days immediately prior to holding of federal election - Did the Ontario Court of Appeal err in holding that an absolute ban on a form of political speech for the final three days before a Federal election is consistent with the right to an informed vote under section 3  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ? - Did the Ontario Court of Appeal err in holding that section 322.1 of the Canada Elections Act constitutes a reasonable limit of both section 2(b)  and section 3  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

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

                                                                                        Place Brossard Inc.

                                                                                                c. (25612)

                                      131483 Canada Inc., Frank Campanelli, Nicole Lavallée-Campanelli (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Contrats - Interprétation - Droit des biens - Baux - Locateurs et locataires - Transaction intervenue entre les parties dans le but de mettre fin au litige les opposant - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que la transaction obligeait la demanderesse à aménager un nouveau local pour recevoir le commerce des intimés et à les aviser de cet aménagement? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en intervenant sur des questions de faits et d’appréciation de la preuve substituant sa propre appréciation de la preuve à celle du juge de première instance et en concluant que la non-réalisation de la condition de relocalisation du commerce contenue à la transaction ne pouvait être attribuée aux intimés? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que la réalisation de la condition de relocalisation ayant été empêchée par le défaut de la demanderesse elle-même, le contrat de transaction doit recevoir tout son effet?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 15 janvier 1993

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

Action en résiliation de bail et en dommages-intérêts accueillie en partie

Le 10 septembre 1996

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Rothman, Proulx et Robert jj.c.a.)

Appel accueilli

Le 8 novembre 1996

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

                                                                             The Heirs of Philip M. Salomon

                                                                                                c. (25671)

                                                              Le Curateur public du Québec ès qualités (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Société - Succession - Partage des biens - Droit administratif - Appel - L’appel du jugement du juge Tremblay de la Cour supérieure était-il appelable de plein droit?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

CORAM: La Forest, Gonthier and Major JJ. /

Les juges La Forest, Gonthier et Major

                                                                     Canadian Newspapers Company Limited

                                                                                                v. (25632)

                                                     Kansa General Insurance Company Ltd., Kansa Insurance

                                                 Management Inc. and Jevco Insurance Management Inc. (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial Law - Contracts - Insurance - Insured’s duty to co-operate - Implied covenant of good faith - Effect of a special reporting arrangement agreed to outside an insurance policy - Standard to determine a breach of an implied obligation of good faith - Burden of proof regarding whether a breach of an implied obligation of good faith prejudiced an insurer - Whether the payment of legal accounts amounted to a waiver of breaches of an insurance policy - Whether the Court of Appeal was justified in overturning the trial judge’s findings of facts and credibility.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                             Friends of the Lubicon, Kevin Thomas, Ed Bianchi, Stephen Kenda,

                                                                 Jane Does, John Does and persons unknown

                                                                                                v. (25608)

                                                                                       Daishowa Inc. (Ont.)

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

                                                                              Toronto College Park Limited

                                                                                                v. (25559)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Statutes - Assessment - Accounting - Interpretation - Tenant inducement payments - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the payor of a lease inducement payment was required to amortize it over the term of the lease - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal elevated the “matching principle” to a paramount rule of law.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

December 8, 1993

Federal Court Trial Division (Simpson J.)

Applicant’s appeal of tax assessment allowed

June 25, 1996

Federal Court of Appeal

(Strayer, Robertson, JJ.A., Chevalier D.J.)

Appeal allowed

October 24, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

                                                                                              Ikea Limited

                                                                                                v. (25674)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Statutes - Assessment - Accounting - Interpretation - Tenant inducement payments - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the recipient of a lease inducement payment was required to declare the payment in the year in which it was received - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in failing to distinguish  Kenneth B.S. Robertson Ltd. v. M.N.R., 2 D.T.C. 655 (Ex. Ct.).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et Iacobucci

                                                                                    Her Majesty The Queen

                                                                                                v. (25675)

                                                                             Ambrose Meaney (Crim.)(Nfld.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Hearsay - Out-of-court statements - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the admissibility of out-of-court statements with regard to mentally delayed adults, the requirement for physical corroboration, deference to a trial judge’s findings of fact as regards reliability, and s. 15  of the Charter  - Whether the formula in R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 applies to all jury trials or only to those that present a stark choice between the evidence of the accused and the evidence of the complainant - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ignoring the consent given by counsel for the Respondent to the admissibility of the out-of-court statement, the questioning of the complainant before the jury, and the trial judge’s charge - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the conviction entered by the jury and in adopting a different standard of review for convictions entered by a jury - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in entering an acquittal rather than ordering a new trial.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                           François Bégin

                                                                                                c. (25630)

                                                                                     Ville de Québec (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit municipal - Municipalités - Règlement de zonage - Usage dérogatoire - Immeuble servant de maison de chambres - Requête de l’intimée présentée en vertu de l’article 227 de la Loi sur l’aménagement et l’urbanisme, L.R.Q. chap. A-19.1, pour que cessent les activités d’hôtellerie exercées par le demandeur et contraires au règlement de zonage et d’urbanisme de l’intimée - Requête accueillie en partie en première instance - Appel du demandeur rejeté - Le règlement de zonage de la Ville du Québec peut-il créer une distinction entre usages en se référant uniquement aux personnes? - Le règlement de zonage est-il imprécis et doit-il être déclaré nul?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 8 janvier 1990

Cour supérieure du Québec

(Pidgeon J.C.S.)

Requête de l’intimée pour que cessent les activités d’hôtellerie exercées par le demandeur accueillie en partie

Le 10 septembre 1996

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Brossard, Robert et Philippon [suppléant], JJ.C.A. )

Appel du demandeur rejeté

Le 12 novembre 1996

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

                                                                                   Pilot Insurance Company

                                                                                                v. (25637)

                                                                                The Bank of Montreal (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Trial - Insurance - Whether an insurer denying coverage to its insured should be compelled to advance its coverage dispute in the main action against the insured - Whether an insurer who denies coverage to its insured is in any circumstances fastened with specific findings of fact in the main action brought against its insured, that might have bearing on the yet-to-be-litigated question of coverage in third party proceedings.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                       Gad Noik, Bernard Noik, Thomas Michaels, David Noik

                                                                      Anne Noik and Gaber Holdings Limited

                                                                                                v. (25605)

                                                    Edelstein Construction Limited and The Fire Pit Inc. (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Civil procedure - Summary judgment - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside summary judgment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

February 24, 1994

Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)

(Chapnick J.)

Applications for summary judgment dismissing actions allowed

September 6, 1996

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Morden A.C.J.O., Rosenberg and Moldaver  JJ.A.)

Appeals allowed

November 5, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

FEBRUARY 13, 1997 / LE 13 FÉVRIER 1997

25325                    TIOXIDE CANADA INC.  c.  SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE (C.A.F.)(Qué.)

CORAM:               Le Juge en chef et les juges Gonthier et Iacobucci

La demande de nouvel examen est rejetée.

The application for re-consideration is dismissed.

25555                    HENRY MCALISTER LANG  v.  GERARD MCKENNA  -and-  MICHAEL J. HICKS AND ROBERT HICKS AND WENDY CAMERON; CAPUTO, SARLO, O’NEILL AND WALKER, THOMPSON (Ont.)

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

Commercial Law - Bankruptcy - Fraud - Whether a creditor should be allowed to bring a claim for punitive damages against a bankrupt for failure to disclose a claim for lost wages in a liability action.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

July 4, 1994

Ontario Court (General Division) Pardu J.

Applicant’s action dismissed

June 24, 1996

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Houlden Catzman, Rosenberg JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed in part

October 23, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25585                    CARL D. CHADBOURNE  v.  HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Ont.)

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 - Sentencing - Whether Court of Appeal for Ontario adopted an overly interventionist approach to appellate review of sentence contrary to the deferential standard of appellate review of sentence recently affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada - Did Court of Appeal for Ontario err by characterizing the sentence imposed as clearly unreasonable?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

March 4, 1994

Ontario Court (General Division)

(Bolan J.)

Sentence of 10 years imprisonment imposed after convictions for 6 counts of indecent assault on males, 4 counts of gross indecency, 3 counts of buggery, 1 count of assault causing bodily harm

July 18, 1996

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Houlden, Catzman and Moldaver JJ.A.)

Respondent Crown’s appeal of sentence allowed; term of imprisonment raised to 18 years

October 30, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25569                    BERTRAND FRADET  c  CENTRE DE CAMIONS ST-PRIME INC. (ANCIENNEMENT CONNUE COMME PIÈCES DE CAMION DU LAC INC.)  et.  PAUL TREMBLAY, FLORENT ET GILBERT TREMBLAY INC., ALAIN BOUCHARD, LA BANQUE NATIONALE DU CANADA ET LE RÉGISTRATEUR DE LA DIVISION D’ENREGISTREMENT DE LAC SAINT-JEAN OUEST (Qué.)

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

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Code civil - Contrats - Interprétation - Offre d’achat - Entente - Condition suspensive - Bonne foi - Entente entre les parties en vue d’acquérir les actifs d’une entreprise en faillite à condition que l’intimée obtienne un financement - Financement refusé - L’intimée a-t-elle, par sa faute, empêché l’accomplissement de la condition d’obtention de financement - Application de l’article 1084 du Code civil du Bas-Canada - L’intimée a-t-elle manqué à ses obligations de mandataire en acquérant les actifs pour son propre bénéfice et celui d’un tiers? - L’intimée a-t-elle manqué à ses obligations de loyauté et de bonne foi?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 19 septembre 1991

Cour supérieure du Québec (Gagnon J.C.S.)

Action en exécution de contrat et requête en nomination de séquestre rejetées

Le 4 juillet 1996

Cour d’appel du Québec (Mailhot et Tourigny et

Biron [suppléant] JJ.C.A)

Appel rejeté

Le 28 octobre 1996

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

25649                    ROBERT DESGROSSEILLIERS  v.  HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Ont.)

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 - Juries - Jury selection - Challenge for cause - Whether the Applicant should have been permitted to challenge prospective jurors for cause based on bias concerning parole.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

January 26, 1996

Ontario Court (General Division) (Hurley J.)

Application for early parole pursuant to Criminal Code  s. 745  dismissed

November 19, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal and motion for the extension of time filed

25673                    GILLES RICHER  c.  COMMISSION SCOLAIRE SAINT-JÉRÔME, MADAME SYLVIE HALL  et  MONSIEUR RICHARD GOSSELIN (Qué.)

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

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Procédure civile - Juge de première instance ordonnant au demandeur de dénoncer et de communiquer les pièces invoquées au soutien de son action et rejetant sa requête et sa déclaration en désaveu - Désistement du demandeur de son action - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en rejetant la requête pour permission d’en appeler et pour rétractation de jugement présentée par le demandeur?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

25573                    SOCIÉTÉ CANADIENNE DES MÉTAUX REYNOLDS LTÉE.  c.  GASTON MARIN  et  COMMISSION D’APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE LÉSIONS PROFESSIONNELLES; GUY PERREAULT, ES QUALITÉS DE COMMISSAIRE ET COMMISSION DE LA SANTÉ ET DE LA SÉCURITÉ DU TRAVAIL (Qué.)

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

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail - Relations de travail - Indemnisation - Législation - Interprétation - Droit administratif - Compétence - Contrôle judiciaire - Lésions professionnelles - Retour au travail - Calcul de l’indemnité de vacances - Interprétation des articles 32 et 242 de la Loi sur les accidents du travail et les maladies professionnelles, L.R.Q., chap. A-3.001 - Les heures d’absence accumulées en raison de lésions professionnelles subies par le travailleur doivent-elles être comptées en vue de fixer l’indemnité de vacances à laquelle le travailleur a droit après son retour au travail? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en décidant que même si l’article 32 de la Loi ne s’applique pas, la décision de la Commission d’appel en matière de lésions professionnelles (CALP) n’était pas entachée d’une erreur manifestement déraisonnable?  Subsidiairement, la Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en jugeant que la CALP n’a pas commis d’erreur manifestement déraisonnable dans son interprétation de l’article 242 de la Loi?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 25 juillet 1988

Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail

(Tremblay, conciliateur-décideur)

Plainte de l’intimé rejetée

Le 17 juillet 1989

Bureau de révision paritaire

(Vigneault, prés., Lasalle et Paquet)

Demande de révision rejetée

Le 27 février 1990

Commission d’appel en matière de lésions professionnelles (Perreault, commissaire)

Appel de l’intimé accueilli

Le 7 novembre 1990

Cour supérieure du Québec (Corriveau J.C.S.)

Requête de la demanderesse en évocation accueillie

Le 16 mai 1996

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Brossard, Robert et Philippon [suppléant] JJ.C.A.)

Appel de l’intimé accueilli

Le 28 octobre 1996

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

25489                    587855 ONTARIO LTD. and RAMESH MISHRA v. INDUSTRIAL-ALLIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO., GESTION D’ASSURANCES GWB INC. and GLOBAL INSURANCE CO. and THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF OTTAWA (Ont.)

CORAM:               La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.

The application for a stay of proceedings is dismissed.  The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

La demande de sursis des procédures est rejetée.  La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Mortgages - Do the City of Ottawa and the mortgagees have the right to invade Applicants’ properties without notice through the use of a plainclothes police officers? - Does the City of Ottawa have the right to unilaterally, without notice, terminate its written contract with the Applicants? (CMS - 113, 950

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

25481               HUDSON & COMPANY INSOLVENCY TRUSTEES INC., TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD WILLIAM CHRISTENSEN v. ARTHUR CHRISTENSEN  and HAROLD NORMAN CHRISTENSEN (Alta.)

CORAM:           La Forest, Cory 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 - Creditor and debtor - Fraudulent preferences - Application of exception contained in many fraudulent preference statutes for payments made to a creditor which would otherwise be void under the same legislation.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

25624               587855 ONTARIO LTD., CENTRETOWN GUEST HOUSE LTD. and RAMESH MISHRA v. PIAZZA, POLOWIN, BROOKS & SIDDONS  -and-  SUN LIFE TRUST CO., RICHARD G. RANKIN, RENE LABRECQUE and WESTBORO GROUP OF COMPANIES INC. (Ont.)

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

Procedural law - Appeals - Was it appropriate to remove Respondent from the action by granting summary judgment?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

June 21, 1994

Ontario Court (General Division) (Soubliere J.)

Applicants’ action dismissed

September 11, 1996

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Finlayson, Doherty and Abella JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

November 12, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

25636               CENTRETOWN GUEST HOUSE LTD. and RAMESH MISHRA v. M.R.S. TRUST CO. and CITY OF OTTAWA  -and-  CENTRETOWN GUEST HOUSE LTD. and RAMESH CHANDRA MISHRA v. M.R.S. TRUST CO. (Ont.)

CORAM:           La Forest, Gonthier and Major JJ.

The application for a stay of proceedings is dismissed.  The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

La demande de sursis des procédures est rejetée.  La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Mortgages - Do the City of Ottawa and the mortgagees have the right to invade Applicants’ properties without notice through the use of a plainclothes police officers? - Does the City of Ottawa have the right to unilaterally, without notice, terminate its written contract with the Applicants?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

January 25, 1995

Ontario Court (General Division) (Sedgewick J.)

Applicants’ action against Respondents dismissed; Judgment for Respondent M.R.S. on mortgage action

September 11, 1996

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Finlayson, Doherty and Abella JJ.A.)

Appeals dismissed

November 12, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

6.2.1997

Before / Devant: SOPINKA J.

Motion to strike out

Peter Haberman

   v. (24981)

Mauricio Peixeiro et al. (Ont.)

Requête en radiation

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

6.2.1997

Before / Devant: LE JUGE SOPINKA

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

Jacob Elbilia

   c. (25744)

Compagnie d’assurances Canadian Surety (Qué.)

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

REJETÉE avec dépens / DISMISSED with costs

7.2.1997

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

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

Richard James Socobasin

   v. (25711)

Her Majesty The Queen (N.S.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer la réponse de l’intimée

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to January 31, 1997.

10.2.1997

Before / Devant: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER

Motion to state a constitutional question

Delwin Vriend et al.

   v. (25285)

Her Majesty The Queen in right of Alberta et al. (Alta.)

Requête pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

1.  Do (a) decisions not to include sexual orientation or  (b) the non-inclusion of sexual orientation, as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Preamble and ss. 2(1), 3, 4, 7(1), 8(1), 10 and 16(1) of the Individual’s Rights Protection Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. I-2, as am., now called the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. H-11.7, infringe or deny the rights guaranteed by s. 15(1)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

1.  Est ce que a) soit la décision de ne pas inclure l’orientation sexuelle, b) soit la non-inclusion de l’orientation sexuelle, en tant que motif de discrimination illicite dans le préambule et dans les art. 2(1), 3, 4, 7(1), 8(1), 10 et 16(1) de l’Individual’s Rights Protection Act, R.S.A. 1980, ch. I-2, et ses modifications, intitulée maintenant Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 1980, ch. H-11.7, a pour effet de nier les droits garantis par le par. 15(1)  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés , ou d’y porter atteinte?

2.  If the answer to Question 1 is “yes”, is the infringement or denial demonstrably justified as a reasonable limit pursuant to s. 1  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

2.  Si la réponse à la question 1 est «oui», est-ce que la négation ou l’atteinte peut être justifiée en tant que limite raisonnable au sens de l’article premier de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

10.2.1997

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

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

Michael Vukelich

   v. (25544)

Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer la réponse de l’intimée

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to February 7, 1997.

11.2.1997

Before / Devant: SOPINKA J.

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

Anne Marie Wickstead

    v. (25350)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

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

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to February 11, 1997.

12.2.1997

Before / Devant: SOPINKA J.

Motion to file a reply factum on appeal

Alfred Goodswimmer et al.

   v. (24737)

The Attorney General of Canada et al. (B.C.)

Requête pour le dépôt d'un mémoire en réplique lors de l'appel

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

12.2.1997

CORAM:               Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et McLachlin

Requête pour production de documents additionnels

Construction Gilles Paquette Ltée

   c. (25090)

Entreprises Végo Ltée (Qué.)

Motion to produce added documentation

Bernard Faribault, pour l’appelante

Aucune représentation pour les intimées.

ACCORDÉE / GRANTED

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Canada

IN/DANS:              John David Lucas et al.

v. (25177)

Her Majesty The Queen (Sask.)

10.2.1997

CORAM:               Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci et Major

Procureur général du Canada

   c. (24652)

Hydro-Québec (Qué.)

Claude Joyal, James Mabbutt, c.r., Yves Leboeuf et Jean Rhéaume, pour l’appelant.

Stewart A.G. Elgie et Paul R. Muldoon, pour l’intervenant Pollution Probe et al.

Robert Astell, pour l’intervenante la Société pour vaincre la pollution.

François Fontaine, Sophie Perreault et Jean Piette, pour l’intimée.

Alain Gingras, pour le mis-en-cause le procureur général du Québec.

Thomson Irvine, pour l’intervenant le procureur général de la Saskatchewan.

Robert G. Richards, pour l’intervenant IPSCO Inc.

EN DÉLIBÉRÉ / RESERVED

Nature de la cause:

Droit de l'environnement - Droit constitutionnel - Partage des compétences - Législation - Interprétation - Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 .

Nature of the case:

Environmental law - Constitutional law - Distribution of powers - Legislation - Interpretation - Constitution Act, 1867 .

11.2.1997

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

Her Majesty The Queen

   v. (25351)

Christian Marinus Jensen (Crim.)(Ont.)

Robert Kelly, for the appellant.

Bruce Duncan and Shane Hickinbottom, for the respondent.

SOPINKA J. (orally for the Court) -- We are all of the view that this appeal is not based on a question of law alone.  Accordingly, the appeal is quashed.

LE JUGE SOPINKA (oralement au nom de la Cour) -- Nous sommes tous d’avis que le présent pourvoi ne repose pas sur une question de droit seulement.  En conséquence, le pourvoi est annulé.

12.2.1997

CORAM:               Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et McLachlin

Syndicat des postiers du Canada

   c. (25093)

Société canadienne des postes (Qué.)

Paul Lesage et Normand Beaulieu, pour l’appelant.

Jacques Reeves, pour l’intimée.

EN DÉLIBÉRÉ / RESERVED

Nature de la cause:

Procédure - Procédure civile - Appel - Certificat d’appel déserté - Défaut de produire un mémoire d’appel dans le délai imparti - Confusion au sujet des règles de procédure - Diligence de l’avocat.

Nature of the case:

Procedure - Civil procedure - Appeal - Certificate of abandoned appeal - Failure to file appeal factum within time prescribed - Confusion about rules of procedure - Diligence of counsel.

12.2.1997

CORAM:               Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et McLachlin

Construction Gilles Paquette Ltée

   c. (25090)

Entreprises Végo Ltée (Qué.)

Bernard Faribault, pour l’appelante

Aucune représentation pour les intimées.

EN DÉLIBÉRÉ / RESERVED

Nature de la cause:

Procédure - Procédure civile - Appel - Certificat d’appel déserté - Rétractation de jugement - Ignorance de l’article 503.1 du Code de procédure civile, L.R.Q., c. C-25 - Défaut de produire un mémoire d’appel dans le délai imparti - Le certificat attestant que l’appel est déserté aux termes de l’art. 503.1 C.p.c. prive-t-il la Cour d’appel d’exercer son pouvoir discrétionnaire prévu à l’art. 523 C.p.c., conformément aux articles 9 et 10 de la Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires, L.R.Q., c. T-16, même s’il ne s’agit pas d’un jugement? -  Le certificat attestant que l’appel est déserté prévu à l’art. 503.1 C.p.c. prive-t-il irrémédiablement les parties de leur droit d’appel et, dans la négative, la Cour d’appel était-elle justifiée de refuser d’exercer son pouvoir discrétionnaire?

Nature of the case:

Procedure - Civil procedure - Appeal - Certificate of abandoned appeal - Revocation of judgment - Ignorance of article 503.1 of Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q., c. C-25 - Failure to file appeal factum within prescribed period - Whether certificate stating appeal abandoned under art. 503.1 C.C.P. deprives Court of Appeal of exercise of its discretion under art. 523 C.C.P. in accordance with sections 9 and 10 of Courts of Justice Act, R.S.Q., c. T-16, even if not judgment - Whether certificate stating appeal abandoned under art. 503.1 C.C.P. irreparably deprives parties of right to appeal and, if not, whether Court of Appeal justified in refusing to exercise its discretion.

13.2.1997

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

Her Majesty The Queen in right of the Province of British Columbia

   v. (24891)

Ossie Sylvester (B.C.)

Timothy P. Leadem, for the appellant.

Brian A. Crane, Q.C. and Iqbal Sara, for the respondent.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Labour law - Commercial law - Contracts - Damages - Master and servant - Applicability of the rule against double compensation in the context of a breach of contract constituting wrongful dismissal - Set-off of disability benefits against damages for breach of employment contract - Effective date of termination - Calculation of the commencement of the notice period for the wrongful dismissal of a disabled employee.

Nature de la cause:

Droit du travail ─ Droit commercial ─ Contrats ─ Dommages-intérêts ─ Employeur et employé ─ Applicabilité de la règle contre la double indemnisation dans le contexte d'une violation de contrat constituant un renvoi injustifié ─ Compensation entre des prestations d'invalidité et des dommages-intérêts pour violation de contrat de travail ─ Date effective de cessation d'emploi ─ Calcul du commencement de la période de préavis pour le renvoi injustifié d'un employé frappé d'incapacité.

13.2.1997

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

Frances Ellen MacDonnell

   v. (25165)

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

Hector J. MacIsaac and Frank Demont, for the appellant.

Robert C. Hagell, for the respondent.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

Nature of the case:

Criminal law  - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Evidence - Stay of proceedings - Charges laid after 30 years - Evidence is missing from the 1963 inquest and witnesses have died - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Appellant’s alleged prejudice was based on speculation and conjecture and in failing to address the cumulative prejudicial effect of all of the missing evidence and witnesses - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in substituting its own inference regarding testimony of Dr. Tucker and Dr. Murray over those of the trial judge - Whether the Court of Appeal

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel ─ Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  ─ Preuve ─ Arrêt des procédures ─ Accusations déposées 30 ans après le fait ─ Preuve manquante dans l'enquête de 1963 et témoins  maintenant décédés ─ La Cour d'appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que le préjudice que l'appelante allègue avoir subi était fondé sur des spéculations et des conjectures, et en ne tenant pas compte de l'effet préjudiciable cumulatif de tous les éléments de preuve manquant et des témoins disparus? ─ La Cour d'appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en substituant sa propre conclusion concernant le

erred in speculating that allegations of wrongdoing were not made in 1962/63 or that the doctors’ evidence would be neither helpful nor harmful to the Appellant.

témoignage du D^r Tucker et du D^r Murray à celles du juge du procès? ─ La Cour d'appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant à partir d'hypothèses que des allégations de faute n'ont pas été faites en 1962-1963 ou que le témoignage des médecins ne serait ni utile ni nuisible à l'appelante?

AGENDA for the week beginning February 17, 1997.

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

Date of Hearing/                           Case Number and Name/    

Date d'audition                             Numéro et nom de la cause

17/02/97                               Air Canada v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario, et al and between Canadian Airlines International Ltd. v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario, et al (Ont.)(24851)

18/02/97                               Alfred Goodswimmer, et al v. Attorney General of Canada, et al -AND BETWEEN- Alfred Goodswimmer, et al v. Attorney General of Canada, et al (F.C.A.)(Alta.)(24737, 24745)

18/02/97                               Fotios Korkontzilas, et al v. Nick Soulos (Ont.)(24949)

19/02/97                               St. Mary’s Indian Band, et al v. Corporation of the City of Cranbrook (B.C.)(24946)

19/02/97                               Kirk Blaine Thompson v. Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Man.)(25142)

20/02/97                               Her Majesty the Queen v. Donald Wayne Cook (Crim.)(N.B.)(25394)

20/02/97                               Gerald Allan Naud v. Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(B.C.)(25309)

21/02/97                               Cameron Lee Russell v. Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Alta.)(25214)

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.

24851    Air Canada et al v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario et al

Statutes - Interpretation - Aeronautics - Liquor importation and sale by airlines - Restitution - Whether airlines required to pay markups charged by LCBO - Whether the Airlines’ liquor provisioning system is an integral part of the aeronautics undertakings and outside the regulatory regime of the province - Whether the LCBO can use the Application at s. 13 of the Warehouses Regulations to enforce markups - Whether the LCBO must make restitution of monies paid under misapplication of law either prior to or subsequent to January 1, 1984 - Whether this is a proper case for punitive damages or compound interest - Whether s. 27 of the Liquor Licence Act is applicable.

The liquor the Appellant Airlines bought for serving onboard whether it was from Ontario or not  was delivered from their suppliers to the bonded areas of the LCBO warehouses.  The Appellants paid the Respondent LCBO mark-ups on the liquor transferred and as holders of licences under the Liquor Control Act, they also paid gallonage fees. Wardair had a private agreement with the Respondent LCBO and had not held a licence in Ontario for liquor sales aboard its aircraft since January 1, 1984, and did not pay the markups and gallonage fees charged by the LCBO.  After Canadian Airlines merged with Wardair in 1989, the Appellants became aware of this fact and demanded that they be accorded the same treatment as Wardair.

The airlines brought actions against the Respondents claiming that they were not obliged as a matter of law to pay the LCBO markups and gallonage fees and were entitled to be reimbursed for all payments previously made.  The Respondents counterclaimed and sought declarations as to the state of the law.  Moreover, the Respondents LCBO and LLBO also sought recovery from Canadian Airlines of money allegedly owing by Wardair from January, 1984 to the time it ceased its operations.

The Appellants obtained judgment requiring that the Respondent LCBO repay certain amounts to them.  The Court of Appeal allowed the Respondents' appeal, in part, and dismissed the airlines’ cross-appeal.  The Appellants applied for leave to appeal. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal endorsed the record stating that the LCBO's obligation to repay all gallonage fees collected from the airlines by the LCBO after December 31, 1983, is subject to the LCBO's entitlement to set off against such payment all discounts provided to the airlines by the LCBO or the LLBO during the said period by virtue of their status as licensees.  The Appellants made a second application for leave to appeal.

Origin of the case:                                                Ontario

File No.:                                                 24851

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     July 4, 1995 and October 3, 1995

Counsel:                                                                Neil Finkelstein and Jeffrey W. Galway for the Appellants

Thomas C. Marshall, Q.C., Peter Landmann and Michel Lapierre for the Respondents LCBO, LLBO and Attorney General of Ontario

Roslyn J. Levine Q.C., Debra M. McAllister for the Respondent Attorney General of Canada

24851    Air Canada et al. c. Régie des alcools de l'Ontario et al.

Lois ─ Interprétation ─ Aéronautique ─ Importation et vente d'alcool par des compagnies aériennes ─ Restitution ─ Les compagnies aériennes sont-elles tenues de payer les majorations de prix exigées par la RAO? ─ Le système d'approvisionnement en alcool des compagnies aériennes fait-il partie intégrante des entreprises d'aéronautique et échappe-t-il au régime de réglementation de la province? ─ La RAO peut-elle recourir à la demande prévue à l'art. 13 du Warehouses Regulations pour faire valoir les majorations de prix? ─ La RAO doit-elle restituer les sommes payées en vertu d'une application erronée de la loi avant ou après le 1^er janvier 1984? ─ L'affaire se prête-t-elle à l'adjudication de dommages-intérêts majorés ou d'intérêt composé? ─ L'article 27 de la Loi sur les permis d'alcool est-il applicable?

L'alcool que les compagnies aériennes appelantes achetaient pour servir à bord, provenant de l'Ontario ou non, était livré par leurs fournisseurs aux zones sans douane des entrepôts de la RAO.  Les appelantes ont payé à la RAO intimée les prix majorés sur l'alcool transféré et, à titre de détenteurs de permis en vertu de la Loi sur les alcools, ils ont également payé des droits sur la quantité de gallons.  Wardair avait une entente privée avec la RAO intimée et ne détenait pas de permis en Ontario pour la vente d'alcool à bord de ses aéronefs depuis le 1^er janvier 1984 et n'a pas payé les prix majorés ni les droits sur la quantité de gallons exigés par la RAO.  Après la fusion de Lignes aériennes Canadien et de Wardair en 1989, les appelantes ont appris ce fait et exigé de bénéficier du même traitement que Wardair.

Les compagnies aériennes ont intenté des actions contre les intimés alléguant que, du point de vue juridique, elles n'étaient pas obligées de payer à la RAO les prix majorés et les droits sur la quantité de gallons et avaient droit au remboursement de tous les paiements déjà faits.  En demande reconventionnelle, les intimés ont demandé des jugements déclarant l'état du droit.  De plus, les intimées RAO et CPVAO ont cherché à recouvrer de Lignes aériennes Canadien les sommes qui, selon leurs allégations, seraient dues par Wardair depuis janvier 1984 jusqu'à la date de la fin de ses activités.

Les appelantes ont obtenu un jugement exigeant que la RAO leur rembourse certains montants.  La Cour d'appel a accueilli en partie l'appel des intimés et rejeté l'appel incident des compagnies aériennes.  Les appelantes ont demandé une autorisation de pourvoi.  Subséquemment, la Cour d'appel a inscrit dans le dossier que l'obligation de la RAO de rembourser tous les droits sur la quantité de gallons payés par les compagnies aériennes après le 31 décembre 1983 est assujettie au droit de la RAO d'opérer compensation entre ces paiements et tous les escomptes accordés aux compagnies aériennes par la RAO et la CPVAO pendant ladite période en vertu de leur statut de détenteurs de permis.  Les appelantes ont présenté une seconde demande d'autorisation de pourvoi.

Origine:                                                                  Ontario

N^o de greffe:                                                                          24851

Arrêt de la Cour d'appel:                                                     Les 4 juillet et 3 octobre 1995

Avocats:                                                                                Neil Finkelstein et Jeffrey W. Galway pour les appelantes

Thomas C. Marshall, c.r., Peter Landmann et Michel Lapierre pour les intimés RAO, CPVAO et Procureur général de l'Ontario

Roslyn J. Levine, c.r., Debra M. McAllister pour l'intimé le Procureur général du Canada

24737 and 24745   Alfred Goodswimmer et al v. The Attorney General of Canada et al

Indians - Statutes - Interpretation - Elections - Requirement for Elections - Whether as a matter of interpretation of the Indian Act , R.S.C. 1985, c.I.-5 , as amended, a person who is not an elector of an Indian band is eligible to be a candidate for and may be elected as chief of the band?

The Sturgeon Lake Indian Band is a "band" within the meaning of the Indian Act  and the reserve, situated near Valleyview, Alberta, is a "reserve" within the meaning of the Act.  Pursuant to subs. 74(1) of the Act, the Band was declared by order of the Minister made on December 14, 1986, to be one whose chief and council are selected in accordance with the Act.  Normally, the council consists of one chief and twelve councillors.  Both the chief and councillors are elected by a majority of the votes cast by electors of the Band.

On August 28, 1991, an election was held for the position of chief and twelve councillors.  On an appeal to the Minister the first election was set aside and a second election was conducted on March 31, 1992.  At this second election, Darlene Desjarlais was elected chief of the band.  Desjarlais was neither a member of the Band nor an Indian person as defined in the Indian Act.  She was married to a member of the Band and lived on the reserve.  In April 1992, appeals against her election were filed.  By letter of July 13, 1992, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development advised that there were insufficient grounds for the Minister to recommend to the Governor in Council to set aside the election.  On August 31, 1993, Desjarlais lost a new election as chief of the band to one of the Appellants. 

On August 31, 1993, the same day as the last election referred to above, the Trial Division rendered judgment in two separate actions on a point of law as to whether a non-elector is eligible to be a candidate for and may be elected as chief.  The Trial Division proceeded on the basis of a statement of Agreed Facts.  The question was answered in the affirmative.

The Appellants sought a declaratory judgment from the Court of Appeal answering the same question that was answered in the Trial Division.  Hugessen J.A. consolidated both appeals and, among other things, granted leave to amend the style of cause and the pleadings.  By separate orders, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in both cases.

Origin of the case:                                                Federal Court of Canada

File No.:                                                 24737 and 24745

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     March 21, 1995

Counsel:                                                                Catherine M. Twinn, Martin J. Henderson and Philip P. Healey for the Appellant

Kirk Lambrecht for the Respondent

24737 et 24745       Alfred Goodswimmer et al. c. Le procureur général du Canada et al.

Indiens ─ Lois ─ Interprétation ─ Élections ─ Exigence pour les élections ─ Pour ce qui est de l'interprétation de la Loi sur les Indiens , L.R.C. (1985), ch. I-5 , et modifications, une personne qui n'est pas un électeur d'une bande indienne peut-elle être candidate et être élue au poste de chef de la bande?

La bande indienne de Surgeon Lake est une «bande» au sens de la Loi sur les Indiens  et la réserve, située près de Velleyview (Alberta), est une «réserve» au sens de la Loi.  Une ordonnance du ministre rendue le 14 décembre 1986 a déclaré, en application du par. 74(1) de la Loi, que la bande était une bande dont le chef et le conseil sont choisis conformément à la Loi.  Normalement, le conseil est composé d'un chef et de douze conseillers.  Le chef et les conseillers sont élus à la majorité des votes exprimés par les électeurs de la bande.

Le 28 août 1991, il y a eu élection pour le poste de chef et des douze conseillers.  En appel auprès du ministre, la première élection a été annulée et une deuxième élection a été tenue le 31 mars 1992.  À cette deuxième élection, Darlene Desjarlais a été élue chef de la bande.  Desjarlais n'était ni membre de la bande ni une Indienne suivant la définition donnée dans la Loi sur les Indiens.  Elle était mariée à un membre de la bande et vivait sur la réserve.  En avril 1992, des appels ont été interjetés contre son élection.  Par lettre en date du 13 juillet 1992, le ministère des Affaires indiennes et du Nord canadien a déclaré qu'il n'y avait pas de motifs suffisants pour permettre au ministre de recommander au gouverneur en conseil d'annuler l'élection.  Le 31 août 1993, Desjarlais a perdu une nouvelle élection en tant que chef de la bande aux mains d'un des appelants.

Le 31 août 1993, le jour même de la dernière élection mentionnée ci-dessus, la Section de première instance rendait jugement dans deux actions distinctes sur le point de droit de savoir si un non-électeur peut être candidat et être élu au poste de chef.  La Section de première instance a procédé sur le fondement d'un exposé conjoint des faits.  Elle a répondu par l'affirmative.

Les appelants ont demandé à la Cour d'appel un jugement déclaratoire relativement à même question qui avait reçu réponse en Section de première instance.  Le juge Hugessen a réuni les deux appels et, entre autres, a accordé l'autorisation de modifier l'intitulé et les plaidoiries.  Dans des  ordonnances distinctes, la Cour d'appel fédérale a rejeté l'appel dans les deux affaires.

Origine:                                                  Cour fédérale du Canada

N^o de greffe:                                                          24737 et 24745

Arrêt de la Cour d'appel:                                     Le 21 mars 1995

Avocats:                                                                Catherine M. Twinn, Martin J. Henderson et Philip P. Healey, pour les appelants

Kirk Lambrecht, pour l'intimé

24949      Fotios Korkontzilas, Panagiota Korkontzilas and Olympia Town Real Estate Limited v. Nick Soulos

Commercial law - Property law - Agency - Trusts and trustees - Real property - Remedies - Constructive trust - Fiduciary duties - Whether the Court of Appeal correct to set aside the trial judge’s discretionary decision not to grant a constructive trust remedy - Whether a Court must impose sanctions upon the Appellants with a view, not to the interests of the parties themselves, but for social policy reasons - Whether the Court should award a constructive trust remedy if the Plaintiff has suffered no financial loss and the Defendant has obtained no financial gain.

Through the Appellant real estate agent, the Respondent made an offer on a commercial property of $250,000.  The offer was not accepted, but a counter offer was submitted by the vendor for $275,000.  The Respondent signed back the offer at $260,000.  The trial judge had some doubt that the signed back offer was ever presented to the vendor by the male Appellant, and found that the male Appellant did not communicate to the Respondent the vendor’s willingness to sell the property for $265,000.  The female Appellant subsequently bought the property, using her maiden name, in trust for the individual Appellants. 

The trial judge found that the male Appellant was a gratuitous agent of the Respondent and had breached his duty of loyalty to the Respondent in failing to communicate the vendor’s price of $265,000.  However, given that there had been no profit by the Appellants and no loss by the Respondent, who had mitigated his damages, the trial judge did not find this an appropriate case to award the proprietary remedy of a constructive trust, or to award nominal damages.  The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and held that the individual Appellants had purchased the property as the constructive trustees of the Respondent.

Origin of the case:                                                Ontario

File No.:                                                 24949

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     August 28, 1995

Counsel:                                                                Thomas G. Heintzman Q.C. and Darryl A. Cruz for the Appellants

David T. Stockwood and Susan E. Caskey for the Respondent

24949      Fotios Korkontzilas, Panagiota Korkontzilas et Olympia Town Real Estate Limited c. Nick Soulos

Droit commercial - Droit des biens - Mandat - Fiducies et fiduciaires - Biens immeubles - Redressements - Fiducie par interprétation - Obligations fiduciaires - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle eu raison d'annuler la décision discrétionnaire du juge de première instance de ne pas accorder un redressement fondé sur une fiducie par interprétation? - Une cour doit-elle imposer des sanctions aux appelants non pas dans l'intérêt des parties, mais pour des motifs d'ordre public? - La Cour devrait-elle accorder un redressement fondé sur une fiducie par interprétation si la partie demanderesse n'a subi aucune perte financière et si la partie défenderesse n'a obtenu aucun gain financier?

Par l'intermédiaire de l'agent immobilier appelant, l'intimé a fait une offre de 250 000 $ sur une propriété commerciale.  L'offre n'a pas été acceptée, mais une contre-offre de 275 000 $ a été faite par le vendeur.  L'intimé a signé et fait une contre-offre de 260 000 $.  Le juge du procès doutait que cette dernière offre eût été présentée au vendeur par l'appelant; il a conclu que ce dernier n'avait pas communiqué à l'intimé le désir du vendeur de vendre le bien pour une valeur de 265 000 $.  L’appelante, sous son nom de jeune fille, a par la suite acheté le bien en fiducie pour chacun des appelants.

Le juge du procès a conclu que l'appelant était un mandataire à titre gratuit de l'intimé et qu'il avait manqué à son devoir de loyauté envers l'intimé du fait qu'il n'avait pas communiqué le prix de 265 000 $ exigé par le vendeur.  Cependant, puisque les appelants n'avaient réalisé aucun profit et que l'intimé - qui avait limité son préjudice - n'avait subi aucune perte, le juge du procès n'a pas jugé qu'il s'agissait d'un cas où il y avait lieu d'accorder le recours sur la propriété que constitue une fiducie par interprétation ou d'adjuger des dommages-intérêts nominaux.  La Cour d'appel à la majorité a accueilli l'appel et statué que chacun des appelants avait acheté le bien à titre de fiduciaires par interprétation de l'intimé.

Origine:                                                                  Ontario

N^o de greffe:                                                          24949

Arrêt de la Cour d'appel:                                     Le 28 août 1995

Avocats:                                                                Thomas G. Heintzman, c.r., et Darryl A. Cruz pour les appelants

David T. Stockwood et Susan E. Caskey pour l'intimé

24946      St. Mary’s Indian Band and St. Mary’s Indian Band Council v. The Corporation of the City of Cranbrook and The Attorney General of Canada

Indians -- Real Property -- Surrender of Indian Lands -- Reversionary Interests -- Effect on surrender of reverter provision -- Whether common law real property principles apply to the surrender of the Indian Interest in reserve lands -- In the interpretation of surrender documents may courts ignore the Nowegijick principle--Distinction between determinable fee and fee subject to a condition subsequent.

On December 30, 1965, pursuant to the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 149, the Appellants, St. Mary’s Indian Band and St. Mary’s Indian Band Council  (“the Band”), surrendered part of their reserve lands in the Kootenay District of British Columbia to Her Majesty in Right of Canada in exchange for the fair market value of the land.  The habendum of surrender contained the sentence: “And that should at any time the said lands cease to be used for public purposes they will revert to the St. Mary’s Indian Band free of charge.”

On April 14, 1966, the  land was transferred to the Minister of Transport who leased a portion of the land to the respondent, the City of Cranbrook (“the City”) to be used as the site of a municipal airport.  Neither the improvements installed on the airport lands nor the local services supplied to them have been furnished or paid for by the Band.  The Band claims that the lands are subject to its taxing powers and, in 1992, set an amount of $294,324.05 as taxes payable by the City.  The City refused to pay the tax.  Penalties and interest brought that amount up to $334,611.38 as of May 1, 1993.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia  awarded the Band the amount claimed on the basis that the land had been surrendered subject to the qualification that should the land cease to be used for public purposes it would revert to the Band.  The Court held the surrender was not absolute, consequently the land is designated land as defined in the Indian Act.  Designated land is subject to the Band’s taxing powers.

The Court of Appeal of British Columbia set aside the judgment against the City on the basis that the reverter provision in the surrender form was a condition subsequent and that the land had been absolutely surrendered in 1966.   The Court of Appeal held that the land is not designated land and is not subject to the Band’s taxing powers.

Origin of the case:                                                British Columbia

File No.:                                                 24946

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     July 13, 1994

Counsel:                                                                John L. Finlay for the Appellants

Christopher S. Murdy for the Respondent City

John R. Haig, Q.C. for the Respondent Attorney General

24946      Bande indienne de St. Mary's et Conseil de la bande indienne de St. Mary's c. La Ville de Cranbrook et le procureur général du Canada

Indiens - Bien immobilier - Cession de terres indiennes - Droits de réversion - Effet de la disposition de retour sur la cession - Les principes de droit immobilier reconnus en common law s'appliquent-ils à la cession de l'intérêt indien sur les terres de la réserve? -  Dans l'interprétation des documents de cession, les tribunaux peuvent-ils ignorer le principe dit Nowegijick? - Distinction entre fief résoluble et fief sous condition résolutoire.

Le 30 décembre 1965, conformément à la Loi sur les Indiens, S.R.C. 1952, ch. 149, les appelants, la bande indienne de St. Mary's et le conseil de la bande indienne de St. Mary's («la bande»), ont cédé à Sa Majesté la Reine du Canada une partie des terres de leur réserve dans le district de Kootenay de Colombie-Britannique en contrepartie de leur juste valeur marchande.  La clause de désignation de l'acte de cession comprenait la phrase suivante: [TRADUCTION] «Et si à un moment donné lesdites terres cessent d'être utilisées pour cause d'utilité publique, elles feront retour sans frais à la bande indienne de St. Mary's.»

Le 14 avril 1966, les terres ont été transférées au ministre des Transports qui en a loué une partie à l'intimée, la ville de Cranbrook («la ville»), pour utilisation comme site d'un aéroport municipal.  La bande n'a ni installé ni payé les améliorations sur le terrain de l'aéroport ni les services locaux qui y ont été acheminés.  La bande soutient que les terres sont assujetties à ses pouvoirs de taxation, et en 1992, elle a fixé à 294 324,05 $ le montant des taxes payables par la ville.  La ville a refusé de payer ces taxes.  Au 1^er mai 1993, ce montant était passé à 334 611,38 $, peines et intérêts compris.

La Cour suprême de Colombie-Britannique a accordé à la bande le montant réclamé sur le fondement que les terres avaient été cédées à la condition d'être rétrocédées à la bande si elles cessaient d'être utilisées pour cause d'utilité publique.  La cour a statué que la cession n'était pas absolue; en conséquence, les terres se trouvaient désignées au sens de la Loi sur les Indiens.  Les terres désignées sont assujetties aux pouvoirs de taxation de la bande.

La Cour d'appel de la Colombie-Britannique a infirmé le jugement prononcé contre la ville sur le fondement que la disposition de retour dans l'acte de cession était une condition résolutoire et que les terres avaient été cédées de façon absolue en 1966.  La Cour d'appel a statué que les terres n'étaient pas des terres désignées et n'étaient pas assujetties aux pouvoirs de taxation de la bande.

Origine:                                                                  Colombie-Britannique

N^o du greffe:                                                          24946

Jugement de la Cour d'appel:                             Le 13 juillet 1994

Avocats:                                                                John L. Finlay pour les appelants

Christopher S. Murdy pour la ville intimée

John R. Haig, c.r., pour l'intimé le procureur général

25142      Kirk Blaine Thompson v. Her Majesty The Queen

Criminal law - Possession of a narcotic - Joint possession - Constructive possession - Jurisdiction - Whether accused must know that drugs have been transported to another province to be in possession of them in that province - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the laws of possession, defined in s. 4(3)  of the Criminal Code  as they apply and interact with s. 478(1) - Whether the Provincial Court Judge exceeded his jurisdiction by committing the Appellant to stand trial for possession for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 548  of the Criminal Code .

The Appellant, Kirk Thompson, asked his friend, Ostertag, to store two packages for him at his apartment in Edmonton.  One package contained cocaine, and the other contained marijuana.  The Appellant then asked Ostertag to transport the cocaine to him in Thompson, Manitoba.  On his own initiative, Ostertag also brought along the package containing the marijuana.  Ostertag was arrested en route to Thompson, in Wabowden, Manitoba.  Ostertag implicated the Appellant, who turned himself in to RCMP in Thompson. 

The Appellant was committed for trial on charges of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of marijuana for the purposes of trafficking.  The Appellant took issue with the committal for trial on the charge of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. He applied for certiorari, but was denied.  He appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal, but his appeal was dismissed.

Origin of the case:                                                Manitoba

File No.:                                                 25142

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     December 12, 1995

Counsel:                                                                J.J. Gindin for the Appellant

Darrin R. Davis for the Respondent

25142      Kirk Blaine Thompson c. Sa Majesté la Reine

Droit criminel - Possession d'un stupéfiant - Possession conjointe - Possession présumée - Compétence - L'accusé doit-il savoir que des drogues ont été transportées dans une autre province pour en avoir la possession dans cette province? - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle commis une erreur dans son application des règles de possession définies au par. 4(3)  du Code criminel , qui s'appliquent parallèlement et conjointement avec le par. 478(1) - Le juge de la Cour provinciale a-t-il excédé sa compétence en renvoyant l'appelant pour subir son procès pour possession de stupéfiants en vue d'en faire le trafic, en contravention de l'art. 548  du Code criminel ?

L'appelant, Kirk Thompson, a demandé à son ami, Ostertag, d'entreposer deux paquets dans son appartement à Edmonton.  Dans l'un des paquets, il y avait de la cocaïne, dans l'autre de la marijuana.  L'appelant a ensuite demandé à Ostertag de lui livrer la cocaïne à Thompson, au Manitoba.  De sa propre initiative, Ostertag a aussi apporté le paquet contenant de la marijuana.  Ostertag a été arrêté à Wabowden, au Manitoba, alors qu'il s'en allait à Thompson.  Ostertag a impliqué l'appelant qui s'est livré à la GRC à Thompson.

L'appelant a été renvoyé pour subir son procès relativement à des accusations de possession de cocaïne en vue d'en faire le trafic et de possession de marijuana en vue d'en faire le trafic.  Il a demandé la délivrance d'un bref de certiorari, mais en vain.  Il a interjeté appel de la décision à la Cour d'appel, mais son appel a été rejeté.

Origine:                                                  Manitoba

N^o du greffe:                                                          25142

Jugement de la Cour d'appel:                             Le 12 décembre 1995

Avocats:                                                                J.J. Gindin pour l'appelant

Darrin R. Davis pour l'intimée

25394      Her Majesty The Queen v. Donald Wayne Cook

Criminal law - Evidence - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred when it concluded that the Crown was obliged to bring forward the evidence of the complainant, a material witness - In the event that the jurisprudence can be so construed as to create such an obligation for the Crown at trial, has the obligation been revised as a result of the decision in R. v. Stinchcombe [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326.

An incident occurred in Saint John on March 4, 1994 in the apartment of Lelanya Rebane.  The Respondent, Donald Cook, was alleged to have sexually assaulted Ms. Rebane, threatened her with death and assaulted and caused bodily harm to Troy Dorbyson. 

At trial, the principal Crown witness was Ms. Rebane.  The Crown did not call Mr. Dorbyson, but he had been available in Court if the Respondent, who was acting for himself, wanted to call him as a witness.  Mr. Dorbyson did not testify.  The jury failed to reach a verdict on the two counts in which Ms. Rebane was the alleged victim, but found the Respondent guilty of assaulting Mr. Dorbyson.

On appeal, the Respondent obtained counsel at the suggestion of the Court of Appeal.  The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the verdict of guilty and ordered a new trial.  Hoyt C.J.N.B. dissenting, held that there was no suggestion of bad faith or an oblique motive on the part of the Crown’s prosecutor and was convinced that the obligation to make full disclosure was satisfied.

Origin of the case:                                                New Brunswick

File No.:                                                 25394

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     May 29, 1996

Counsel:                                                                Graham J. Sleeth Q.C., Christopher T. Titus for the Appellant

Margaret Gallagher for the Respondent

25394      Sa Majesté la Reine c. Donald Wayne Cook

Droit criminel ─ Preuve ─ La Cour d'appel à la majorité a-t-elle commis une erreur lorsqu'elle a conclu que le ministère public était tenu de présenter le témoignage du plaignant, un témoin important? ─ Dans l'éventualité où la jurisprudence peut être interprétée de façon à imposer une telle obligation au ministère public au procès, l'obligation a-t-elle été révisée par suite de l'arrêt R. c. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 R.C.S. 326?

Un incident est survenu à Saint John, le 4 mars 1994, dans l'appartement de Lelanya Rebane.  On a allégué que l'intimé, Donald Cook, a agressé sexuellement M^me Rebane, l'a menacée de mort et a exercé des voies de fait contre Troy Dorbyson et lui a causé des lésions corporelles.

Le principal témoin à charge au procès était M^me Rebane.  Le ministère public n'a pas cité M. Dorbyson comme témoin, mais il était disponible dans la salle d'audience et l'intimé, qui agissait sans les services d'un avocat, pouvait le citer à témoigner.  M. Dorbyson n'a pas témoigné.  Le jury n'a pas réussi à rendre un verdict quant aux deux chefs d'accusation relativement auxquels M^me Rebane aurait été la victime, mais il a déclaré l'intimé coupable de voies de fait sur la personne de M. Dorbyson.

En appel, l'intimé a retenu les services d'un avocat à la suggestion de la Cour d'appel.  La Cour d'appel à la majorité a accueilli l'appel, annulé le verdict de culpabilité et ordonné la tenue d'un nouveau procès.  Le juge en chef Hoyt, dissident, a conclu qu'il n'y avait pas allégation de mauvaise foi ou de motif inavoué de la part du ministère public et était convaincu que l'obligation de faire une divulgation complète avait été respectée.

Origine:                                                  Nouveau-Brunswick

N^o du greffe:                                          25394

Arrêt de la Cour d'appel:                     Le 29 mai 1996

Avocats:                                                Graham J. Sleeth, c.r., Christopher T. Titus pour l'appelante

Margaret Gallagher pour l'intimé

25309      Gerald Allan Naud v. Her Majesty The Queen

Criminal law - Procedural law - Statutes - Interpretation - Statutory presumption - Charge to the jury - Whether the trial judge erred in law when he failed to properly charge the jury on the meaning of “evidence to the contrary”, where such evidence might arise in the Crown’s case and what use the jury might make of “evidence to the contrary” in relation to the presumption of guilt in s. 212(3)  of the Criminal Code .

The Appellant, Gerald Naud, met the complainant in April 1992 when she was a third-year university student.  They became emotionally committed to each other over the next few months and planned to marry when the complainant was 21.  They moved in together in November 1992.  The complainant testified that on the urging of the Appellant, she took up the life of a street prostitute in November 1992 and that she engaged in prostitution until mid-May 1993.  She turned over all her earnings from prostitution to the Appellant as well as her own welfare cheques.  She said that the Appellant was receiving welfare cheques during this time.

The Appellant was charged with three counts of prostitution related offences. At trial, the Appellant did not find the trial judge’s charge to the jury in relation to s. 212(3)  of the Criminal Code  sufficient and submitted the jury should be told not just that “evidence to the contrary” could arise from the Crown’s case, but also what evidence in particular should be considered in deciding whether there was evidence to the contrary.  The trial judge accepted that a further charge was required, but he did not refer to the specifics of the welfare cheques or expand upon the plain language of s. 212(3).  The jury was deadlocked on two counts, but brought in a verdict of guilty on the count of living on the avails of prostitution.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.  Lambert J.A.’s dissent was grounded in the question of law concerning whether the phrase “in the absence of evidence to the contrary” in s. 212(3) requires the trial judge to direct the jury on whether there is any particular piece of evidence that is capable of being contrary to the conclusion that the Appellant lived on the avails of prostitution.

Origin of the case:                                                British Columbia

File No.:                                                 25309

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     April 19, 1996

Counsel:                                                                Peter M. Kendall for the Appellant

William F. Ehrcke for the Respondent

25309      Gerald Allan Naud c. Sa Majesté la Reine

Droit criminel ─ Droit procédural ─ Lois ─ Interprétation ─ Présomption établie par la loi ─ Exposé au jury ─ Le juge du procès a-t-il commis une erreur de droit quand il n'a pas donné de directives appropriées au jury sur le sens de «preuve contraire», lorsque cette preuve pourrait se présenter dans la preuve du ministère public, et sur l'usage que le jury pourrait faire de la «preuve contraire» relativement à la présomption de culpabilité contenue à l'art. 212(3)  du Code criminel ?

L'appelant, Gerald Naud, a rencontré la plaignante en avril 1992 alors qu'elle était une étudiante de troisième année à l'université.  Au cours des mois qui ont suivi, ils se sont liés d'affection et projetaient de se marier lorsque la plaignante aurait 21 ans.  Ils ont aménagé ensemble en novembre 1992.  La plaignante a témoigné que, sur les instances de l'appelant, elle est devenue une prostituée de la rue en novembre 1992 et qu'elle s'est adonnée à la prostitution jusqu'à la mi-mai 1993.  Elle remettait à l'appelant tous ses gains tirés de la prostitution ainsi que ses propres prestations d'aide sociale.  Elle a dit que l'appelant recevait des prestations d'aide sociale pendant ce temps.

L'appelant a fait l'objet de trois chefs d'accusation d'infractions reliées à la prostitution.  Estimant que l'exposé du juge au jury relativement au par. 212(3)  du Code criminel  était insuffisant, l'appelant a fait valoir, au procès, qu'il faudrait dire au jury non seulement que la «preuve contraire» pouvait découler de la preuve du ministère public, mais aussi de quel élément de preuve en particulier il fallait tenir compte pour décider s'il y avait preuve contraire.  Le juge du procès a reconnu qu'un exposé supplémentaire était nécessaire, mais il n'a pas mentionné les détails des prestations d'aide sociale ni ne s'est attardé sur le langage clair du par. 212(3).  Le jury s'est trouvé dans une impasse sur deux chefs, mais a rendu un verdict de culpabilité relativement au chef reprochant à l'appelant d'avoir vécu des fruits de la prostitution.

La Cour d'appel a rejeté l'appel interjeté.  Le juge Lambert a fondé sa dissidence sur la question de droit de savoir si l'expression «en l'absence de preuve contraire» contenue au par. 212(3) exige que le juge du procès donne au jury des directives sur la question de savoir s'il existe des éléments de preuve particuliers susceptibles d'être «contraires» à la conclusion que l'appelant vivait des fruits de la prostitution.

Origine:                                                  Colombie-Britannique

N^o du greffe:                                          25309

Arrêt de la Cour d'appel:                     Le 19 avril 1996

Avocats:                                                Peter M. Kendall pour l'appelant

William F. Ehrcke pour l'intimée

25214      Cameron Lee Russell v. Her Majesty The Queen

Criminal law - Motor vehicles - Negligence - Whether the trial judge committed reversible error in law in applying a higher standard to the Appellant because of his unfamiliarity with the highway as opposed to the lower standard applicable to the frequent driver and the majority of the Court of Appeal of Alberta erred in law in holding that to be a correct statement of the law.

The Appellant, Cameron Russell, wished to pass a long truck while driving on the main north-south highway in Alberta.  Snow was falling and there was a gusting wind.  As the Appellant’s vehicle overtook the truck, the Appellant was engulfed in a cloud of blowing snow and the divided highway ended.  He crashed head-on into an oncoming vehicle, killing a woman riding in it.  The Appellant was driving on the wrong side of the highway, while the victim was riding in a car in its proper lane.  The Appellant claimed he was unfamiliar with the highway and assumed he was on a divided highway, but the division had ended 576 metres before the collision. 

The Appellant was convicted of dangerous driving at his trial.  In his reasons for judgment, the trial judge had stated as driving was a routine and automatic task, it followed that a frequent driver would not remember seeing road signs unless the signage was changed.  He found that quite another duty rested upon a driver driving in unfamiliar territory who had a duty to observe the signs and drive accordingly.

On appeal, the majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from conviction.  Harradence J.A. dissenting held that the trial judge had committed reversible error in law in applying a higher standard to the Appellant because of his unfamiliarity with the highway.

Origin of the case:                                                Alberta

File No.:                                                 25214

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     February 23, 1996

Counsel:                                                                Roy D. Shellnutt for the Appellant

Alberta Justice for the Respondent

25214      Cameron Lee Russell c. Sa Majesté la Reine

Droit criminel - Véhicules à moteur - Négligence - Le juge du procès a-t-il commis une erreur de droit justifiant révision en appliquant une norme plus stricte à l'appelant parce qu'il ne connaissait pas bien la route, par opposition à la norme moins stricte applicable au conducteur qui emprunte fréquemment une route, et la Cour d'appel à la majorité a-t-elle commis une erreur en droit en statuant que c'était un énoncé de droit correct?

L'appelant, Cameron Russell, voulait doubler un long camion alors qu'il conduisait sur la principale route nord-sud en Alberta.  Il neigeait et il y avait des rafales de vent.  Au moment où l'appelant était à doubler, son véhicule a été engouffré dans un nuage de neige et la route à double chaussée a pris fin.  Il est entré en collision frontale avec un véhicule venant en sens inverse, tuant une femme se trouvant à bord.  L'appelant conduisait alors sur le mauvais côté de la chaussée, alors que la victime se trouvait dans un véhicule circulant du bon côté de la route.  L'appelant a fait valoir qu'il ne connaissait pas bien la route et qu'il avait présumé qu'il était sur une route à double chaussée; cependant, la route à double chaussée avait pris fin 576 mètres avant l'endroit de la collision.

Au procès, l'appelant a été déclaré coupable de conduite dangereuse.  Dans les motifs de son jugement, le juge du procès a affirmé qu'un conducteur qui emprunte fréquemment une route ne se rappellerait pas d'avoir vu les panneaux de signalisation routière sauf en cas de changement car, pour lui, la conduite d'un véhicule serait alors une tâche habituelle et automatique.  À son avis, un conducteur qui circule dans un territoire qu'il connaît mal a une toute autre obligation, celle d'observer les panneaux et de conduire en conséquence.

La Cour d'appel à la majorité a rejeté l'appel interjeté contre la déclaration de culpabilité.  Le juge Harradence, dissident, aurait statué que le juge du procès avait commis une erreur de droit justifiant révision en appliquant une norme plus stricte à l'appelant du fait qu'il ne connaissait pas bien la route.

Origine:                                                  Alberta

N^o du greffe:                                                          25214

Jugement de la Cour d'appel:                             Le 23 février 1996

Avocats:                                                                Roy D. Shellnutt pour l'appelant

Le ministère de la Justice de l’Alberta pour l'intimée.

CUMULATIVE INDEX -                                                      INDEX CUMULATIF - REQUÊTES

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO                                     EN AUTORISATION DE POURVOI

APPEAL

This index includes applications for leave to appeal standing for judgment at the beginning of 1997 and all the applications for leave to appeal filed or heard in 1997 up to now.

Cet index comprend les requêtes en autorisation de pourvoi en délibéré au début de 1997 et toutes celles produites ou entendues en 1997 jusqu'à maintenant.

*01            Refused/Refusée

*02            Refused with costs/Refusée avec dépens

*03            Granted/Accordée

*04            Granted with costs/Accordée avec dépens

*05            Discontinuance filed/Désistement produit

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

*B             Submitted to the Court/Soumises à la Cour

*C             Oral Hearing/Audience

*D             Reserved/En délibéré

Status/                     Disposition/

CASE/AFFAIRE                                                                                                                          Statut                       Résultat                                                                       Page                                                                                      

2439-4637 Québec Inc. c. Procureur général du Québec (Crim.)(Qué.),

   25620, *B                                                                                                                                    31(97)

2760-5450 Québec Inc. c. Porcureur général du Québec (Qué.), 25634, *A                   2049(96)

587855 Ontario Ltd. v. Industrial-Alliance Life Insurance Co. (Ont.), 25489,

   *02 13.2.97                                                                                                                                 1961(96)                           294(97)

587855 Ontario Ltd. v. Piazza, Polowin, Brooks & Siddons (Ont.), 25624,

   *02 13.2.97                                                                                                                                 23(97)                               295(97)

Agence J.W.E.R. Bernier Ltée c. Ultramar Canada Inc. (Qué.), 25737, *A                       103(97)

Ahani v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 25580, *B                                                                        105(97)

Alldrew Holdings Ltd. v. Nibro Holdings Ltd. (Ont.), 25551, *B                                        24(97)

Altoba Development Ltd. v. Saskpower (Sask.), 25759, *A                                                 194(97)

Aménagement Westcliff Ltée c. Société immobilière du Québec (Qué.),

   25115, *B                                                                                                                                    683(96)

Anamor Investments Inc. c. Levy Pilotte et Associés Inc. (Qué.), 25743, *A                     193(97)

Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 25348, *03 6.2.97                                        1676(96)                           216(97)

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 25723, *A                                                 5(97)

Apotex Inc. v. Merck Frosst Canada Inc. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 25419, *03 6.2.97                      1677(96)                           218(97)

Arditi c. Nolan (Qué.), 25557, *A                                                                                             1789(96)

Arrow Construction Products Ltd. v. Attorney General of Nova Scotia (N.S.),

   25370, *02 9.1.97                                                                                                                       1426(96)                           46(97)

Arvaluk v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.W.T.), 25607, *B                                                                 37(97)

Avis Immobilien G.M.B.H. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 25749, *A                                    194(97)

B. J. Kern & Son Ltd. v. Settlers Savings and Mortgage Corporation Inc.

   (Sask.), 25698, *A                                                                                                                     3(97)

B. Rawe GmbH & Co. c. Classic Fabrics Corporation (Qué.), 25183, *B                        815(96)

Bablitz v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 25239, *B                                                                       11(97)

Bains v. Bhandar (B.C.), 25491, *02 6.2.97                                                                              1873(96)                           220(97)

Balogh v. Balogh (Ont.), 25752, *A                                                                                         138(97)

Barbican Properties Inc. v. The Queen (F.C.A)(Crim.)(B.C.), 25760, *A                           195(97)

Barnabe v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (Ont.), 25099, *05 24.6.96                 939(96)                             70(97)

Barrett v. Waters (Ont.), 25424, *02 30.1.97                                                                             1736(96)                           158(97)

Batchewana Indian Band v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Crim.)(Ont.), 25708, *A                        4(97)

Bégin c. Ville de Québec (Qué.), 25630, *B                                                                            288(97)

Benoit c. Diab (Qué.), 25517, *05 6.1.97                                                                                  70(97)                               70(97)

Black v. Ernst & Young Inc. (N.S.), 24792, *A                                                                       1188(95)

Blackburn-Moreault c. Moreault (Qué.), 25776, *A                                                            281(97)

Blagrove c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 25510, *01 6.2.97                                                           2148(96)                           211(97)

Bluebird Footwear Inc. c. General Motors Acceptance Corporation

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

Body v. Town of Wolfville (N.S.), 25487, *01 30.1.97                                                              1937(96)                           162(97)

Bourassa c. Bourassa (Qué.), 25728, *A                                                                                 6(97)

Bourdon v. The Queen (Alta.), 25717, *A                                                                               5(97)

Brandao c. Département de science politique, faculté des arts et des

   sciences (Qué.), 25616, *02 30.1.97                                                                                        27(97)                               153(97)

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

Brazeau c. Guay (Qué.), 25560, *02 6.2.97                                                                               33(97)                               212(97)

Brignolio v. Desmarais (Ont.), 25403, *A                                                                               1202(96)

British Columbia Milk Marketing Board v. Bari Cheese Ltd. (B.C.), 25574, *A            2147(96)

Budget Car Rentals Toronto Ltd. v. Cummings (Ont.), 25530, *B                                      2101(96)

Burchill v. Yukon Travel (Yuk.), 25525, *02 9.1.97                                                                2096(96)                           44(97)

Burden v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 25393, *B                                                                        34(97)

CCLC Technologies Inc. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Crim.)(B.C.), 25631, *A                           2048(96)

C.L.S.C. - N.D.G. Montréal-Ouest c. Syndicat des employés du

   C.L.S.C. - N.D.G. Montréal-Ouest (Qué.), 25118, *B                                                          685(96)

C.S.L. Group Inc. c. St. Lawrence Seaway Authority (Qué.), 25769, *A                           281(97)

Campbell v. Minister of Justice (Crim.)(Ont.), 25390, *01 30.1.97                                       1796(96)                           159(97)

Canadian Aids Society v. The Queen in right of the province of Ontario (Ont.),

   25756, *A                                                                                                                                   194(97)

Canadian Newspaper Co. v. Moises (B.C.), 25522, *01 30.1.97                                           7(97)                                 147(97)

Canadian Newspapers Co. v. Kansa General Insurance Co. (Ont.), 25632, *B              285(97)

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society v. Superintendent of Banff

   National Park (F.C.A.)(Alta.), 25583, *B                                                                             18(97)

Cardoso v. Budd (Man.), 25658, *A                                                                                         2144(96)

Centretown Guest House Ltd. v. M.R.S. Trust Co. (Ont.), 25636, *02 13.2.97                    23(97)                               296(97)

Chadbourne v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 25585, *01 13.2.97                                                30(97)                               290(97)

Chadjideris v. Toronto-Dominion (Ont.), 25502, *B                                                             16(97)

Chassé c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 25464, *01 9.1.97                                                               2050(96)                           42(97)

Chilton v. Chilton (B.C.), 25654, *B                                                                                         139(97)

Chu v. Hutchinson (B.C.), 25681, *A                                                                                       2147(96)

Chui-Mei c. Directrice de la Maison Tanguay (Qué.), 25761, *A                                      195(97)

Chung v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 25410, *01 30.1.97                                                           1675(96)                           157(97)

Cloutier c. Monty (Qué.), 25528, *02 6.2.97                                                                            32(97)                               213(97)

Colwell v. Cowie (Ont.), 25577, *B                                                                                          206(97)

Commission d’appel en matière de lésions professionnelles c. J. M.

   Asbestos Inc. (Qué.), 25617, *A                                                                                              2048(96)

Commonwealth Investors Syndicate Ltd. v. Canada Deposit Insurance

    Corporation (B.C.), 25416, *02 9.1.97                                                                                  2051(96)                           43(97)

Confederation Financial Sercices (Canada) Ltd. v. Zurich Indemnity Co.

   of Canada (Ont.), 25621, *A                                                                                                   1959(96)

Consortium Developments (Clearwater) Ltd. v. Corporation of the City of

   Sarnia (Ont.), 25604, *A                                                                                                         1957(96)

Continental Bank Leasing Corp. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 25532, *B                        2153(96)

Coopérative d’habitation Nolin Inc. c. Caisse Populaire Desjardins

   de la Grande-Baie (Qué.), 25180, *B                                                                                    687(96)

Coopérative de Commerce “Des Mille-Îles” c. Société des alcools du

   Québec (S.A.Q.) (Qué.), 25703, *A                                                                                        3(97)

Coopers & Lybrand Ltd. v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd. (Sask.),

   25710, *A                                                                                                                                   4(97)

Corporation municipale de Sainte-Lucie-des-Laurentides c. Congrégation

   de l’Aumisme - Les Pèlerins de l’Absolu (Qué.), 25622, *B                                               207(97)

Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay v. Oosthoek (Ont.), 25659, *A                           2144(96)

Créations Marcel Therrien Inc. c. Falcone (Qué.), 25571, *02 6.2.97                                31(97)                               213(97)

Cross c. The Queen (Qué.), 25754, *A                                                                                     138(97)

D.B.L. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 25385, *01 30.1.97                                                           1441(96)                           155(97)

D. P. v. F. H. (Qué.), 25526, *B                                                                                                  1941(96)

Dallaire c. Commission de l’emploi et de l’assurance du Canada (C.A.F.)

   (Qué.), 25667, *A                                                                                                                      2147(96)

D’Andrade v. Government of Canada (Ont.), 25310, application for extension

   of time is dismissed 5.9.96; file closed 23.9.96                                                                      1259(96)                           1544(96)

Daoud c. The Queen (Crim.)(Qué.), 25635, *B                                                                        139(97)

Davis v. Hamelin (B.C.), 25157, *B                                                                                           1872(96)

Deniso Lebel Inc. c. Compagnie Price Limitée (Qué.), 25589 *02 30.1.97                         20(97)                               150(97)

Deniso Lebel Inc. c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.), 25588, *02

   30.1.97    20(97)                                                                                                                          149(97)

Deniso Lebel Inc. c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.), 25590, *02

   30.1.97    21(97)                                                                                                                          150(97)

Denis c. Ville de Val-Bélair (Qué.), 25662, *A                                                                       2145(96)

Derrick Concrete Cutting & Coring Ltd. v. Central Oilfield Service Ltd.

   (Alta.), 25425, *B                                                                                                                      1738(96)

Desbiens c. La Reine (Qué.), 25805, *A                                                                                   196(97)

Desfossés c. Warden of Parthenais Prevention Center (Crim.)(Qué.), 25695, *A             2(97)

Desfossés c. Warden of Parthenais Prevention Center (Crim.)(Qué.), 25696, *A             2(97)

Desfossés c. Warden of Parthenais Prevention Center (Crim.)(Qué.), 25763, *A             195(97)

Desgrosseilliers v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 25649, *01 13.2.97                                          104(97)                             292(97)

Desjardins c. La Reine (Sask.), 25669, *A                                                                               2147(96)

Dibattista v. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. (Ont.), 25543, *B                             2151(96)

Dilalla c. Ville de Montréal (Qué.), 25523, *02 19.12.96                                                      2098(96)                           41(97)

Dixie Park Inc. v. Tak-Hing Chow (Ont.), 25208, *02 16.1.97                                              2054(96)                           50(97)

Doliente v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 25417, *B                                                                     206(97)

Dorfer v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 25432, *B                                                                          1431(96)

Double Bar L Ranching Ltd. v. Bayvet Corporation (Sask.), 25706, *A                           4(97)

Dowling v. City of Halifax (N.S.), 25493, *03 6.2.97                                                              1871(96)                           219(97)

Dubé c. Bélec (Qué.), 25679, *A                                                                                               2146(96)

Duha Printers (Western) Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Man.), 25513, *B                             2100(96)

Dunn v. The Queen (Crim.)(P.E.I.), 25444, *B                                                                          2052(96)

Dyck v. Dyck (Alta.), 25498, *B                                                                                                 1963(96)

Ed Miller Sales & Rentals Ltd. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. (Alta.), 25594, *B                 144(97)

Éditions Vice Versa Inc. c. Aubry (Qué.), 25579, *04 6.2.97                                                 105(97)                             214(97)

E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. v. United Tire & Rubber Co. (Ont.),

   25545, *A                                                                                                                                   2143(96)

Eli Lilly and Co. v. Apotex Inc. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 25477, *02 30.1.97                                      1797(96)                           160(97)

Épiciers Unis Métro-Richelieu Inc. c. Lefebvre (C.S.N.)(Qué.), 25542, *02

   30.1.97    21(97)                                                                                                                          148(97)

Ethier c. Asea Industrie Ltd. (Qué.), 25672, *A                                                                      2146(96)

FBI Foods Ltd. v. Cadbury Schweppes Inc. (B.C.), 25778, *A                                            196(97)

F. K. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 25683, *B                                                                           203(97)

Falso v. de Stefanis (B.C.), 25677, *A                                                                                      2146(96)

Federated Foods Ltd. v. Toronto-Dominion Bank  (Ont.), 25591, *B                                28(97)

Fegol v. Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation (Man.), 25437, *01 30.1.97           1442(96)                           156(97)

Ferguson v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 25535, *B                                                                   1962(96)

Filzmaier v. Laurentian Bank of Canada (Ont.), 25372, *A                                               1154(96)

Flynn v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 25663, *B                                                                           104(97)

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

   25719, *A                                                                                                                                   5(97)

Fradet c. Centre de camions St-Prime Inc. (Qué.), 25569, *02 13.2.97                               140(97)                             291(97)

Friends of the Lubicon v. Daishowa Inc. (Ont.), 25608, *B                                                 285(97)

Gagné (Louise Lévesque) c. Sirois (Qué.), 25600, *B                                                           202(97)

Gagné (Michel) c. Lacelle (Qué.), 25267, *A                                                                         627(96)

Gannon Bros. Energy Ltd. v. Robert Lemmons & Associates Ltd. (Sask.),

   25731, *A                                                                                                                                   103(97)

Garantie Compagnie d’Assurance de l’Amérique du Nord c. Inter-Cité

   Construction Ltée (Qué.), 25116, *B                                                                                     684(96)

Garantie, compagnie d’assurance de l’Amérique du Nord c. G. Beaudet

   et Compagnie Ltée (Qué.), 25538, *B                                                                                    39(97)

Garcia v. United States of America (Crim.)(Ont.), 25450, *B                                               143(97)

Garland v. Consumers’ Gas Co. (Ont.), 25644, *A                                                                2143(96)

Gaudreault c. Gaudreault (Qué.), 25595, *B                                                                          200(97)

Gauthier c. Landry (Qué.), 25091, *B                                                                                      682(96)

Gauvreau v. Paci (Ont.), 25628, *A                                                                                         2048(96)

Gillis Quarries Ltd. v. The Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba (Man.)

   25531, *02 16.1.97                                                                                                                     2054(96)                           51(97)

Ginsberg v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 25520, *B                                                                  14(97)

Girard c. Moisan (Qué.), 25597, *02, 30.1.97                                                                          9(97)                                 146(97)

Girard c. Municipalité de St-Léonard de Portneuf (Qué.), 25688, *A                              2(97)

Godin v. The Queen (Crim.)(P.E.I.), 25443, *B                                                                         2051(96)

Gramaglia v. Sunlife Trust Co. (Alta.), 25446, *B                                                                 1737(96)

Grant v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 25629, *B                                                                         282(97)

Gratton c. Nault (Qué.), 25733, *A                                                                                          103(97)

Grosse v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 25453, *B                                                                         37(97)

Groupe Desjardins Assurances générales c. Société canadienne des postes

   (Qué.), 25466, *02 16.1.97                                                                                                        2053(96)                           50(97)

Guillemette c. Ville de Sainte-Foy (Qué.), 25750, *A                                                           194(97)

Hadji c. Ville de Montréal (Qué.), 25715, *A                                                                         5(97)

Hadjiantoniou v. Hadjiantoniou (Ont.), 25741, *A                                                              193(97)

Halifax Regional Municipality v. Barclays Bank of Canada (N.S.), 25485, *B              1941(96)

Hardy v. The Queen (Alta.), 25602, *A                                                                                    1956(96)

Harris Trust and Savings Bank v. Glied (Ont.), 25720, *A                                                  5(97)

Hawrish v. Cundall (Sask.), 25748, *A                                                                                    194(97)

Health Sciences Centre v. Cross (Man.), 25584, *B                                                              145(97)

Heirs of Philip M. Salomon c. Curateur public du Québec (Qué.), 25671, *B                 284(97)

Hernandez v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 25606, *B                                                                 29(97)

Hodgson v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 25561, *B                                                                     35(97)

Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Minister of National Health and Welfare

   (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 25639, *A                                                                                                         2048(96)

Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Minister of National Health and Welfare

   (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 25640, *A                                                                                                         2095(96)

Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Minister of National Health and Welfare

   (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 25709, *A                                                                                                         4(97)

Hogarth v. Hall (Ont.), 25702, *A                                                                                            3(97)

Holly v. White (Alta.), 25439, *02 16.1.97                                                                                 1737(96)                           49(97)

Homefounders Development Joint Venture (86395 Ont. Inc.) v. Piggott

   (Ont.), 25121, *05 3.6.96                                                                                                           938(96)                             70(97)

Hong v. Magerman (Ont.), 25691, *A                                                                                      2(97)

Hong v. Wu (Ont.), 25690, *A                                                                                                    2(97)

Horrey v. Litterst (Alta.), 25127, *05 4.6.96                                                                             888(96)                             70(97)

Hudson & Company Insolvency Trustees Inc. v. Christensen (Alta.), 25481,

   *02 13.2.97                                                                                                                                 1962(96)                           294(97)

Hung c. L’Archevêché de Montréal (Qué.), 25755, *A                                                         138(97)

Hutchings v. The Queen (B.C.), 25550, *A                                                                              193(97)

Ikea Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 25674, *B                                                                   286(97)

Irani v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 25655, *B                                                                             282(97)

Ivey v. United States of America (Ont.), 25664, *A                                                                2145(96)

J. (G.-T.) v. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton-Wentworth

   (Ont.), 25697, *B                                                                                                                       208(97)

J.-L.P.. c. A. N. (Qué.), 25512, *B                                                                                               1942(96)

Jakovljevic v. Law Society of Upper Canada (Ont.), 25739, *A                                         193(97)

Jenkins v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 25665, *B                                                                       144(97)

Jeworski v. Nguyen (Sask.), 25642, *A                                                                                    1(97)

Joanisse v. The Queen (Crim.)Ont.), 25430, *01 30.1.97                                                         1936(96)                           162(97)

Journal de Montréal c. Hamelin (Qué.), 25643, *A                                                              2143(96)

Kadenko c. Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration (C.A.F.)(Qué.),

   25689, *A                                                                                                                                   2(97)

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

Kansa General International Insurance Co. v. Johnson & Higgins Ltd. (Man.),

   25773, *A                                                                                                                                   195(97)

Kasha v. Scurry-Rainbow Oil Ltd. (Alta.), 25480, *B                                                           2053(96)

Kathleen H. v. Finley (Ont.), 25700, *05 21.1.97                                                                     117(97)                             117(97)

Kenny v. The Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.), 25568, *B                                                                         2100(96)

Kinch v.Tignish Credit Union Ltd. (P.E.I.), 25345, *02 6.2.97                                              1419(96)                           214(97)

Koszil v. National Bank of Canada (B.C.), 25730, *A                                                          103(97)

Kowall v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 25445, *01 30.1.97                                                          17(97)                               152(97)

LaBelle v. Howe (Ont.), 25433/25434, *01 30.1.97                                                                  1938(96)                           164(97)

Labow c. Attorney General of Quebec (Qué.), 25576, *B                                                     207(97)

Lacquaniti v. Devine (Ont.), 25078, *A                                                                                   4(96)

Lakotos v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 25548, *B                                                                      198(97)

Lang v. McKenna (Ont.), 25555, *02 13.2.97                                                                           8(97)                                 290(97)

Langelier c. St-Jean (Qué.), 25645, *A                                                                                    2143(96)

Ledwon v. Homelife Peter Sukkau Realty Inc. (Ont.), 25471, *02 9.1.97                            1760(96)                           48(97)

Lieutenant Governor v. Hryciuk (Ont.), 25727, *A                                                               6(97)

Liston v. Striegler (B.C.), 25563, *B                                                                                         22(97)

Lord v. Catholic Public Schools of Victoria Diocese (B.C.), 25546, *A                           193(97)

Luthe c. Syndicat des enseignants de Saint-Laurent et Richelieu (Qué.),

   25668, *A                                                                                                                                   2145(96)

M.S. v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 25742, *B                                                                              197(97)

MacDonald v. Mombourquette (N.S.), 25587, *B                                                                  106(97)

MacKey v. Smith (Sask.), 25476, *02 30.1.97                                                                           1870(96)                           161(97)

Marlay Construction Ltd. v. City of Mount Pearl (Nfld.), 25781, *A                                196(97)

Martel c. Martel (Qué.), 25092, *B                                                                                           682(96)

Mason v. The Queen (Alta.), 25716, *A                                                                                   5(97)

Matériaux de Construction Lesage Ltée c. Simon (Qué.), 25117, *B                                 685(96)

Mathieu v. The Queen (Alta.), 25614, *A                                                                                6(97)

Mattatall v. Hill (N.B.), 25392, *01 9.1.97                                                                                1426(96)                           47(97)

McLean v. Fowler (Nfld.), 25570, *B                                                                                        108(97)

McMahon v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 25100, *01 4.11.96                                                   942(96)                             63(97)

McMaster v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24569, *A                                                                 328(95)

McMullen v. McMullen (Ont.), 25623, *B                                                                               209(97)

Meeker Log and Timber Ltd. v. Ship “Sea Imp VIII” Owners (B.C.), 25483, *01

   30.1.97    8(97)                                                                                                                            147(97)

Melanson c. Université de Montréal (Qué.), 25678, *A                                                       138(97)

Ménard v. The Queen (Ont.), 25707, *A                                                                                  4(97)

Merck & Co. Inc. v. Minister of Health and Welfare (F.C.A.), 25660, *A                         2144(96)

Merck & Co. Inc. v. Minister of Health and Welfare (F.C.A.), 25661, *A                         2145(96)

Métallurgistes Unis d’Amérique, section locale 15381 (F.T.Q.) c. Lafarge

   Groupe matériaux de construction -- Division de Lafarge Canada Inc.

   (Qué.), 25182, *B                                                                                                                       688(96)

Michaud c. 2841-1585 Québec Inc. (Qué.), 25586, *B                                                         142(97)

Montambreault c. Brazeau (Qué.), 25808, *A                                                                        196(97)

Montreal Trust Co. of Canada v. Froese (B.C.), 25486, *02 9.1.97                                     2050(96)                           42(97)

Moore v. Acton (Ont.), 25609, *B                                                                                              203(97)

Mutuelle du Canada c. Tremblay (Qué.), 25611, *01 30.1.97                                               26(97)                               154(97)

Nesbitt v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 25687, *A                                                                     2(97)

Neuman v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 25565, *A                                                                              1790(96)

Nipissing Helicopters Inc. v. Eagle Copters Maintenance Ltd. (Alta.),

   25529, *B                                                                                                                                    12(97)

Noik v. Edelstein Construction Ltd. (Ont.), 25605, *B                                                         289(97)

North York Hydro Electric Commission v. Fenton (Ont.), 25552, *B                                25(97)

Northwest Sports Enterprises Ltd. v. Primex Investments Ltd. (B.C.), 25729, *A            6(97)

Norway House First Nation v. Chadee (Man.), 25650, *A                                                  2144(96)

Nourhaghighi v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 25562, *B                                                           197(97)

Novopharm Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Co. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 25402, *03 6.2.97                               1677(96)                           217(97)

Oakes-Pepin c. Commission de l’emploi et de l’immgration du Canada

   (C.A.F.)(Qué.), 25647, *A                                                                                                        2143(96)

O’Greysik v. O’Greysik (Man.), 25638, *B                                                                              28(97)

Ontario Hydro v. Dableh (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 25524, *B                                                              2151(96)

Oppenheim c. ABN Amro Bank Canada (Qué.), 25547, *A                                                 2147(96)

Orlowski v. Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute (B.C.), 25751, *A                            194(97)

Papaioannou v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 25641, *B                                                            38(97)

Paquin c. National Trust Co. (Qué.), 25255, *B                                                                    816(96)

Parker v. Hamelin (B.C.), 25174, *B                                                                                         1872(96)

Parker’s Country Market Inc. v. The Queen (N.S.), 25497, *B                                            2099(96)

Paryniuk v. The Queen (Ont.), 25779, *A                                                                               196(97)

Payne v. Brady (Nfld.), 25596, *B                                                                                             36(97)

Pearson c. Procureur général du Canada (Qué.), 24929/30/31, *A                                  1712(95)

Peglar v. Vance (B.C.), 25533, *B                                                                                             199(97)

Petro Canada Inc. v. City of Vancouver (B.C.), *A                                                              2146(96)

Phillips v. R. D. Realty Ltd. (Ont.), 25626, *A                                                                        1959(96)

Physique Health Club Ltd. v. Carlsen (Alta.), 25767, *A                                                    195(97)

Piazza c. Procureur général du Québec (Crim.)(Qué.), 25619, *B                                      30(97)

Pilot Insurance Co. v. Bank of Montreal (Ont.), 25637, *B                                                 288(97)

Pitt v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.B.), 25578, *B                                                                               2150(96)

Place Brossard Inc. c. 131483 Canada Inc. (Qué.), 25612, *B                                           283(97)

Placements Lecomont Ltée c. Cheminées Sécurité Ltée (Qué.), 25598, *A                       1956(96)

Placements Lecomont Ltée c.Goulet (Qué.), 25599, *A                                                        1956(96)

Pleau c. Commission de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration du Canada (C.A.F.)

   (Qué.), 25553, *B                                                                                                                       13(97)

Poitras v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 25601, *B                                                                       11(97)

Pospiech c. Attorney General of Canada (C.A.F.)(Qué.), 25694, *A                                 2(97)

Poulin c. Procureur général du Canada (C.A.F.)(Qué.), 25592, *B                                  108(97)

R. v. Al Klippert Ltd. (Alta.), 25670, *A                                                                                   2145(96)

R. v. Anderson (Crim.)(B.C.), 25735, *A                                                                                   103(97)

R. v. Continental Bank of Canada (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 25521, *B                                              2153(96)

R. v. Cuerrier (B.C.), 25738, *A                                                                                                 193(97)

R. v. Curnew (Nfld.), 25682, *A                                                                                                 1(97)

R. v. Griffin (Nfld.), 25753, *A                                                                                                   194(97)

R. v. Hanson (B.C.), 25705, *A                                                                                                  3(97)

R. v. Meaney (Crim.)(Nfld.), 25675, *B                                                                                      287(97)

R. v. Parsons (Nfld.), 25777, *A                                                                                                196(97)

R. v. Prescod (Ont.), 25712, *A                                                                                                 4(97)

R. v. Sylliboy (Crim.)(N.S.), 21929, *A                                                                                      1015(90)

R. c. Valère (Crim.)(Qué.), 25516, *01 6.2.97                                                                            2148(96)                           210(97)

R. v. Wesbrook Management Ltd. (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 25732, *A                                                103(97)

R. in right of the Province of British Columbia v. Mochinski (B.C.), 25474, *B              1939(96)

R. in right of the Province of Ontario v. Matthews (Ont.), 25482, *B                                38(97)

R & M Construction Co. Ltd. v. Royal Trust Corp. of Canada in trust

   for the Standard Life Assurance Co. (Nfld.), 25581, *B                                                     35(97)

Racine c. Caisse populaire Desjardins du Vieux-Québec (Qué.), 25646, *A                   2143(96)

Rallison v. The Queen (Ont.), 25713, *A                                                                                 4(97)

Ramsden v. United Kingdom (Crim.)(Ont.), 25504, *B                                                          33(97)

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 454 v. Canada Safeway

   Ltd. (Sask.), 25356, *03 6.2.97                                                                                                 1544(96)                           215(97)

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 544 v. Battlefords and

   District Co-operative Ltd.  (Sask.), 25366, *03 6.2.97                                                         1543(96)                           216(97)

Reynolds v. Minister of Foreign Affairs (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 25423, *B                                      1940(96)

Richer c. Commission scolaire Saint-Jérôme (Qué.), 25673, *01 13.2.97                           142(97)                             292(97)

Rocky Mountain Ecosystem Coalition v. Joint Review Panel (F.C.A.)Alta.),

   25618, *A                                                                                                                                   1958(96)

Roose v. Hollett (N.S.), 25625, *B                                                                                             205(97)

Rose v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 25448, *03 6.2.97                                                                1796(96)                           218(97)

Routhier c. Auclair (Qué.), 25181, *B                                                                                      687(96)

Roy v. Newfoundland Medical Board (Nfld.), 25575, *B                                                     25(97)

Ryan v. Corporation of the City of Victoria (B.C.), 25704, *A                                            3(97)

S.R.H. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 25361, *01 30.1.97                                                           1440(96)                           154(97)

Saskatoon City Hospital v. Saskatchewan Union of Nurses (Sask.), 25757, *A             194(97)

Sault Ste. Marie Board of Commissioners of Police v. Makila (Ont.),

   25527, *B                                                                                                                                    107(97)

Savard (Alain) v. Attorney General of Canada (Crim.)(Yuk.), 25367, *01

   9.1.97                                                                                                                                           1543(96)                           47(97)

Savard (Daniel) c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 25440, *01 9.1.97                                              2096(96)                           44(97)

Savarie c. Procureur général du Canada (C.A.F.)(Qué.), 25648, *A                                2143(96)

Schilling v. Certified General Accountants Association of British Columbia

   (B.C.), 25484, *01 30.1.97                                                                                                         1938(96)                           163(97)

Sentinel Self-Storage Corporation v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Alta.), 25792, *A                   281(97)

Sherritt Gordon Ltd. v. Dresser Canada Inc. (Alta.), 25572, *02 30.1.97                           26(97)                               152(97)

Siad v. Secretary of State of Canada (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 25802, *A                                          196(97)

Smith & Nephew Inc. v. Glen Oak Inc. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 25514, *B                                       2098(96)

Snake v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 25459, *A                                                                         1(97)

Société canadienne de métaux Reynolds Ltée c. Marin (Qué.), 25573, *02

   13.2.97    141(97)                                                                                                                        293(97)

Société Radio-Canada c. Procureur général du Canada (Qué.), 25657, *B                   201(97)

Socobasin v. The Queen (N.S.), 25711, *A                                                                              4(97)

Sovereign General Insurance Co. v. P & M Management Consultants Ltd.

   (Man.), 25566, *B                                                                                                                      12(97)

Spidell v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 25384, *01 30.1.97                                                          1870(96)                           161(97)

Spina v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 25396, *01 30.1.97                                                           1441(96)                           155(97)

St-Aubin c. Curateur public du Québec (Qué.), 25764, *A                                                 195(97)

St. Clair Jackson v. The Queen (Ont.), 25666, *A                                                                 2145(96)

St. Mary’s Indian Band v. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern

   Development (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 25537, *B                                                                                 15(97)

Stenner v. British Columbia Securities Commission (B.C.), 25680, *A                             2147(96)

Streichert v. Lautard (B.C.), 25495, *B                                                                                    107(97)

Succession Clément Guillemette c. J. M. Asbestos Inc. (Qué.), 25617, *A                        2048(96)

Sunshine Village Corp. v. Dupuy (F.C.A.)(Alta.), 25519, *B                                               17(97)

Sunshine Village Corp. v. Dupuy (F.C.A.)(Alta.), 25582, *B                                               18(97)

Syncrude Canada Ltd. v. Petrifond Midwest Ltd. (Alta.), 25603, *B                                 199(97)

Taylor v. Eisner (Sask.), 25536, *B                                                                                           2152(96)

Thompson v. Discipline Committee of the Chiropractors’ Association of

   Saskatchewan (Sask.), 25686, *A                                                                                          1(97)

Thomson Newspapers Co. v. Attorney General of Canada (Ont.), 25593, *B                  283(97)

Toronto College Park Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 25559, *B                                   286(97)

Tremblay c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 25391, *01 30.1.97                                                         7(97)                                 148(97)

Trendline Industries Ltd. v. Mochinski (B.C.), 25474, *B                                                     1939(96)

Trinchini v. The Queen (Ont.), 25762, *A                                                                               195(97)

Turmel v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 25610, *B                                                                         14(97)

Vale v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (Ont.), 25714, *A                                              5(97)

Vancouver Society of Immigrant & Visible Minority Women v. Minister of

   National Revenue (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 25359, *B                                                                        1680(96)

Vekved v. Redlack (B.C.), 25684, *A                                                                                        1(97)

Venneri v. Lincoln County Board of Education (Ont.), 25465, *02 30.1.97                       1797(96)                           160(97)

Ville de LaSalle c. Mole Construction Inc. (Qué.), 25567, *02 30.1.97                              v19(97)                            151(97)

Ville de Québec c. Hospitalité Commonwealth Ltée (Qué.), 25470, *02 19.12.96            2097(96)                           41(97)

Ville de Val-Bélair c. Gestion Raymond Denis Inc. (Qué.), 25718, *A                              5(97)

Villeneuve c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.), 25554, *B                                          10(97)

Vojic v. The Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 25534, *B                                  2099(96)

Vukelich v. The Queen (B.C.), 25544, *A                                                                                3(97)

Watson (Paul Franklin) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.), 25768, *A                                        195(97)

Watson (Richard Bruce) v. Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission (N.S.),

   25429, *02 30.1.97                                                                                                                     1735(96)                           157(97)

Webster v. The Queen (P.E.I.), 25740, *A                                                                                 193(97)

Weisfeld v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 24334, *A                                                                    1595(94)

Wen v. Canadian Airlines International Ltd. (B.C.), 25653, *A                                         2144(96)

White (Perry) v. Slawter (N.S.), 25311, *02 30.1.97                                                                1760(96)                           165(97)

White (Richard Gerry) v. The Queen (Ont.), 25775, *A                                                        281(97)

White (Thomas) v. Woolworth Canada Inc. (Nfld.), 25397, *B                                           1429(96)

Whynder v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 25511, *01 6.2.97                                                         1931(96)                           210(97)

Woodhouse v. Woodhouse (Ont.), 25490, *02 6.2.97 L’Heureux-Dubé J.

   dissenting                                                                                                                                  1872(96)                           220(97)

Zagorac v. The Queen (Crim)(Alta.), 25107, *01 9.1.97                                                          2149(96)                           45(97)

CUMULATIVE INDEX ‐ APPEALS                                    INDEX CUMULATIF ‐ POURVOIS

This index includes appeals standing for judgment at the beginning of 1997 and all appeals heard in 1997 up to now.

Cet index comprend les pourvois en délibéré au début de 1997 et tous ceux entendus en 1997 jusqu'à maintenant.

*01 dismissed/rejeté

*02 dismissed with costs/rejeté avec dépens

*03 allowed/accueilli

­*04 allowed with costs/accueilli avec dépens

*05 discontinuance/désistement

                                                                                                                                                   Hearing/                         Judgment/

CASE/AFFAIRE                                                                                                                      Audition                          Jugement

                 Page

A.M. v. Ryan (B.C.), 24612, *02 6.2.97 L’Heureux-Dubé J. dissenting                             1586(96)                           231(97)

Benner v. Secretary of State of Canada (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 23811                                        1585(96)

Board of Education for the City of Toronto v. Ontario Secondary

   School Teacher’s Federation, District 15 (Toronto) (Ont.), 24724                            1900(96)

Brant County Board of Education v. Eaton (Ont.), 24668, *04 9.10.96                         1715(96)                           232(97)

British Columbia Rugby Union v. Hamstra (B.C.), 24743                                                120(97)

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co. (B.C.),

   24857, *03 22.1.97                                                                                                                 118(97)                             118(97)

Carosella v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24974, *03  6.2.97 La Forest,

   L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and McLachlin JJ. dissenting                                             1124(96)                           231(97)

Comeau’s Sea Foods Ltd. v. The Queen in right of Canada (F.C.A.)(Ont.),

   24682, *02 30.1.97                                                                                                                 1586(96)                           178(97)

Construction Gilles Paquette Ltée c. Entreprises Végo Ltée (Qué.), 25090                 302(97)

D.A.C. v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 25230, *01 24.1.97                                                       173(97)                             173(97)

Dagg v. Minister of Finance (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24786                                                           119(97)

Delaronde c. The Queen (Crim.)(Qué.), 25261, *01 30.1.97                                               176(97)                             176(97)

Dell Holdings Ltd. v. Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority (Ont.),

   24695, *03 30.1.97, Iacobucci J. dissenting                                                                      1713(96)                           178(97)

Farber c. Royal Trust Co. (Qué.), 24885, granted, reasons to follow/

   accordée, motifs à suivre 28.11.96                                                                                     2071(96)                           2135(96)

Feeney v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24752                                                                           1078(96)

Finn v. The Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.), 25292, *01 30.1.97                                                         176(97)                             229(97)

Hercules Managements Ltd. v. Ernst & Young (Man.), 24882                                        2163(96)

Hickman Motors Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Nfld.), 24994                                              1816(96)

Hill v. Attorney General of Nova Scotia (N.S.), 24782, *03 30.1.97                                2070(96)                           178(97)

Hinse c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 24320, *03 21.1.97                                                           1585(96)                           118(97)

Jacquard v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 24660                                                                       1713(96)

Judges of the Provincial Court of Manitoba v. The Queen in right of the

   Province of Manitoba (Man.), 24846                                                                                2137(96)

Latimer v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 24818, *03 6.2.97                                                     2069(96)                           231(97)

Leipert v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 25293, *01 6.2.97                                                        2070(96)                           231(97)

MacDonnell v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 25165, *03 13.2.97                                            303(97)                             303(97)

McDonnell v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24814                                                                   2162(96)

Opetchesaht, an Indian Band v. The Queen (B.C.), 24161                                               1815(96)

Parry v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 25075                                                                              2068(96)

Phillips v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 25075                                                                          2068(96)

Procureur général du Canada c. Hydro-Québec (Qué.), 24652                                     301(97)

R. c. Campbell (Crim.)(Alta.), 24831                                                                                     2137(96)

R. Currie (Crim.)(Ont.), 25053, *03 31.1.97                                                                          229(97)                             229(97)

R. c. Haroun (Crim.)(Qué.), 25162                                                                                         173(97)

R. v. Jensen (Crim.)(Ont.), 25351, the appeal is quashed 11.2.97                                      301(97)                             301(97)

R. v. Noble (Crim.)(B.C.), 25271                                                                                             1815(96)

R. v. Osvath (Crim.)(Ont.), 25160, the appeal is quashed/le pourvoi est

   annulé, 23.1.97, L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and McLachlin JJ. dissenting                 120(97)                             173(97)

R. v. Royal Bank of Canada (Alta.), 24713                                                                         1124(96)

R. in right of the Province of British Columbia v. Sylvestre (B.C.), 24891                    303(97)

Reference regarding the remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court

   of Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.), 24508/24778                                                                2136(96)

Smith v. Arndt (B.C.), 24943                                                                                                   175(97)

Southam Inc. v. Director of Investigation and Research (F.C.A.)(Ont.),

   24915, the appeal against the remedy is dismissed.  The appeal is

   reserved 25.11.96                                                                                                                  2068(96)                           2068(96)

Stillman v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.B.), 24631                                                                         1901(96)

Syndicat des postiers du Canada c. Société canadienne des postes (Qué.),

   25093                                                                                                                                      302(97)

United States of America v. Dynar (Crim.)(Ont.), 24997                                                   175(97)

Ville de Montréal c. Syndicat canadien de la Fonction publique,

   section locale 301 (Qué.), 24761                                                                                       1899(96)

Ville de Pointe-Claire c. Syndicat des employées et employés professionels-

   les et de bureau, section locale 57 (Qué.), 24845                                                           1900(96)

Ville de Verdun c. Doré (Qué.), 24860                                                                                 174(97)