Bulletins

Informations sur la décision

Contenu de la décision

 
SUPREME COURT                                       COUR SUPRÊME

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES


This Bulletin is published at the direction of the Registrar and is for general information only.  It is not to be used as evidence of its content, which, if required, should be proved by Certificate of the Registrar under the Seal of the Court.  While every effort is made to ensure accuracy, no responsibility is assumed for errors or omissions.

 

Ce Bulletin, publié sous l'autorité du registraire, ne vise qu'à fournir des renseignements d'ordre général.  Il ne peut servir de preuve de son contenu.  Celle‑ci s'établit par un certificat du registraire donné sous le sceau de la Cour.  Rien n'est négligé pour assurer l'exactitude du contenu, mais la Cour décline toute responsabilité pour les erreurs ou omissions.


 

 

 


 


Subscriptions may be had at $200 per year, payable in advance, in accordance with the Court tariff.  During Court sessions it is usually issued weekly.

 

Le prix de l'abonnement, fixé dans le tarif de la Cour, est de 200 $ l'an, payable d'avance.  Le Bulletin paraît en principe toutes les semaines pendant les sessions de la Cour.


 

 

 


 


The Bulletin, being a factual report of recorded proceedings, is produced in the language of record.  Where a judgment has been rendered, requests for copies should be made to the Registrar, with a remittance of $10 for each set of reasons.  All remittances should be made payable to the Receiver General for Canada.

 

Le Bulletin rassemble les procédures devant la Cour dans la langue du dossier.  Quand un arrêt est rendu, on peut se procurer les motifs de jugement en adressant sa demande au registraire, accompagnée de 10 $ par exemplaire.  Le paiement doit être fait à l'ordre du Receveur général du Canada.


 

 

 


 

 

November 6, 1998  1657 - 1722 (INDEX)                                             le 6 novembre 1998


CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

 

 

 

Applications for leave to appeal

filed

 

Applications for leave submitted

to Court since last issue

 

Oral hearing ordered

 

Oral hearing on applications for

leave

 

Judgments on applications for

leave

 

Judgment on motion

 

Motions

 

Notices of appeal filed since last

issue

 

Notices of intervention filed since

last issue

 

Notices of discontinuance filed since

last issue

 

Appeals heard since last issue and disposition

 

Pronouncements of appeals reserved

 

 

Rehearing

 

Headnotes of recent judgments

 

Weekly agenda

 

Summaries of the cases

 

Cumulative Index ‑ Leave

 

Cumulative Index ‑ Appeals

 

Appeals inscribed ‑ Session

beginning

 

Notices to the Profession and

Press Release

 

Deadlines: Motions before the Court

 

Deadlines: Appeals

 

Judgments reported in S.C.R.

 

1657

 

 

1658 - 1663

 

 

-

 

-

 

 

1664 - 1668

 

 

-

 

1669 - 1673

 

-

 

 

-

 

 

-

 

 

-

 

 

1674

 

 

-

 

1675 - 1684

 

1685

 

1686 - 1697

 

1698 - 1716

 

1717 - 1720

 

-

 

 

-

 

 

1721

 

1722

 

-

 

Demandes d'autorisation d'appel

déposées

 

Demandes soumises à la Cour depuis la                                                                    dernière parution

 

Audience ordonnée

 

Audience sur les demandes d'autorisation

 

 

Jugements rendus sur les demandes                                                                                  d'autorisation

 

Jugement sur requête

 

Requêtes

 

Avis d'appel déposés depuis la dernière                                                                    parution

 

Avis d'intervention déposés depuis la                                                                                    dernière parution

 

Avis de désistement déposés depuis la                                                                    dernière parution

 

Appels entendus depuis la dernière

parution et résultat

 

Jugements rendus sur les appels en

délibéré

 

Nouvelle audition

 

Sommaires des arrêts récents

 

Ordre du jour de la semaine

 

Résumés des affaires

 

Index cumulatif ‑ Autorisations

 

Index cumulatif ‑ Appels

 

Appels inscrits ‑ Session

commençant le

 

Avis aux avocats et communiqué

de presse

 

Délais: Requêtes devant la Cour

 

Délais: Appels

 

Jugements publiés au R.C.S.



APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FILED

 

DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION D'APPEL DÉPOSÉES


                                                                                                                                                                                                                  


Mark Bodenstein

Mark Bodenstein

 

 

v. (26728)

 

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Bradley Reitz

A.G. of Canada

 

FILING DATE 23.9.1998

 

 

Sonia Tremblay

Sonia Tremblay

 

 

c. (26883)

 

Procureur général du Québec et al. (Qué.)

Alain Tanguay

P.G. Québec

 

DATE DE PRODUCTION 5.10.1998

 

 

Réal Rodrigue

Réal Rodrigue

 

 

c. (26884)

 

Procureur général du Québec et al. (Qué.)

Alain Tanguay

P.G. du Québec

 

DATE DE PRODUCTION 5.10.1998

 

 

James Chisan a.k.a. James Brian Chisan

Michael E. Harrison

 

 

v. (26888)

 

478370 Alberta Inc. (Alta.)

J.B. Rooney, Q.C.

Rooney Prentice

 

FILING DATE 28.9.1998

 

 

 



 



APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE 

SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE

 

 

DEMANDES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION


 

OCTOBER 26, 1998 / LE 26 OCTOBRE 1998

 

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

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges McLachlin et Iacobucci

 

                                                                                     Glen Charles LaLanne

 

                                                                                                v. (26687)

 

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

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Criminal law - Whether lower courts were correct in disposition of case - Whether Applicant’s rights were respected.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


April 30, 1996

Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (Cole P.C.J.)

 

Conviction: assault

 

 

 

November 21, 1996

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Anderson J.)

 

Summary conviction appeal dismissed

 

 

 

October 16, 1997

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

(Jones, Hart and Chipman JJ.A.)

 

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

 

 

 

June 2, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

                                                                                           Vincent Scalera

 

                                                                                                v. (26695)

 

                                                   M.J. Oppenheim in his quality as Attorney in Canada for the

 Non-Marine Underwriters, Members of Lloyd’s of London (B.C.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Commercial law - Insurance - Duty to defend - Interpretation - Applicant’s homeowners’ policy provides liability coverage for actions relating to “bodily injury” subject to an intentional act exclusion - Can an insurer under a contract of insurance obligate itself to provide a defence to a claim even if the insurance contract does not create a possible obligation to indemnify the insured - Do liability insurance policies containing intentional act exclusions relieve the insurer of its duty to defend a claim alleging harm as a result of sexual activity?

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 



October 22, 1997

Supreme Court of British Columbia (Humphries J.)

 

Respondent ordered to provide Applicant with a defence in the underlying action

 

 

 

April 9, 1998

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Hollinrake, Finch [dissenting] and Proudfoot JJ.A.)

 

Appeal allowed

 

 

 

June 4, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

                                                                                       Nicodemo Sansalone

 

                                                                                                v. (26708)

 

                                                            The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (B.C.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Commercial law - Insurance - Duty to defend - Interpretation - Applicant’s homeowners’ policy provides liability coverage for actions relating to “bodily harm” subject to an intentional injury exclusion - Underlying civil action for sexual misconduct and breach of fiduciary duty - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of Co-operative Fire & Casualty Co. v. Saindon et al., [1976] 1 S.C.R. 735, by concluding that “harm is a natural and probable consequence” of sexual activity.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


January 10 and February 24, 1997

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(K.J. Smith J.)

 

Respondent ordered to provide Applicant with a defence in the underlying action; Applicant entitled to select and instruct counsel

 

 

 

April 9, 1998

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Hollinrake, Finch [dissenting] and Proudfoot JJ.A.)

 

Appeal allowed

 

 

 

June 4, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

 



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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache

 

                                                                                          Larry Havelange

 

                                                                                                v. (26761)

 

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

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Criminal law - Defences - Provocation - Whether the trial judge erred in not allowing the jury to consider the defence of provocation if the jury concluded that the Applicant had intended to cause the death of the deceased - Whether the trial judge failed to adequately instruct the jury as to reasonable doubt as it applied to each element of the defence of provocation and the evidence adduced at trial - Whether the trial judge erred by allowing into evidence a number of hearsay statements of the deceased as evidence of the deceased’s state of mind - Whether the trial judge’s  charge regarding the application of reasonable doubt as it applied to the Applicant’s credibility occasioned a substantial wrong, miscarriage of justice or prejudice to the Applicant - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that it was not necessary to deal with  the primary ground advanced by the Applicant - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not issuing written reasons.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


October 10, 1996

Court of Queen’s Bench of Saskatchewan

(Maurice J.)


Conviction:  second degree murder


May 12, 1998

Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

(Cameron, Gerwing and Sherstobitoff JJ.A.)


Appeal against conviction dismissed


July 29, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

                                                                                      Lucinda Lamontagne

 

                                                                                                c. (26633)

 

                                                       La Corporation professionnelle des médecins du Québec

 

                                                                                                        et

 

                                                                      Le procureur général du Québec (Qué.)

 

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

 


Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit des professions - Infractions pénales - Exercice illégal de la médecine - Homéopathie - Contestation de la constitutionnalité des articles 31, 43 et 45 de la Loi médicale, L.R.Q., chap. M-9, fondée sur les articles 2  et 7  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  et 1, 3 et 5 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., chap. C-12 - Déclaration de culpabilité devant la Cour du Québec - Appel de la demanderesse rejeté en Cour supérieure et en Cour d’appel - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant à l’absence de fondement factuel et en rejetant l’appel de la demanderesse?

 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

 


Le 26 janvier 1994

Cour du Québec (Sirois J.C.Q.)

 

Déclaration de culpabilité: Exercice illégal de la médecine

 

 

 


Le 28 mars 1995

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


Appel de la demanderesse rejeté


Le 9 mars 1998

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Proulx, Forget et Pidgeon, JJ.C.A.)


Appel rejeté


Le 6 mai 1998

Cour suprême du Canada


Demande d’autorisation déposée


 

                                                                                             Paul Wallach

 

                                                                                                v. (26693)

 

                                                                       Blue Ridge Lumber (1981) Ltd. (Alta.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Commercial Law - Contracts - Interpretation of Contracts - Procedural Law - Evidence - Use of objective and testamentary evidence of subsequent agreements and conduct to interpret written contract - Reliance upon parole evidence - Estoppel - Whether adverse interest should be drawn from choice of witnesses.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


April 15, 1997

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Dea J.)

 

Specific performance ordered

 

 

 

April 6, 1998

Court of Appeal for Alberta

(McClung, Côté, Berger J.A.)

 

Appeal dismissed

 

 

 

June 4, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

CORAM:   Cory, Major and Binnie JJ. /

Les juges Cory, Major et Binnie

 

                                                                                       Giovanni DiDomizio

 

                                                                                                v. (26702)

 


                                                                        Frank Porto and Miriam Porto (Ont.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Property law - Real Property - Remedies - Residential real estate transaction - Extension Agreement - Deposit - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge, in his treatment of the $160,000 deposit, granted relief from forfeiture - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in disallowing the Applicant’s claim for damages for expenses incurred before August 1992 - Whether the $160,000 deposit should have been returned to the purchaser, subject to the vendor’s claim for damages.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


January 9, 1996

Ontario Court (General Division)

(Pitt J.)

 

Respondents’ action to recover the sum of $160,000: Applicant ordered to pay the Respondents the sum of $90,000 with pre-judgment interest

 

 

 

April 9, 1998

Ontario Court of Appeal

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

 

Appeal dismissed

 

 

 

June 15, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

Michael C. James

 

v. (26692)

 

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

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Procedural Law - Civil procedure - Limitation of Actions -Taxation - Assessment - Deemed Notice - Whether mailing Notices of Confirmation of tax reassessments to taxpayers last known address constitutes notice of reassessment for purpose of commencing a one-year limitation period on appeals from reassessments.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


 

January 13, 1995

Tax Court of Canada (Brulé J.)


Extension of time to file appeal denied


December 21, 1995

Tax Court of Canada (Brulé J.)


Motions to amend judgment and to extend time to file Notice of Appeal in Federal Court of Appeal dismissed


May 27, 1997

Federal Court of Appeal

(Marceau, Linden, Robertson JJ.A.)


Appeal dismissed


June 16, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada (Major J.)


Extension of time to file application for leave to appeal granted



August 10, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

Freda Evelyn Langenhahn and Robert Leslie Langenhahn

 

v. (26710)

 

Richard  M. Czyz and Richard M. Czyz Professional Corporation (Alta.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Torts - Actions - Prescription - Whether general rule of discoverability applies to s.55 of the Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.A. 1980 c.L-15 respecting professional negligence and malpractice actions against dentists, physicians, chiropractors, podiatrists and optometrists - Whether incorporating the common law  and equitable  principle of discoverability into s.55 of the Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.A. 1980 c.L-15 is within the jurisdiction of the Courts.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


October 2, 1995

Court of Queen’s Bench (Breitkreuz, Master)

 

Applicants’ action struck out

 

 

 

January 15, 1996

Court of Queen’s Bench (O’Byrne J.)

 

Appeal allowed: statement of claim reinstated

 

 

 

April 17, 1998

Court of Appeal of Alberta (Bracco J.A. [dissenting in part] and McFadyen and Sulatycky JJ.A.)

 

Appeal allowed; matter remitted to Court of Queen’s Bench for determination of the issue:  What is the date when the professional services terminated in respect of the matter that is the subject of this action

 

 

 

June 15, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 



JUDGMENTS ON APPLICATIONS

FOR LEAVE

 

JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION


 

                                                                                                                                                             

 

NOVEMBER 5, 1998 / LE 5 NOVEMBRE 1998

 

26714                    SOPHIE JAREMKO - v. - METROPOLITAN TORONTO CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION NO. 875, DONALD HASTINGS, ED WEBSTER, BRUCE BRUNTON, MICHAEL LUCYK, PETER HOBBS, LEN RUDNER, ALICE BRENT, CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF ETOBICOKE, AND DONALD RAMSAY (Ont.)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

 

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

 

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

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Charter of Rights and Freedoms- Civil - Section 2 (b) of the Charter - Municipal law - By-laws - Fire Marshalls Act - Building Code - Condominiums - Procedural law - Civil procedure - Fire routes - Use of driveway or lay-by by trucks - Application of the doctrine estoppel - Application of the doctrine res judicata - Whether the lower courts disposed of the case properly.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


January 16, 1997

Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)

(O’Leary J.)

 

Respondents’ motion for an order striking out the Amended Statement of Claim and dismissing the Applicant’s action granted; Applicant’s application for an injunction dismissed

 

 

 

May 8, 1998

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Morden A.C.J.O, Catzman and Weiler JJ.A.)

 

Applicant’s appeal and motion seeking an order dismissing the Respondents’ motion to strike out the Applicant’s Amended Statement of Claim dismissed

 

 

 

June 23, 1998

Court of Appeal for Ontario (McMurtry C.J.O.)

 

Applicant’s application for a stay dismissed

 

 

 

August 7, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

26723                    A. TONY FIORELLI - v. - DR. J. G. STEPHENS AND ST. MARY’S GENERAL HOSPITAL AND THE SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH OF THE DIOCESE OF HAMILTON (Ont.)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

 

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

 

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

 

 

 

 


NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Procedural law - The parameter of the exercise of judicial discretion in pre-trial dismissal of an action are of fundamental importance since there is an inherent right to a trial to determine the issues raised by a party - The decision affects the interpretation of the parameter within which judicial discretion can be exercised in dismissing a persons action on a procedural point -The Court of Appeal of Ontario so far misconstrued the evidence as to have made a fundamental error of law and thereby misapplied law which defeats the plaintiffs case before trial.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


March 14, 1996

Ontario Court (General Division)

(Gravely J.)

 

On motion of Respondents, Applicant’s action dismissed for refusal to take the oath and answer proper questions on examination for discovery

 

 

 

May 5, 1998

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Morden A.C.J.O. and Catzman and Weiler JJ.A.)

 

Appeal dismissed

 

 

 

June 23, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

26731                    BENDT MATTHIESSEN - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Alta.)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

 

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

 

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Criminal law - Appeal - Real rights - Criminal Code , sections 462.37(1)  and 462.41(3)  (forfeiture of proceeds of crime) - Appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing leave to file a notice of appeal against an order of forfeiture of a house and its contents.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


April 16, 1997

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Nash J.)

 

Order of forfeiture of house and contents pursuant to s. 462.37  of the Criminal Code 

 

 

 

April 20, 1998

Court of Appeal of Alberta

(Irving, O’Leary and Ritter JJ.A.)

 

Application for leave to file notice of appeal dismissed

 

 

 

June 18, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 


26718                    THOMAS PETER PAUL - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (N.B.)

 

CORAM:               Cory, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

 

The application for leave to appeal as well as all ancillary motions are dismissed.

 

La demande d'autorisation d'appel et toutes requêtes accessoires sont rejetées.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Criminal law - Aboriginal peoples - Procedure - Evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to admit documents attached to another filed decision - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to take judicial notice of historical texts and documents referred to by the Court of Queen’s Bench - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Treaty of Peace with the Eastern MickMack tribes of 1752 did not have application to the Applicant - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that documents entered as exhibits at trial had no application - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the treaties confirmed the Crown’s jurisdiction over and title to the lands in question - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Applicant had an onus to lead evidence to rebut the acknowledgements of Crown title found in the treaties entered as exhibits - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the Applicant’s claim as an aboriginal right rather than a treaty right - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that it is necessary to determine whether pre-Confederation legislation extinguished aboriginal or treaty rights - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that it is necessary to determine whether aboriginal or treaty rights have been extinguished by legislation - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in entering a conviction instead of remitting the matter to the Provincial Court of Court of Queen’s Bench.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


August 27, 1996                                                  

Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Arsenault J.)


Acquittal: unlawfully removing timber from Crown lands


October 28, 1997

Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick

(Turnbull J.)


Summary conviction appeal dismissed


April 22, 1998

Court of Appeal of New Brunswick

(Hoyt, Rice, Ryan, Turnbull and Drapeau JJ.A.)


Appeal allowed; conviction entered; matter remitted to Provincial Court for sentence

 


June 19, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal and motion for stay of proceedings filed


August 17, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada


Motion for leave to intervene filed by J.D. Irving, Limited


September 1, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada (L’Heureux-Dubé J.)


Motion for leave to intervene referred to panel seized of the leave application. 


 

26504                    MICHAEL OSIEL also known as MICHAEL ONIEL - v. - ROYAL BANK OF CANADA (Ont.)

 

CORAM:               Cory, Major and Binnie JJ.


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

 

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

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Property law - Mortgages - Default proceedings - Procedural law - Civil Procedure - Pre-trial procedure - Motion for summary judgment - Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure - “Genuine issue for trial” - Whether the lower courts disposed of this case properly.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


January 20, 1997

Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)

(Chapnik J.)

 

Respondent’s motion for summary judgment granted

 

 

 

January 9, 1998

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Robins, Laskin and Rosenberg JJ.A.)

 

Appeal dismissed

 

 

 

May 20, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

 

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

 

 

 


 

26694                    GARRY B. ABRAHAM, ET AL - v. - COOPERS and LYBRAND LIMITED, RECEIVER AND MANAGER FOR CANADIAN ADMIRAL CORPORATION LTD. and THE NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA (Ont.)

 

CORAM:               Cory, Major and Binnie JJ.

 

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

 

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens et la demande d'autorisation d'appel‑incident est rejetée.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Commercial Law - Creditor and debtor - Bankruptcy - Banks/Banking Operations - Secured creditors ‑ Priorities - Property of bankrupt ‑  Labour Law - Employment Law ‑ Employment standards ‑ Vacation pay - Pension Plan Payments - Whether provincial legislation may validly affect security  under Bank Act,  R.S.C. 1985, c. B‑1- Whether Bank Act security has priority over trust and lien claims under Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 137 or Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 373 - Effect of subsequent bankruptcy of employer on priorities established when rights under Bank Act crystallized ‑ Whether property subject to Bank Act security is property of bankrupt within meaning of s. 47 of Bankruptcy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B‑3  ‑ Whether Bank Act security constitutes fixed charge over all secured assets, subsequently acquired assets and money held in bank accounts - Whether test for constitutional paramountcy is broader in scope than the test of express contradiction - Whether Armstrong v. Canadian Admiral Corp. (Receiver of) (1986),  53 O.R. (2d) 468 has been overruled.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 



June 22, 1993 (amended November 18, 1994)

Ontario Court (General Division) (Wilson J.)

 

Action for accrued vacation pay and pension fund payments allowed

 

 

 

March 31, 1998

Ontario Court of Appeal

(Finlayson, McKinlay and Laskin JJ.A.)

 

Appeal allowed in part

 

 

 

June 1, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Applications for leave to appeal and for leave to cross-appeal filed

 

 

 




MOTIONS

 

REQUÊTES

 


 

26.10.1998

 

Before / Devant:   LE JUGE BASTARACHE

 


Requête pour obtenir une ordonnance déclarant le procureur inhabile à représenter le Procureur général du Québec

 

Gilles Pinsonneault

 

    c. (26795)

 

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)


Motion for an order removing the counsel of record for the respondent A.G. of Québec

 

 


DISMISSED / REJETÉE

 

 

26.10.1998

 

Before / Devant:   BASTARACHE J.

 


Motion by the respondent to file a reply factum on appeal

 

Mavis Baker

 

     v. (25823)

 

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Ont.)


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

 

 


DISMISSED / REJETÉE

 

The application by the respondent for leave to file a reply to the factums of the interveners, The Canadian Council of Churches, Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law et al., and The Charter Committee on Poverty Issues is dismissed.

 

 

27.10.1998

 

Before / Devant:   BASTARACHE J.

 


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

 

Central City Financial Services Ltd.

 

     v. (26894)

 

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)


Requête en prorogation du délai pour déposer la demande d’autorisation d'appel

 

 


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to 30 days from the receipt of the reasons for judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal.


 

27.10.1998

 

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

 


Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the response

 

Rochelle Claire Stenzler et al.

 

    v. (26820)

 

Ontario College of Pharmacists (Ont.)


Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la réponse

 

 


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to October 20, 1998.

 

 

28.10.1998

 

Before / Devant:    LE REGISTRAIRE

 


Requête en prorogation de délai

 

Sa Majesté la Reine

 

    c. (26646)

 

Daniel Jolivet (Qué.)


Motion to extend time

 


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

 

La requête pour obtenir une ordonnance prorogeant le délai pour produire et signifier le recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’appelante au 28 septembre 1998 est accordée.

 

 

28.10.1998

 

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

 


Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the response

 

Tammy Lynn Ferris

 

     v. (26837)

 

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)


Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la réponse

 

 


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to October 22, 1998.

 

 


28.10.1998

 

Before / Devant:   BASTARACHE J.

 


Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the appellant’s factum, record and book of authorities

 

Marcel Lalonde

 

     v. (26261)

 

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)


Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire, le dossier et le cahier de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’appelant

 


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to December 31, 1998.

 

 

28.10.1998

 

Before / Devant:   BASTARACHE J.

 


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

 

Michael Sean Foote

 

    v. (26895)

 

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)


Requête en prorogation du délai pour déposer la demande d’autorisation d'appel

 

 


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to September 30, 1998.

 

 

28.10.1998

 

Before / Devant:   LE REGISTRAIRE

 


Requête en prorogation de délai

 

Edwin Pearson

 

     c. (24107)

 

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)


Motion to extend time

 

 


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

 

La requête pour obtenir une ordonnance prorogeant au 16 octobre 1998 le délai pour produire et signifier le mémoire, le dossier et le cahier de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’intimée est accordée.

 

 


28.10.1998

 

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

 


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

 

Jamie Tannis Gladue

 

    v. (26300)

 

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)


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

 


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to October 27, 1998.

 

 

29.10.1998

 

Before / Devant:   BASTARACHE J.

 


Motion for leave to intervene

 

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Canada;

Congress of Aboriginal Peoples;

Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation

 

IN/DANS:              Robert Lovelace et al.

 

v. (26165)

 

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario et al. (Ont.)


Requête en autorisation d’intervention

 


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

 

1.             The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Attorney General of Canada is granted, the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 25 pages in length and to present oral argument not to exceed 30 minutes;

 

2.             The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is granted, the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length and to present oral argument not to exceed 15 minutes;

 

3.             The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation is granted, the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length and to present oral argument not to exceed 15 minutes;

 

The interveners shall not be entitled to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record apart from its factum and oral submissions.


Pursuant to Rule 18(6), each of the interveners shall pay to the appellants and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellants and respondents by the interventions.  There shall be no other costs to or against the interveners.

 

 

30.10.1998

 

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

 


Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file a joint book of authorities

 

J.G.

 

    v. (26005)

 

Minister of Health and Community Services et al. (N.B.)


Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt d'un cahier de jurisprudence et de doctrine conjoint

 

 


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   

 

Motion to extend the time by the appellant and the respondents to serve and file a joint book of authorities to October 26, 1998, nunc pro tunc, is granted.

 

 



PRONOUNCEMENTS OF APPEALS    RESERVED 

 

Reasons for judgment are available

 

JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES APPELS EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

 

Les motifs de jugement sont disponibles

 


 

NOVEMBER 5, 1998 / LE 5 NOVEMBRE 1998

 

25192                    CANADIAN EGG MARKETING AGENCY - v. - PINEVIEW POULTRY PRODUCTS LTD. and FRANK RICHARDSON operating as NORTHERN POULTRY - and - THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES as represented by THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ONTARIO, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ALBERTA, COUNCIL OF CANADIANS, SIERRA LEGAL DEFENCE FUND SOCIETY, and THE ALBERTA BARLEY COMMISSION (N.W.T.)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory,

McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.

 

The appeal is allowed with costs and the judgment of the Northwest Territories Court of Appeal is set aside, McLachlin and Major JJ. dissenting.  The constitutional questions are answered as follows:

 

Question 1:            Do the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency Proclamation, C.R.C., c. 646, as amended, the Canadian Egg Licensing Regulations, 1987, SOR/87-242, as amended, ss. 3, 4(1), 7(1)(d), and 7(1)(e), and the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency Quota Regulations, 1986, SOR/86-8, as amended, ss. 4(1)(a), 5(2), 6 and 7(1), in whole or in part, infringe the rights and freedoms guaranteed by s. 2( d )  and s. 6  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

 

Answer: No.  McLachlin and Major JJ. would answer yes.

 

Question 2:            If so, can this infringement be justified under s. 1  of the Charter?

 

Answer: It is not necessary to answer this question.  McLachlin and Major JJ. would answer no.

 

 

Le pourvoi est accueilli avec dépens et l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel des Territoires du Nord‑Ouest est annulé.  Les juges McLachlin et Major sont dissidents.  Les questions constitutionnelles reçoivent les réponses suivantes:

 

Question 1:            La Proclamation visant l’Office canadien de commercialisation des oeufs, C.R.C., ch. 646, et ses modifications, l’art. 3, le par. 4(1) et les al. 7(1)d) et 7(1)e) du Règlement de 1987 sur l’octroi de permis visant les oeufs du Canada, DORS/87-242, et ses modifications, ainsi que l’al. 4(1)a), le par. 5(2), l’art. 6 et le par. 7(1) du Règlement de 1986 de l’Office canadien de commercialisation des oeufs sur le contingentement, DORS/86-8, et ses modifications, violent-ils, en totalité ou en partie, les droits et libertés garantis par l’al. 2 d )  et l’art. 6  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

 

Réponse:               Non.  Les juges McLachlin et Major répondraient oui.

 

Question 2:            Dans l’affirmative, cette violation peut-elle être justifiée au sens de l’article premier de la Charte?

 

Réponse:               Il n’est pas nécessaire de répondre à cette question.  Les juges McLachlin et Major répondraient non.

                                                                                                                                                                



HEADNOTES OF RECENT JUDGMENTS

 

SOMMAIRES DE JUGEMENTS RÉCENTS

 


Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Pineview Poultry Products Ltd. - and between - Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Frank Richardson operating as Northern Poultry (N.W.T.)(25192)

Indexed as:  Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Richardson /

Répertorié:  Office canadien de commercialisation des oeufs c. Richardson

Judgment rendered November 5, 1998 / Jugement rendu le 5 novembre 1998

 

Present:  Lamer C.J. and L’Heureux‑Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.

 

Practice ‑‑ Standing ‑‑ Corporations ‑‑ Charter challenge ‑‑ Egg marketing scheme permitting only producers in provinces belonging to scheme to engage in interprovincial or export trade of eggs ‑‑ Corporate egg producers in Northwest Territories sued by state organ for damages arising from illegal interprovincial marketing of eggs ‑‑ Injunction also requested against egg producers ‑‑ Egg producers alleging in defence that federal legislation regulating egg marketing scheme infringing Charter freedom of association and mobility rights ‑‑ Whether egg producers entitled to standing to challenge legislation’s constitutionality.

 

Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights  ‑‑ Mobility rights ‑‑ Right to pursue gaining of livelihood in any province ‑‑ Egg marketing scheme ‑‑ Egg producers in Northwest Territories unable to market eggs in interprovincial trade because egg marketing scheme permitting only producers in provinces belonging to scheme to engage in interprovincial or export trade of eggs ‑‑ Whether scheme infringing right to pursue gaining of livelihood in any province ‑‑ Whether scheme discriminating primarily on basis of residence ‑‑ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 6(2)(b) , (3)(a)  ‑‑ Canadian Egg Marketing Agency Proclamation, C.R.C., c. 646 ‑‑ Canadian Egg Licensing Regulations, 1987, SOR/87‑242, ss. 3, 4(1), 7(1)(d), (e) ‑‑ Canadian Egg Marketing Agency Quota Regulations,1986, SOR/86‑8, ss. 4(1)(a), 5(2), 6, 7(1) .

 

Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights  ‑‑ Freedom of association ‑‑ Egg marketing scheme ‑‑ Egg producers in Northwest Territories unable to market eggs in interprovincial trade because egg marketing scheme permitting only producers in provinces belonging to scheme to engage in such trade ‑‑ Whether scheme violating freedom of association ‑‑ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 2(d)  ‑‑ Canadian Egg Marketing Agency Proclamation, C.R.C., c. 646 ‑‑ Canadian Egg Licensing Regulations, 1987, SOR/87‑242, ss. 3, 4(1), 7(1)(d), (e) ‑‑ Canadian Egg Marketing Agency Quota Regulations, 1986, SOR/86‑8, ss. 4(1)(a), 5(2), 6, 7(1) .

 

The respondents, Richardson, operating as Northern Poultry, and Pineview Poultry Products Ltd., are the NWT’s only egg producers.  Richardson began producing eggs in 1987, followed by Pineview in 1990, and they have both marketed their eggs in intraprovincial and interprovincial trade. Since 1972, the Canadian egg market has been regulated through a federal‑provincial scheme of interlocking laws and regulations.  The appellant CEMA is in charge of regulating the interprovincial trade in eggs and allocates federal egg quotas to each of the 10 provinces, but not to either territory.  Under the federal part of the egg marketing scheme, a federal quota and licence are needed to produce and market eggs for interprovincial and export trade.  The effect of the exclusion of the NWT from the various regulations is that no eggs produced in the NWT can lawfully be marketed interprovincially or exported.  In 1992, CEMA sued the respondents for damages arising from illegal interprovincial marketing of eggs. It also sought an injunction preventing them from marketing their eggs in interprovincial trade.  In defence, the respondents challenged the constitutional validity of the federal egg marketing legislation. The trial judge granted public interest standing to the respondents.  On the constitutional issues, he held that the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency Proclamation, ss. 3, 4(1), 7(1)(d) and (e) of the Canadian Egg Licensing Regulations, 1987, and ss. 4(1)(a), 5(2), 6 and 7(1) of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency Quota Regulations, 1986 infringed ss. 2( d ) , 6(2)( b )  and 15(1)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ,  and could not be saved by s. 1.  On the matter of remedy, the trial judge granted NWT egg producers a constitutional exemption from the regulatory system.  The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that the respondents should have public interest standing and affirmed his decision except with regard to s. 15(1)  of the Charter.  This appeal raised the following issues:  (1) whether the respondents have standing to attack the constitutionality of the federal egg marketing scheme as a defence to the civil suit; and (2) whether this scheme violates ss. 2 (d) and 6  of the Charter.  The s. 15(1) issue was not raised before this Court.

 


Held (McLachlin and Major JJ. dissenting):  The appeal should be allowed.

 

Per Lamer C.J. and L’Heureux‑Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.:  The respondents could be granted standing in this Court under the residuary discretion.  This Court is always free to hear Charter arguments from parties who would not normally have standing to invoke the Charter on the basis of the residuary discretion if the question involved is one of public importance. The constitutionality of the federal egg marketing scheme is clearly an issue of national importance, as are the more specific issues raised with regard to whether ss. 2 (d) and 6  of the Charter apply to corporations.  In any event, in this case, the respondents have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the federal egg marketing scheme  through an extension of the Big M Drug Mart exception.  They need not seek public interest standing.  While,  as a general rule, a provision of the Charter may be invoked only by those who enjoy its protection, the Big M Drug Mart exception, which grants standing as of right to an accused charged under legislation alleged to be unconstitutional, should be extended to allow corporations to invoke the Charter when they are defendants in civil proceedings instigated by the state or a state organ pursuant to a regulatory scheme.   Just as no one should be convicted of an offence under an unconstitutional law, no one should be the subject of coercive proceedings and sanctions authorized by an unconstitutional law. Here, the respondents do not come before the court voluntarily.  They have been put in jeopardy by a state organ bringing them before a court by an application for an injunction calling in aid a regulatory regime.  Success of that application could result in enforcement by contempt proceedings.  If the foundation for these remedies is an unconstitutional law, a defendant should not be barred from raising its unconstitutionality solely because the constitutional provision which renders it invalid does not apply to a corporation.

 

Section 6(2) (b) of the Charter guarantees the right to “pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province” and s. 6(3)(a) narrows the ambit of that right, making it subject to laws of general application in the province, except those which discriminate against individuals “primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence”.  These sections should be read together as defining a single right, rather than one right which is externally “saved” by another. Section 6(3)(a) is not a “saving” provision in the way in which ss. 6(3) (b), 6(4) , or 1  of the Charter are; none of these sections is essential to defining the purpose of the sections which they limit.  The interdependence of s. 6(2)(b) and (3)(c) should be given full effect by determining the purpose and scope of the two provisions together without leaving any room for a second application of s. 6(3)(a).

 

Section 6  of the Charter guarantees the mobility of persons, not as a feature of the economic unity of the country, but in order to further a human rights purpose.  It is centred on the individual.  Section 6 relates to an essential attribute of personhood and guarantees that mobility in the pursuit of a livelihood will not be prevented through unequal treatment based on residence by the laws in force in the jurisdiction in which that livelihood is pursued. Given this purpose, the focus of the analysis in s. 6 is not the type of economic activity involved, but rather the purpose and effect of the particular  legislation, and whether that purpose and effect infringe the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of residence in the pursuit of a livelihood.

 

The scope of s. 6 must reflect the fundamental purpose underlying the section.  In the context of an economy characterized by modern communications and forms of goods and services which are easily transported across great distances, it must be recognized that the hallmark of mobility required by s. 6 is not physical movement to another province, but rather any attempt to create wealth, whether by production, marketing, or performance, in another province.  Since in this case residents of an origin province (the NWT) seek to market something of value‑‑eggs‑‑in other destination provinces, this is clearly an attempt to “pursue the gaining of a livelihood” in another province and engages the mobility right guaranteed by s. 6.

 


Whether the impugned legislation  “discriminate[s] among persons primarily on the basis of province of present . . . residence” under s. 6(3)(a) involves a comparison of residents of the origin province who attempt to make their livelihood in a destination province with residents of the destination province who also make their livelihood in the destination province.  Since a livelihood may be pursued by means of production, marketing, or performance, in each case the appropriate comparison group will depend upon the nature of the livelihood which is restricted.  Here, the respondents complain that their ability to pursue their livelihood by marketing their eggs in other destination provinces is being interfered with on the basis of their residence.  In order to determine if there is discrimination, the terms according to which NWT egg producers can market their eggs in the destination province must thus be compared with the terms according to which egg producers resident in the destination province can market their eggs in the destination province.  If those terms discriminate primarily on the basis of residence, then s. 6 is violated.  The use of the word “primarily” in the mobility guarantee suggests that other purposes and effects must be weighed to determine whether the residential aspect of the discrimination is primary.  In many cases, there may be valid reasons for the limitation of a legislative scheme to a single province or to parts of Canada; such reasons will displace the primacy of a discriminatory effect related to residency under s. 6.  Whether the discrimination is unacceptable in the context of s. 6 depends entirely on which basis of discrimination is characterized as dominant, as denoted by the term “primarily”.  When considering the need to determine the primary basis of discrimination set out in s. 6(3)(a),  the division of powers analysis, focusing on the characterization of a dominant matter with which legislation is concerned, provides a helpful methodology which can be applied in determining whether there is discrimination “primarily” on the basis of residence.

 

The national egg marketing scheme does not discriminate primarily on the basis of residence.  The original purpose of the scheme ‑‑  to ensure the orderly and fair marketing of eggs in Canada ‑‑ is valid, notwithstanding circumstances which have changed since 1972, and the use of historical production patterns as a means of allocating quotas furthers this purpose. The exclusion of the NWT producers is simply an application of the principle of quota allocation based on historical production patterns and shares the same unimpeached purpose.

 

The legal and practical effects of the legislative scheme must also be examined in order to determine constitutionality.  It is possible that those effects might, over time, acquire such significance as to become the dominant feature of the legislation, thereby displacing the original purpose.  The appropriate comparison group in measuring the discriminatory impact of the legislation is not established egg producers in the destination province who seek to market their eggs in the destination province, but rather new egg producers in the destination province who have no quota and who seek to market their eggs in the destination province.  This is the only appropriate way to measure the significance of the producers’ residence on the operation of the egg marketing scheme.  Unfortunately, little direct evidence on this issue was tendered before this Court or the courts below.  The burden of proof in establishing a breach of a Charter right rests with the respondents in this case.  Although they have shown that the legal effect of this scheme is to exclude them from the legal possibility of obtaining an egg quota, they have failed to demonstrate a practical prejudice relative to producers resident in the destination province or provinces who also do not have a quota that is great enough to have caused the primary purpose of the legislation to be defined as discriminating against NWT producers on the basis of their residence.  The respondents therefore have failed to establish that the actual effects of the scheme as they relate to province of residence displace the valid legislative purpose as the dominant feature of the scheme.

 

The egg marketing scheme does not violate s. 2 (d) of the Charter.  Freedom of association protects only the associational aspect of activities, not the activity itself.  Although there is no trade or profession that one can exercise entirely by oneself,  to contend that if it is necessary to associate with others to do something, then the right in s. 2(d) reaches beyond protecting the act of associating to protect the very activity for which the association is formed, would have the effect of constitutionalizing all commercial relationships under the rubric of freedom of association.  Section 2(d) does not protect an activity solely on the ground that the activity is a foundational or essential purpose of an association.  Moreover, s. 2(d) does not create a right to do in association what is unlawful for an individual to do.  Thus, whether the activity is foundational to the association or the association is foundational to the activity, what is being attempted is to bring under constitutional protection activities that are not constitutionally protected when done by individuals, simply by virtue of the fact that individuals have associated for the purpose of carrying on this activity.

 

Per McLachlin and Major JJ. (dissenting): The respondents should be granted standing to argue the Charter issues in this appeal through an extension of the Big M Drug Mart exception.

 


Section 6  of the Charter is designed (1) to promote economic union among the provinces and (2) to ensure to all Canadians the right to travel throughout the country, to choose a place of residence anywhere within its borders, and to pursue a livelihood, all without regard to provincial boundaries. Under s. 6, the right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province (s. 6(2)(b)) is not an absolute right.   To seize the intent of the framers of the Charter, the broad statement of rights must be read together with its limitations and exceptions, including the s. 6(3)(a) limitation, which saves  laws of general application that may incidentally discriminate on the basis of present or previous residence.

 

The heading “Mobility Rights” does not confine the rights protected by s. 6(2)(b) to any particular set of situations.  At the first stage of a s. 6 analysis, the broad wording of s. 6(2)(b) catches all laws or government practices that in purpose or effect impede the pursuit of a livelihood in any part of Canada on the basis of province of residence.  All that is required to constitute an interference with the s. 6(2)(b) right is that the person be placed at a disadvantage in the pursuit of his livelihood of choice.  In this case,  the first stage of the s. 6 analysis is satisfied. By excluding residents in the NWT from the interprovincial and export trade of eggs, a right enjoyed by residents in other provinces, the egg marketing scheme has the effect of impeding the pursuit of a livelihood anywhere in Canada on the basis of province of residence.  Both respondents suffer disadvantage in the pursuit of their chosen livelihood because they live in one province or territory as opposed to another.  The mobility rights of each are thereby affected.

 

The error in the argument that the egg marketing scheme does not make a distinction based on residence because the scheme targets eggs, not people, is that it stops consideration of the effects of the scheme artificially at the product exported.  If a law has the effect of impinging on the ability of people to pursue a livelihood, it is not exempted from s. 6(2)(b) merely because the mechanism by which the impingement is effected concerns the passage of goods and services across provincial boundaries.  While s. 6(2)(b) focuses on free passage of people, not goods or services, the section protects the right to transfer goods and services across boundaries where this is integral to the way an individual earns his livelihood.  As well, the argument that the scheme targets the residence of hens, not of people,  also ignores the real effect of the scheme on egg producers who are residents of the NWT.  If they move their production to a province while continuing to reside in the NWT, they are put at a competitive and personal disadvantage in the earning of their livelihood.  If they move their residence across the border to escape this disadvantage, they lose their right to reside in the place of their choice.  Either way, they suffer discriminatory effects because of their current residence in the NWT.  Lastly, the argument that the egg marketing scheme discriminates on the basis of historical production patterns, and not on the basis of residence, should also be rejected.  In this case, unlike the other cases cited, all producers in a territory are prohibited from participating in a scheme regulated by the federal government.

 

Federal legislation or practices which create impediments to mobility will not be immunized from review under s. 6(2)(b) merely because they do not discriminate between residents and non‑residents of a particular province.  It must also be demonstrated that they do not discriminate between residents of the province or territory in question and residents of other provinces and territories in Canada. The proper comparators therefore for determining whether the impugned federal legislation in this case discriminates on the basis of present or previous residence are people in the rest of Canada, not just people in the NWT. The egg marketing scheme, as federal legislation, does not treat all people within Canada the same.

 

At the second stage of the analysis, s. 6(3) (a) of the Charter is aimed at “saving” a law or practice initially caught by s. 6(2)(b), unless its primary purpose or  effect is to discriminate on the basis of residence.  Provinces and the federal government are permitted under that section to impose disadvantages on the basis of provincial boundaries so long as this effect is incidental to another purpose within their proper legislative sphere.  Here, the exclusion of the NWT from the federal egg marketing scheme disproportionately affects residents of the NWT and is not incidental to a larger purpose.  The exclusion exists by historical accident.  Because the scheme discriminates against egg producers in the NWT primarily on the basis of residence, it cannot be saved under s. 6(3)(a).

 

The infringement of s. 6(2)(b) is not justified under s. 1  of the Charter.  The objective of the infringing aspects of the legislative scheme does not constitute a pressing and substantial state objective.  The limitation is the result of historical accident, not design.  It controverts the very objective of the egg marketing scheme, which is to create a stable, national supply management system for eggs.  It follows that the scheme fails the first branch of the Oakes test.  The declaration of inconsistency with the Charter should be suspended for six months from the date of this judgment  to permit negotiations to proceed for inclusion of the NWT and Yukon.


APPEAL from a judgment of the Northwest Territories Court of Appeal, [1996] N.W.T.R. 201, [1996] 3 W.W.R. 153, 132 D.L.R. (4th) 274, 38 Admin. L.R. (2d) 49 and 87, [1996] N.W.T.J. Nos. 6 and 38, dismissing the appellant’s appeal from a judgment of Weerdt J., [ 1995] N.W.T.R. 360, [1995] 8 W.W.R. 457, 129 D.L.R. (4th) 195, 33 Admin. L.R. (2d) 128, [1995] N.W.T.J. No. 71, declaring certain portions of the egg marketing scheme unconstitutional. Appeal allowed, McLachlin and Major JJ. dissenting.

 

François Lemieux and David K. Wilson, for the appellant.

 

Graham McLennan and Katharine L. Hurlburt, for the respondents.

 

James G. McConnell, for the intervener the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories.

 

Edward R. Sojonky, Q.C., and Ian McCowan, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada.

 

Lori Sterling, for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario.

 

Jean Bouchard, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec.

 

George H. Copley, Q.C., for the intervener the Attorney General of British Columbia.

 

Margaret A. Unsworth, for the intervener the Attorney General for Alberta.

 

David R. Boyd, for the interveners the Council of Canadians and the Sierra Legal Defence Fund Society.

 

Dale Gibson and Ritu Khullar, for the intervener the Alberta Barley Commission.

 

Solicitors for the appellant:  Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, Ottawa.  

 

Solicitors for the respondents:  McLennan Ross, Edmonton.  

 

Solicitor for the intervener the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories:  The Attorney General of the Northwest Territories, Yellowknife.

 

Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada:  The Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa.

 

Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario:  The Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto.

 

Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec:  The Department of Justice, Sainte‑Foy.

 

Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of British Columbia:  The Ministry of the Attorney General, Victoria.

 

Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General for Alberta:  The Alberta Department of Justice, Edmonton.

 

Solicitors for the interveners the Council of Canadians and the Sierra Legal Defence Fund Society:  Gregory J. McDade and David R. Boyd, Vancouver.

 

Solicitors for the intervener the Alberta Barley Commission:  Dale Gibson Associates, Edmonton.

 

 


Présents:  Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges L’Heureux‑Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache et Binnie.

 

Pratique ‑‑ Qualité pour agir ‑‑ Personnes morales ‑‑ Contestation fondée sur la Charte ‑‑ Régime de commercialisation des oeufs permettant seulement aux producteurs des provinces qui en font partie de commercialiser des oeufs sur le marché interprovincial ou d’exportation ‑‑ Organisme de l’État intentant une action en dommages‑intérêts pour commerce interprovincial illégal d’oeufs contre des personnes morales produisant des oeufs dans les Territoires du Nord‑Ouest ‑‑ Injonction également sollicitée contre les producteurs d’oeufs ‑‑ Producteurs d’oeufs alléguant en défense que la mesure législative fédérale régissant le régime de commercialisation des oeufs porte atteinte à la liberté d’association et à la liberté de circulation et d’établissement garanties par la Charte ‑‑ Les producteurs d’oeufs ont‑ils qualité pour contester la constitutionnalité de la mesure législative en cause?

 

Droit constitutionnel ‑‑ Charte des droits ‑‑ Liberté de circulation et d’établissement ‑‑ Droit de gagner sa vie dans toute province ‑‑ Régime de commercialisation des oeufs ‑‑ Producteurs d’oeufs des Territoires du Nord‑Ouest incapables de commercialiser des oeufs sur le marché interprovincial parce que le régime de commercialisation des oeufs permet seulement aux producteurs des provinces qui en font partie de commercialiser des oeufs sur le marché interprovincial ou d’exportation ‑‑ Le régime porte‑t‑il atteinte au droit de gagner sa vie dans toute province? ‑‑ Le régime établit‑il une distinction fondée principalement sur le lieu de résidence? ‑‑ Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, art. 6(2)b) , (3)a)  ‑‑ Proclamation visant l’Office canadien de commercialisation des oeufs, C.R.C., ch. 646 ‑‑ Règlement de 1987 sur l’octroi de permis visant les oeufs du Canada, DORS/87‑242, art. 3, 4(1), 7(1)d), e) ‑‑ Règlement de 1986 de l’Office canadien de commercialisation des oeufs sur le contingentement, DORS/86‑8, art. 4(1)a), 5(2), 6, 7(1).

 

Droit constitutionnel ‑‑ Charte des droits ‑‑ Liberté d’association ‑‑ Régime de commercialisation des oeufs ‑‑ Producteurs d’oeufs des Territoires du Nord‑Ouest incapables de commercialiser des oeufs sur le marché interprovincial parce que le régime de commercialisation des oeufs ne permet de le faire qu’aux producteurs des provinces qui en font partie ‑‑ Le régime viole‑t‑il la liberté d’association? ‑‑ Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, art. 2d)  ‑‑ Proclamation visant l’Office canadien de commercialisation des oeufs, C.R.C., ch. 646 ‑‑ Règlement de 1987 sur l’octroi de permis visant les oeufs du Canada, DORS/87‑242, art. 3, 4(1), 7(1)d), e) ‑‑ Règlement de 1986 de l’Office canadien de commercialisation des oeufs sur le contingentement, DORS/86‑8, art. 4(1)a), 5(2), 6, 7(1).

 


Les intimés, Richardson, qui fait affaires sous le nom de Northern Poultry, et Pineview Poultry Products Ltd., sont les seuls producteurs d’oeufs des T. N.‑O.  Richardson a commencé à produire des oeufs en 1987, suivi de Pineview en 1990, et les deux ont commercialisé leurs oeufs sur les marchés intraprovincial et interprovincial.  Depuis 1972, le marché des oeufs au Canada est assujetti à un régime fédéral-provincial de lois et règlements imbriqués.  L’appelant, l’OCCO, est chargé de régir le commerce interprovincial des oeufs et il attribue des contingents ou quotas fédéraux à chacune des 10 provinces, mais non aux deux territoires.  En vertu de la partie fédérale du régime de commercialisation des oeufs, un contingent et un permis fédéraux sont requis pour produire et commercialiser des oeufs destinés aux marchés interprovincial et d’exportation.  Il résulte de l’exclusion des T. N.‑O. de l’application des divers règlements que les oeufs qui y sont produits ne peuvent pas être commercialisés légalement sur le marché interprovincial ou d’exportation.  En 1992, l’OCCO a intenté contre les intimés une action en dommages‑intérêts pour commerce interprovincial illégal d’oeufs.  Il a également sollicité une injonction les empêchant de commercialiser leurs oeufs sur le marché interprovincial.  Pour se défendre, les intimés ont contesté la constitutionnalité de la législation fédérale sur la commercialisation des oeufs.  Le juge de première instance a reconnu aux intimés la qualité pour agir dans l’intérêt public.  Quant aux questions constitutionnelles, il a jugé que la Proclamation visant l’Office canadien de commercialisation des oeufs, l’art. 3, le par. 4(1) et les al. 7(1)d) et 7(1)e) du Règlement de 1987 sur l’octroi de permis visant les oeufs du Canada, ainsi que l’al. 4(1)a), le par. 5(2), l’art. 6 et le par. 7(1) du Règlement de 1986 de l’Office canadien de commercialisation des oeufs sur le contingentement contrevenaient aux al. 2 d )  et 6(2) b )  et au par. 15(1)  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés , et ne pouvaient être sauvegardés par l’article premier.  Au sujet de la réparation, le juge de première instance a accordé aux producteurs d’oeufs des T.N.‑O. une exemption constitutionnelle de l’application du régime de réglementation.  La Cour d’appel a convenu avec le juge de première instance que les intimés devraient avoir qualité pour agir dans l’intérêt public et a confirmé sa décision, sauf en ce qui concerne le par. 15(1)  de la Charte.  Le présent pourvoi soulève les questions suivantes:  (1) Les intimés ont‑ils qualité pour contester la constitutionnalité de la législation fédérale sur la commercialisation des oeufs?  Et (2) ce régime viole‑t‑il l’al. 2 d )  et l’art. 6  de la Charte?  La question relative au par. 15(1) n’a pas été soulevée devant nous.

 

Arrêt (les juges McLachlin et Major sont dissidents):  Le pourvoi est accueilli.

 

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges L’Heureux‑Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci, Bastarache et Binnie:  Notre Cour pourrait reconnaître aux intimés la qualité pour agir, en vertu de son pouvoir discrétionnaire résiduaire.  En vertu de ce pouvoir, notre Cour peut toujours choisir d’entendre des arguments fondés sur la Charte qui sont présentés par des parties qui, normalement, n’auraient pas qualité pour invoquer la Charte, si la question en cause est d’importance pour le public.  La constitutionnalité du régime fédéral de commercialisation des oeufs est manifestement une question d’importance nationale, tout comme le sont les questions plus particulières qui ont été soulevées au sujet de l’application aux personnes morales de l’al. 2d) et de l’art. 6  de la Charte.  De toute façon, en l’espèce, les intimés ont qualité pour contester la constitutionnalité du régime fédéral de commercialisation des oeufs par le biais d’une extension de l’exception de l’arrêt Big M Drug Mart.  Ils n’ont pas à chercher à se faire reconnaître la qualité pour agir dans l’intérêt public.  Quoiqu’en règle générale une disposition de la Charte ne puisse être invoquée que par ceux qu’elle protège, l’exception de l’arrêt Big M Drug Mart, qui reconnaît la qualité pour agir de plein droit à la personne accusée en vertu d’une mesure législative qui serait inconstitutionnelle, devrait être élargie afin de permettre aux personnes morales d’invoquer la Charte lorsqu’elles sont défenderesses dans des poursuites civiles intentées par l’État ou un organisme de l’État conformément à un régime de réglementation.  Tout comme nul ne devrait être déclaré coupable d’une infraction définie par une loi inconstitutionnelle, nul ne devrait faire l’objet de procédures et de sanctions coercitives autorisées par une telle loi.  En l’espèce, les intimés ne comparaissent pas volontairement devant la cour.  Ils sont menacés du fait qu’un organisme de l’État les fait comparaître au moyen d’une demande d’injonction fondée sur un régime de réglementation.  Si cette demande était accueillie, il pourrait en résulter une mise à exécution par voie de procédures en matière d’outrage.  Si ces réparations reposent sur une règle de droit inconstitutionnelle, il n’y a pas lieu d’empêcher un défendeur d’en plaider l’inconstitutionnalité, uniquement parce que la disposition constitutionnelle qui la rend invalide ne s’applique pas à une personne morale.

 

L’alinéa 6(2) b) de la Charte garantit le droit de «gagner [sa] vie dans toute province», et l’al. 6(3)a) réduit la portée de ce droit en le subordonnant aux lois d’application générale de la province, à l’exception de celles qui établissent entre les gens une distinction «fondée principalement sur la province de résidence antérieure ou actuelle».  Ces alinéas doivent s’interpréter conjointement comme définissant un seul droit, plutôt qu’un droit «sauvegardé» de façon externe par un autre droit.  L’alinéa 6(3)a) n’est pas une disposition «de sauvegarde» au même titre que le sont l’al. 6(3)b), le par. 6(4) , ou encore l’article premier de la Charte; aucune de ces dispositions n’est indispensable pour définir l’objet des articles dont elles limitent la portée.  Il y a lieu de donner pleinement effet à l’interdépendance des al. 6(2)b) et 6(3)c) en déterminant l’objet et la portée des deux dispositions conjointement sans qu’il soit nécessaire d’appliquer l’al. 6(3)a) une deuxième fois.

 

L’article 6  de la Charte garantit la libre circulation des gens, non en tant que caractéristique de l’unité économique du pays, mais plutôt en vue d’atteindre un objectif en matière de droits de la personne.  Il est axé sur l’individu.  L’article 6 se rapporte à un attribut essentiel de la personnalité et garantit que le choix de l’endroit où gagner sa vie ne sera pas entravé au moyen d’un traitement inégal, fondé sur le lieu de résidence, par les lois en vigueur dans le ressort où la personne visée gagne sa vie.  Vu cet objet, l’analyse en jeu à l’art. 6 est axée non pas sur le type d’activité économique en cause, mais plutôt sur l’objet et l’effet de la mesure législative particulière et sur la question de savoir si cet objet et cet effet portent atteinte au droit de gagner sa vie sans être assujetti à une distinction fondée sur le lieu de résidence.

 


La portée de l’art. 6 doit en refléter l’objet fondamental.  Dans le contexte d’une économie caractérisée par des moyens de communication modernes et des types de biens et de services qui peuvent facilement être transportés sur de longues distances, il faut reconnaître que ce qui caractérise la liberté de circulation et d’établissement requise à l’art. 6 n’est pas le déplacement physique vers une autre province, mais plutôt toute tentative de créer de la richesse dans une autre province, que ce soit par la production, la commercialisation ou l’accomplissement de quelque chose.  Vu qu’en l’espèce des résidents d’une province d’origine (les T. N.‑O.) cherchent à commercialiser quelque chose de valeur — des oeufs — dans d’autres provinces de destination, il s’agit clairement d’une tentative de «gagner sa vie» dans une autre province, ce qui fait intervenir la liberté de circulation et d’établissement garantie par l’art. 6.

 

Pour décider si la mesure législative contestée «établi[t] entre les personnes [une] distinction fondée principalement sur la province de résidence [. . .] actuelle», au sens de l’al. 6(3)a), il faut comparer les résidents de la province d’origine qui tentent de gagner leur vie dans une province de destination, avec les résidents de la province de destination qui gagnent également leur vie dans cette province.  Comme on peut gagner sa vie au moyen de la production, de la commercialisation ou de l’accomplissement de quelque chose, dans chaque cas, le groupe de référence approprié dépendra de la nature du gagne‑pain qui est assujetti à des restrictions.  En l’espèce, les intimés se plaignent que leur capacité de gagner leur vie en commercialisant leurs oeufs dans d’autres provinces de destination est compromise en raison de leur lieu de résidence.  Pour déterminer si une distinction est établie en l’espèce, il faut donc comparer les conditions auxquelles les producteurs d’oeufs des T. N.‑O. peuvent commercialiser leurs oeufs dans la province de destination, avec celles auxquelles les producteurs d’oeufs résidant dans cette province peuvent y commercialiser leurs oeufs.  Si ces conditions établissent une distinction fondée principalement sur le lieu de résidence, il y a alors violation de l’art. 6.  L’utilisation du mot «principalement» dans la garantie de libre circulation laisse entendre qu’il faut apprécier d’autres objets et effets pour déterminer si l’aspect de la distinction relatif au lieu de résidence est principal.  Dans bien des cas, il peut y avoir des raisons valables de limiter l’application d’un régime législatif à une seule province ou à certaines régions du Canada; ces raisons l’emporteront sur un effet discriminatoire lié au lieu de résidence au sens de l’art. 6.  La question de savoir si la distinction est inacceptable dans le contexte de l’art. 6 dépend entièrement de la raison pour laquelle la distinction est qualifiée de dominante, comme l’indique le mot «principalement».  Compte tenu du besoin de déterminer le motif principal de distinction énoncé à l’al. 6(3)a), l’analyse fondée sur le partage des compétences, qui est axée sur la qualification de la matière principale sur laquelle porte la mesure législative en cause, fournit une méthodologie utile qui peut être appliquée pour déterminer si une distinction fondée «principalement» sur le lieu de résidence est établie.

 

Le régime national de commercialisation des oeufs n’établit pas de distinction fondée principalement sur le lieu de résidence.  L’objet initial du régime — qui est d’assurer une commercialisation ordonnée et juste des oeufs au Canada — est valide même si les circonstances ont changé depuis 1972, et l’utilisation des antécédents de production en tant que moyen d’attribuer des quotas en favorise la réalisation. L’exclusion des producteurs des T. N.‑O. n’est que l’application du principe d’attribution des quotas en fonction d’antécédents de production, et elle partage le même objet incontesté.

 

Il faut également examiner l’effet juridique et l’effet pratique du régime législatif pour en déterminer la constitutionnalité.  Il se peut qu’avec le temps ces effets deviennent importants au point de constituer la caractéristique principale de la mesure législative et d’en supplanter ainsi l’objet initial.  Le groupe de référence dont il convient de se servir pour apprécier l’incidence discriminatoire de la mesure législative est non pas celui des producteurs d’oeufs établis dans la province de destination qui cherchent à y commercialiser leurs oeufs, mais plutôt celui des nouveaux producteurs d’oeufs dans la province de destination qui n’ont pas de quota et qui cherchent à y commercialiser leurs oeufs.  Il s’agit du seul moyen convenable d’apprécier l’importance du lieu de résidence des producteurs dans l’application du régime de commercialisation des oeufs.  Malheureusement, peu d’éléments de preuve directe concernant cette question ont été présentés devant notre Cour et les tribunaux d’instance inférieure.  Il incombe aux intimés en l’espèce de prouver qu’il y a eu violation d’un droit garanti par la Charte.  Bien qu’ils aient établi que l’effet juridique du présent régime est de les empêcher en droit d’obtenir un quota pour leurs oeufs, ils n’ont pas démontré qu’ils subissent en pratique, comparativement aux producteurs qui résident dans la ou les provinces de destination et qui eux non plus ne possèdent pas de quota, un préjudice assez grave pour que l’objet principal de la législation doive être décrit comme établissant, à l’égard des producteurs des T. N.‑O., une distinction fondée sur leur lieu de résidence.  Les intimés n’ont donc pas établi que les effets concrets du régime, dans la mesure où ils sont liés à la province de résidence, supplantent ses objectifs valides décrits comme étant sa caractéristique principale.

 


Le régime de commercialisation des oeufs ne viole pas l’al. 2 d )  de la Charte.  La liberté d’association ne protège que l’aspect collectif de l’activité, non pas l’activité elle‑même.  Bien qu’il n’y ait pas un seul commerce ou profession qu’une personne peut exercer seule, prétendre que, s’il est nécessaire de s’associer avec autrui pour faire quelque chose, alors le droit garanti à l’al. 2d) va au-delà de la protection de l’acte d’association et protège également l’activité même pour laquelle l’association est formée, aurait pour effet de constitutionnaliser tous les rapports commerciaux sous la rubrique de la liberté d’association.  L’alinéa 2d) ne protège pas une activité pour le seul motif que cette activité est un objet fondamental ou essentiel d’une association.  L’alinéa 2d) ne crée pas non plus le droit d’accomplir collectivement ce qu’il est interdit d’accomplir individuellement.  Ainsi, peu importe que l’activité soit à la base de l’association ou que l’association soit à la base de l’activité, ce qu’on tente de faire, c’est d’étendre à des activités non protégées par la Constitution, si elles sont exercées par des individus, la protection constitutionnelle du seul fait que ces individus se sont associés pour les exercer.

 

Les juges McLachlin et Major (dissidents):  Il y a lieu, en l’espèce, d’accorder aux intimés la qualité pour débattre les questions relatives à la Charte, par le biais d’une extension de l’exception de l’arrêt Big M Drug Mart.

 

L’article 6  de la Charte vise (1) à promouvoir l’union économique des provinces, et (2) à garantir à chaque Canadien le droit de se déplacer dans tout le pays, de choisir son lieu de résidence n’importe où à l’intérieur de ses frontières et de gagner sa vie, sans égard aux frontières provinciales.  En vertu de l’art. 6, le droit de gagner sa vie dans toute province (al. 6(2)b)) n’est pas un droit absolu.  Pour comprendre l’intention des rédacteurs de la Charte, il faut interpréter l’énoncé général des droits conjointement avec ses restrictions et exceptions, y compris la restriction prévue à l’al. 6(3)a) qui permet de sauvegarder les lois d’application générale qui peuvent établir, de manière accessoire, une distinction fondée sur le lieu de résidence actuel ou antérieur.

 

La rubrique «Liberté de circulation et d’établissement» ne limite pas les droits garantis par l’al. 6(2)b) à une catégorie particulière de situations.  À la première étape de l’analyse de l’art. 6, le libellé général de l’al. 6(2)b) vise toutes les lois et tous les usages gouvernementaux qui ont pour objet ou pour effet d’empêcher quelqu’un de gagner sa vie n’importe où au Canada, en raison de sa province de résidence.  Pour qu’il y ait atteinte au droit garanti à l’al. 6(2)b), il suffit que la personne soit défavorisée dans la façon dont elle a choisi de gagner sa vie.  En l’espèce, il est satisfait à la première étape de l’analyse de l’art. 6.  En interdisant aux résidents des T. N.‑O. de faire le commerce interprovincial et international d’oeufs, contrairement aux résidents des autres provinces qui, eux, jouissent de ce droit, le régime de commercialisation des oeufs a pour effet d’empêcher quelqu’un de gagner sa vie n’importe où au Canada, en raison de sa province de résidence.  Chacun des intimés est désavantagé dans la façon dont il a choisi de gagner sa vie parce qu’il vit dans une province ou un territoire donné plutôt qu’ailleurs.  Ainsi, il y a atteinte à la liberté de circulation et d’établissement de chacun d’eux.

 

L’argument voulant que le régime de commercialisation des oeufs n’établisse aucune distinction fondée sur le lieu de résidence, parce qu’il vise les oeufs et non les personnes, est erroné en ce sens qu’il limite artificiellement l’examen des effets du régime au seul produit exporté.  Si une loi a pour effet d’empiéter sur la capacité des gens de gagner leur vie, elle n’est pas exemptée de l’application de l’al. 6(2)b) du seul fait que le mode d’empiétement concerne la circulation de biens et services d’une province à l’autre. Quoique l’al. 6(2)b) soit axé sur la libre circulation des gens et non pas sur celle des biens ou services, il protège le droit d’une personne de faire traverser des frontières à des biens et à des services lorsque cela fait partie intégrante de son gagne‑pain.  L’argument selon lequel le régime vise le lieu de résidence des poules et non celui des gens ne tient pas compte non plus de son effet véritable sur les producteurs d’oeufs qui résident dans les T. N.‑O.  S’ils transfèrent leur production dans une province tout en continuant de résider dans les T. N.‑O., ils subissent un désavantage, sur le plan concurrentiel et personnel, dans leur capacité de gagner leur vie.  S’ils transfèrent leur résidence de l’autre côté de la frontière pour éviter un tel désavantage, ils perdent le droit de résider à l’endroit de leur choix.  D’une manière ou d’une autre, ils subissent des effets discriminatoires du fait qu’ils résident actuellement dans les T. N.‑O.  Enfin, il y a lieu aussi de rejeter l’argument voulant que le régime de commercialisation des oeufs établisse une distinction fondée sur les antécédents de production et non sur le lieu de résidence.  En l’espèce, contrairement aux autres affaires citées, il est interdit à tous les producteurs d’un territoire de participer à un régime réglementé par le gouvernement fédéral.


Les textes législatifs ou usages fédéraux qui créent des obstacles à la libre circulation n’échappent par au contrôle fondé sur l’al. 6(2)b) du seul fait qu’ils n’établissent pas de distinction entre les résidents et les non‑résidents d’une province donnée.  Il faut également démontrer qu’ils n’établissent pas de distinction entre les résidents de la province ou du territoire en cause et ceux d’une autre province ou d’un autre territoire du Canada.  En conséquence, les éléments de comparaison qu’il convient d’utiliser pour déterminer si la mesure législative fédérale contestée en l’espèce établit une distinction fondée sur la province de résidence antérieure ou actuelle sont les gens du reste du Canada et non seulement ceux des T. N.‑O.  Le régime de commercialisation des oeufs, en tant que mesure législative fédérale, ne traite pas de la même façon toutes les personnes qui se trouvent au Canada.

 

À la deuxième étape de l’analyse, l’al. 6(3) a) de la Charte vise à «sauvegarder» une loi ou un usage qui relève, au départ, de l’al. 6(2)b), sauf si cette loi ou cet usage a pour objet ou pour effet principal d’établir une distinction fondée sur le lieu de résidence.  Cette disposition permet aux provinces et au gouvernement fédéral de créer des désavantages fondés sur des frontières provinciales, pourvu qu’un tel effet découle accessoirement d’un autre objectif relevant de leur domaine de compétence législative légitime.  En l’espèce, l’exclusion des T. N.‑O. du régime fédéral de commercialisation des oeufs a un effet disproportionné sur les gens qui y résident et ne découle pas accessoirement d’un objectif plus général.  Elle est le fruit d’un accident historique.  Parce qu’il établit, à l’égard des producteurs d’oeufs des T. N.‑O., une distinction fondée principalement sur leur lieu de résidence, le régime ne peut pas être sauvegardé par l’al. 6(3)a).

 

L’atteinte à l’al. 6(2)b) n’est pas justifiée au sens de l’article premier de la Charte.  L’objectif des aspects attentatoires du régime législatif n’est pas un objectif urgent et réel de l’État.  La restriction est le fruit d’un accident historique; elle n’a pas été établie à dessein.  Elle mine l’objectif même du régime de commercialisation des oeufs, qui est d’établir un système national stable de gestion de l’approvisionnement en oeufs.  Il s’ensuit que la mesure législative ne satisfait pas au premier volet du critère de l’arrêt Oakes.  La déclaration d’incompatibilité avec la Charte devrait être suspendue pour une période de six mois à partir de la date du présent jugement, afin de permettre la tenue de négociations visant l’inclusion des T. N.‑O. et du Yukon.

 

POURVOI contre un arrêt de la Cour d’appel des Territoires du Nord‑Ouest, [1996] N.W.T.R. 201, [1996] 3 W.W.R. 153, 132 D.L.R. (4th) 274, 38 Admin. L.R. (2d) 49 et 87, [1996] N.W.T.J. Nos. 6 et 38, qui a rejeté l’appel interjeté par l’appelant contre un jugement du juge Weerdt, [ 1995] N.W.T.R. 360, [1995] 8 W.W.R. 457, 129 D.L.R. (4th) 195, 33 Admin. L.R. (2d) 128, [1995] N.W.T.J. No. 71, qui avait déclaré inconstitutionnelles certaines parties du régime de commercialisation des oeufs.  Pourvoi accueilli, les juges McLachlin et Major sont dissidents.

 

François Lemieux et David K. Wilson, pour l’appelant.

 

Graham McLennan et Katharine L. Hurlburt, pour les intimés.

 

James G. McConnell, pour l’intervenant le commissaire des Territoires du Nord‑Ouest.

 

Edward R. Sojonky, c.r., et Ian McCowan, pour l’intervenant le procureur général du Canada.

 

Lori Sterling, pour l’intervenant le procureur général de l’Ontario.

 

Jean Bouchard, pour l’intervenant le procureur général du Québec.

 

George H. Copley, c.r., pour l’intervenant le procureur général de la Colombie‑Britannique.

 

Margaret A. Unsworth, pour l’intervenant le procureur général de l’Alberta.

 

David R. Boyd, pour les intervenants le Conseil des Canadiens et Sierra Legal Defence Fund Society.

 


Dale Gibson et Ritu Khullar, pour l’intervenante l’Alberta Barley Commission.

 

Procureurs de l’appelant:  Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, Ottawa.

 

Procureurs des intimés:  McLennan Ross, Edmonton.  

 

Procureur de l’intervenant le commissaire des Territoires du Nord‑Ouest:  Le procureur général des Territoires du Nord‑Ouest, Yellowknife.

 

Procureur de l’intervenant le procureur général du Canada:  Le sous‑procureur général du Canada, Ottawa.

 

Procureur de l’intervenant le procureur général de l’Ontario:  Le procureur général de l’Ontario, Toronto.

 

Procureur de l’intervenant le procureur général du Québec:  Le ministère de la Justice, Sainte‑Foy.

 

Procureur de l’intervenant le procureur général de la Colombie‑Britannique:  Le ministère du Procureur général, Victoria.

 

Procureur de l’intervenant le procureur général de l’Alberta:  Le ministère de la Justice de l’Alberta, Edmonton.

 

Procureurs des intervenants le Conseil des Canadiens et Sierra Legal Defence Fund Society:  Gregory J. McDade and David R. Boyd, Vancouver.

 

Procureurs de l’intervenante l’Alberta Barley Commission:  Dale Gibson Associates, Edmonton.

 


WEEKLY AGENDA

 

ORDRE DU JOUR DE LA

SEMAINE

 


 

AGENDA for the week beginning November 9, 1998.

ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 9 novembre 1998.

 

 

 

 

 

Date of Hearing/                                     Case Number and Name/    

Date d'audition                                        Numéro et nom de la cause

 

09/11/98                                      J.G. v. Minister of Health and Community Services, et al (N.B.)(26005)

 

10/11/98                                      Florent Des Champs v. Conseil des écoles séparées catholiques de langue

française de Prescott-Russell, et al (Ont.)(25898)

 

10/11/98                                      Alfred Abouchar v. Conseil scolaire de langue française dOttawa‑Carleton -

Section publique, et al (Ont.)(25899)

 

12/11/98                                      Minister of Justice v. Glen Sebastian Burns, et al (Crim.)(B.C.)(26129)

 

12/11/98                                      Sharon Leslie Chartier v. Gerald Leo Joseph Chartier (Man.)(26456)

 

13/11/98                                      Her Majesty the Queen v. Joann Kimberley White (Crim.)(B.C.)(26473)

 

13/11/98                                      Mary Lawlor v. M.J. Oppenheim, C.A., Attorney in fact in Canada for Lloyds

Non-Marine Underwriters (Nfld.)(26212)


 

 

 

NOTE: 

 

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

 

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



SUMMARIES OF THE CASES

 

RÉSUMÉS DES AFFAIRES


 

 

26005    J.G. v. Minister of Health and Community Services, Law Society of New Brunswick, Legal Aid New Brunswick, Attorney General of New Brunswick and The Minister of Justice

 

Constitutional Law - Family Law - Custody - Whether in the circumstances of this case, the parents have a right pursuant to s. 7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  to state-funded counsel when opposing Ministerial applications to take or extend custody of their children.

 

On April 28, 1994, the Minister of Health and Community Services (the “Minister”) successfully applied for custody of the Appellant’s three children for a period of up to six months.  The Appellant was not represented by counsel.  On October 27, 1994, the Minister sought an extension for a further period of up to six months.  Duty counsel acting for the Appellant told the Court that the Appellant wished to oppose the application but that she was not capable of fairly representing herself and needed counsel.  The Court granted a request for an opportunity to apply for state-funded counsel.  On November 2, 1994, Legal Aid New Brunswick, funded by the Law Foundation of New Brunswick and the Province of New Brunswick, denied the Appellant’s application on the ground that it could only issue a certificate in the case of guardianship applications and that it does not fund representation in custody applications.  In New Brunswick, a separate, ministerial, domestic Legal Aid program is administered under the authority of the Minister of Justice.   No assistance is provided in the case of temporary custody applications, except for the  advice of duty counsel on the day of the first appearance.

 

The Appellant brought a motion for an order directing the Minister to provide costs sufficient to cover reasonable fees and disbursements of counsel for the purposes of preparing for and representing her interests in the custody proceedings.  She sought a declaration that the rules or policies governing the distribution of legal aid were contrary to sections 7  and  15  of the Charter.  The motions judge was unable to determine the issue of the right to paid counsel prior to the date set for the custody application.  Counsel agreed to proceed with the custody hearing with duty counsel representing the Appellant.  A custody hearing was held and Athey J. granted an extension of custody to the Minister.  At the hearing, the Minister of Justice provided counsel for the Minister and for the children.  The father of one child hired counsel to represent him.  In June of 1995, the children were returned to the Appellant.  The Appellant’s motion was dismissed on December 15, 1995, by the Court of Queen’s Bench.  She was granted leave to appeal.  On March 14, 1997, her appeal was dismissed.

 

Origin of the case:                                                New Brunswick

 

File No.:                                                 26005

 

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     March 14, 1997

 

Counsel:                                                                E. Thomas Christie for the Appellant

Bruce Judah Q.C. for the Respondents Attorney General, Ministers of Justice

and Health and Community Services

Gary A. Miller for the Respondent Law Society

                                                                                                                                                                


26005    J.G. c. Le ministre de la Santé et des Services communautaires, Le Barreau du Nouveau-Brunswick, L’aide juridique du Nouveau-Brunswick, Le procureur général du Nouveau-Brunswick et Le ministre de la Justice

 

Droit constitutionnel – Droit de la famille – Garde – Eu égard aux circonstances de l’espèce, les parents ont-ils droit aux termes de l’article 7  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  à un avocat payé par l’État lorsqu’ils s’opposent à des demandes ministérielles en vue d’obtenir ou de prolonger la garde de leurs enfants?

 

Le 28 avril 1994, le ministre de la Santé et des Services communautaires  (le ministre) a obtenu la garde des trois enfants de l’appelante pour une période maximale de six mois. L’appelante n’était pas représentée par un avocat. Le 27 octobre 1994, le ministre a demandé une prolongation pour une autre période maximale de six mois. L’avocat de service agissant pour le compte de l’appelante a dit à la Cour que l’appelante souhaitait s’opposer à la demande, mais qu’elle était incapable de bien se représenter et avait besoin d’un avocat. La Cour a accédé à sa requête et lui a donné l’occasion de présenter une demande pour qu’un avocat payé par l’État la représente. Le 2 novembre 1994, l’aide juridique du Nouveau-Brunswick, financée par la Fondation pour l’avancement du droit au Nouveau-Brunswick et la province du Nouveau-Brunswick, a refusé la demande de l’appelante au motif qu’elle ne pouvait délivrer un certificat que dans les cas de demandes de tutelle et qu’elle ne finançait pas la représentation dans les demandes de garde. Au Nouveau-Brunswick, un programme d’aide juridique distinct, ministériel et national est administré sous l’autorité du ministre de la Justice. Aucune aide n’est assurée dans les affaires de demandes de garde temporaire, à l’exception du conseil d’un avocat de service le jour de la première comparution.

 

L’appelante a présenté une requête en vue d’obtenir une ordonnance obligeant le ministre à lui allouer les coûts suffisants pour couvrir les honoraires et débours raisonnables d’un avocat pour la préparation et la représentation de ses intérêts dans les procédures de garde. Elle a cherché à obtenir un acte déclaratoire selon lequel les règles ou les politiques régissant la distribution de l’aide juridique contrevenaient aux articles 7  et 15  de la Charte. Le juge de la requête n’a pas pu rendre sa décision sur la question du droit à un avocat payé avant la date fixée pour la demande de garde. L’avocat a consenti à poursuivre l’audience sur la garde avec un avocat de service représentant l’appelante. Une audience sur la garde a été tenue et le juge Athey a accordé une prolongation de la garde au ministre. À l’audience, le ministre de la Justice a assigné un avocat au ministre et à l’enfant. Le père de l’un des enfants a engagé un avocat pour le représenter. En juin 1995, les enfants sont retournés auprès de l’appelante. La requête de l’appelante a été rejetée le 15 décembre 1995 par la Cour du Banc de la Reine. L’appelante a obtenu l’autorisation d’interjeter appel. Le 14 mars 1997, son appel a été rejeté.

 

Origine :                                                 Nouveau-Brunswick

 

No du greffe :                                                         26005

 

Jugement de la Cour d’appel :                            Le 14 mars 1997

 

Avocats :                                                               E. Thomas Christie pour l’appelante

Bruce Judah, c.r., pour les intimés le procureur général, le ministre de la

Justice et le ministre de la Santé et des Services communautaires

Gary A. Miller pour l’intimé le Barreau

                                                                                                                                                                


25898 / 25899     Florent Des Champs v. Conseil Des Écoles Séparées Catholiques de Langue Française De Prescott-Russell et al. and Alfred Abouchar v. Conseil Scolaire de Langue Française D’Ottawa-Carleton et al.

 

Procedural law - Limitation of actions -  Statutes - Interpretation - Whether the shortened limitation periods that attach to acts done in pursuance of a statutory or public duty apply to employment-related decisions - Whether the allegations that the Respondents acted in bad faith were sufficient to exclude the application of the shortened limitation period contained in the Public Authorities Protection Act - In the alternative, if the Public Authorities Protection Act applies, does Mr. Des Champs’ and Mr. Abouchar’s loss of position and demotion constitute a “continuance of injury or damage” such that the six month limitation period did not expire.

 

The Appellant Des Champs was employed by the Respondent Conseil des Écoles Séparées Catholiques de Langue Française de Prescott-Russell since 1971, and was appointed a superintendent of education in 1989.  In 1992, the Respondent Conseil de Prescott-Russell passed a resolution declaring two superintendent positions redundant.  On April 28, 1992, the Appellant Des Champs was notified in writing by the Director that the Respondent Conseil de Prescott-Russell had by motion declared his superintendent position redundant, and had arranged for his transfer to another position within the Conseil de Prescott-Russell for which he was qualified, with administrative and supervisory responsibilities as similar as possible to those he enjoyed as a superintendent.  On May 29, 1992, the Appellant Des Champs was advised in writing that he had been assigned as principal at Ecole St-Luc in Curran for the 1992-93 school year. His administrative duties in the new position took up 70% of his time at first, with teaching taking up the remaining 30%.  On August 24, 1992 the Appellant Des Champs reported to that temporary position under protest, and on December 22, 1992, he commenced an action against the Respondent Conseil de Prescott-Russell and the Director of Education and individual Respondent trustees, claiming that the former had acted illegally and unfairly, and that the latter had acted in bad faith towards him.

 

The Respondents brought a motion to strike the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and to dismiss the action.  Desmarais J. of the Ontario Court, General Division dismissed the motion to dismiss the action on the basis that it was statute barred by virtue of section 7(1) of the Public Authorities Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. P. 38, finding that the section did not apply to the Appellant’s action.  However, he granted the motion to dismiss the action as against the individually named Respondents.  The Court of Appeal for Ontario held that the limitation period did apply to the Appellant’s action and therefore the Court dismissed the Appellant’s actions against the Respondent Conseil de Prescott-Russell and the individual Respondents.

 

By a letter dated April 28, 1992, the Respondent Léger notified the Appellant Abouchar that his position as superintendent with the Respondent Conseil Scolaire de Langue Française d’Ottawa-Carleton would be eliminated effectively in three months.  In September 1992, the Appellant Abouchar was assigned a position as a project agent.  In September 1992, the Appellant Abouchar filed two complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Commission against the various Respondents and on May 7, 1993, the Appellant Abouchar commenced an action in the Ontario Court, General Division.  For the reasons he gave in the Appellant Des Champs’s motion, Desmarais J. held that the Appellant Abouchar’s action was not statute barred by reason of the Act.  The Court of Appeal for Ontario found that the limitation period did apply to the action and therefore dismissed the Appellant Abouchar’s action.

 

Origin of the case:                                                Ontario

 

File No.:                                                 25898 and 25899

 

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     January 20, 1997

 

Counsel:                                                                Denis J. Power Q.C. for the Appellants

Paul S. Rouleau for the Respondents

                                                                                                                                                                


25898 / 25899     Florent Des Champs c. Conseil Des Écoles Séparées Catholiques de Langue Française de Prescott-Russell et autre et Alfred Abouchar c. Conseil Scolaire de Langue Française D’Ottawa-Carleton et autre

 

Droit procédural -- Prescription d’actions -- Lois -- Interprétation -- La période de prescription abrégée qui s’applique dans le cas d’actes accomplis dans l’exercice d’une obligation légale ou publique s’applique-t-elle aussi aux décisions rendues en matière d’emploi? -- Les allégations selon lesquelles les intimés ont agi de mauvaise foi suffisaient-elles pour exclure l’application de la période de prescription abrégée prévue dans la Loi sur l'immunité des personnes exerçant des attributions d'ordre public? -- Subsidiairement, si la Loi sur l'immunité des personnes exerçant des attributions d'ordre public s’applique, est-ce que la rétrogradation de MM. Des Champs et Abouchar et la perte de leur poste constituent un «cas où le préjudice s’est poursuivi» de sorte que la période de prescription de six mois n’était pas expirée?

 

L’appelant Des Champs était employé par l’intimé Conseil des Écoles Séparées Catholiques de Langue Française de Prescott-Russell depuis 1971 et occupait le poste de surintendant de l’enseignement depuis 1989.  En 1992, l’intimé Conseil de Prescott-Russell a adopté une résolution par laquelle il déclarait deux postes de surintendant superflus.  Le 28 avril 1992, l’appelant Des Champs a été avisé par écrit par le Directeur de l’éducation que l’intimé Conseil de Prescott-Russell avait par voie de proposition déclaré superflu son poste de surintendant et pris des dispositions pour le muter dans un autre poste au sein du Conseil de Prescott-Russell pour lequel il avait les qualités requises et qui comportait des responsabilités administratives et de supervision aussi semblables que possible à celles qu’il avait à titre de surintendant.  Le 29 mai 1992, l’appelant Des Champs a été informé par écrit qu’il était affecté à l’école St-Luc, à Curran, pour l’année scolaire 1992-1993, à titre de directeur d’école.  Au début, il consacrait 70 p. 100 de son temps aux tâches administratives de son nouveau poste, l’enseignement prenant les 30 p. 100 restant.  Le 24 août 1992, l’appelant Des Champs s’est présenté à son poste sous toute réserve et, le 22 décembre 1992, il a engagé une action contre l’intimé Conseil de Prescott-Russell, le Directeur de l’éducation et les administrateurs de l’intimé à titre individuel, alléguant que l’intimé avait agi illégalement et injustement et que le Directeur de l’éducation et les administrateurs avaient fait preuve de mauvaise foi à son égard.

 

Les intimés ont déposé une requête en radiation de la déclaration au motif qu’elle ne révélait aucune cause d’action et ils ont demandé le rejet de l’action.  Le juge Desmarais de la Cour de l’Ontario, Division générale, a rejeté la requête en rejet de l’action au motif qu’elle était prescrite en vertu du paragraphe 7(1) de Loi sur l'immunité des personnes exerçant des attributions d'ordre public, L.R.O. 1990, ch. P. 38, concluant que ce paragraphe ne s’appliquait pas à l’action de l’appelant.  Il a cependant accueilli la requête en rejet de l’action en ce qui concerne les intimés désignés individuellement.  La Cour d’appel de l’Ontario a statué que la période de prescription s’appliquait effectivement à l’action de l’appelant et a par conséquent rejeté les actions de l’appelant contre l’intimé Conseil de Prescott-Russell et les intimés nommés individuellement.

 

Par lettre en date du 28 avril 1992, l’intimé Léger a informé l’appelant Abouchar que son poste à titre de surintendant auprès de l’intimé Conseil Scolaire de Langue Française d’Ottawa-Carleton serait éliminé dans un délai de trois mois.  En septembre 1992, l’appelant Abouchar a été nommé dans un poste d’agent de projet.  En septembre 1992, l’appelant Abouchar a déposé deux plaintes auprès de la Commission ontarienne des droits de la personne contre les intimés précédemment mentionnés et, le 7 mai 1993, l’appelant Abouchar a engagé une action en Cour de l’Ontario, Division générale.  Pour les motifs exposés relativement à la requête de l’appelant Des Champs, le juge Desmarais a conclu que l’action de l’appelant Abouchar n’était pas prescrite par la Loi.  La Cour d’appel de l’Ontario a conclu que la période de prescription s’appliquait effectivement à l’action et a par conséquent rejeté l’action de l’appelant Abouchar.

 

Origine:                                                                  Ontario

 

No du greffe:                                                          25898 et 25899

 

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel:                                    Le 20 janvier 1997

 


Avocats:                                                                Denis J. Power, c.r., pour les appelants

Paul S. Rouleau, pour les intimés

26129    The Minister of Justice v. Glen Sebastian Burns and Atif Ahmad Rafay

 

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

 

The Respondents are Canadian citizens.  Each is wanted on three charges of aggravated first degree murder.  The victims are the father, mother and sister of the Respondent Rafay, who were bludgeoned to death in their home in Bellevue, Washington in July 1995.  Under Washington law the penalties are either death or life imprisonment without possibility of parole.  Both Respondents were 18 years old when the murders occurred.  The main evidence against the Respondents was obtained following their return to Canada after the murders.  Both admitted their involvement to two undercover members of the RCMP, who posed as criminals.  The murders had been planned some five weeks before they were committed.  They were carried out by the Respondent Burns with a baseball bat.  Rafay was present.  Their purpose was to obtain the proceeds of the sale of the family home and life insurance, approximately $400,000.

 

The Respondents were apprehended in British Columbia.  The extradition judge issued a warrant of committal in respect of each Respondent.  The Minister of Justice ordered the Respondents to be surrendered unconditionally to the state of Washington.  The Respondents appealed the committal order and sought judicial review of the decision of the Minister of Justice.  The appeal of the committal order was dismissed.  The application for judicial review was allowed.

 

Origin of the case:                                                British Columbia

 

File No.:                                                 26129

 

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     June 30, 1997

 

Counsel:                                                                S. David Frankel Q.C. for the Appellant

Michael Klein for the Respondent Burns

Patrick J. Beirne for the Respondent Rafay

                                                                                                                                                                


26129    Le ministre de la Justice c. Glen Sebastian Burns et Atif Ahmad Rafay

 

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit criminel - Extradition - Liberté de circulation et d’établissement - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que, en l’absence d’assurances que l’État requérant ne demanderait pas la peine de mort, livrer les intimés violerait les droits que leur reconnaît l’art. 6(1)  de la Charte? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que le ministre n’a pas bien exercé son pouvoir discrétionnaire en décidant de ne pas demander des assurances que l’État requérant ne demanderait pas la peine de mort?

 

Les intimés sont des citoyens canadiens. Chacun d’eux est recherché relativement à trois chefs de meurtre au premier degré avec circonstances aggravantes. Les victimes sont le père, la mère et la soeur de l’intimé Rafay qui ont été matraqués à mort dans leur maison à Bellevue (Washington) en juillet 1995. En vertu des lois de l’État de Washington, les peines sont soit la mort soit l’emprisonnement à perpétuité sans possibilité de libération conditionnelle. Les deux intimés avaient 18 ans au moment des meurtres. La preuve principale contre les intimés a été recueillie après leur retour au Canada, après les meurtres. Les deux ont admis leur implication à deux agents banalisés de la G.R.C. qui prétendaient être des criminels. Les meurtres avaient été planifiés quelque cinq semaines avant leur perpétration. Ils ont été commis par l’intimé Burns au moyen d’un bâton de base-ball. Rafay était présent. Leur but était d’obtenir le produit de la vente de la maison familiale et l’assurance-vie, environ 400 000 $.

 

Les intimés ont été appréhendés en Colombie-Britannique. Le juge d’extradition a délivré un mandat d’incarcération relativement à chacun d’eux. Le ministre de la Justice a ordonné qu’ils soient livrés sans condition à l’État de Washington. Les intimés ont interjeté appel de l’ordonnance d’incarcération et demandé le contrôle judiciaire de la décision du ministre de la Justice. L’appel de l’ordonnance d’incarcération a été rejeté.  La demande de contrôle judiciaire a été accueillie.

 

Origine:                                                                  Colombie-Britannique

 

No du greffe:                                                          26129

 

Arrêt de la Cour d'appel:                                     Le 30 juin 1997

 

Avocats:                                                                S. David Frankel, c.r., pour l'appelant

Michael Klein pour l'intimé Burns

Patrick J. Beirne pour l’intimé Rafay

                                                                                                                                                                 


26456    Sharon Leslie Chartier v. Gerald Leo Joseph Chartier

 

Family law - Maintenance - Statutes - Interpretation - Under what circumstances, if any, can an adult who is or has been in the place of a parent pursuant to section 2  of the Divorce Act , R.S.C. 1985, c.3 (2nd Supp .), withdraw from that position? 

 

The parties began a common law relationship in November 1989 and married on June 1, 1991.  Their child, Jeena, was born on August 29, 1990.  The parties separated in May 1992, later reconciled for a month or two and permanently separated in September 1992.

 

Jessica  is the child of the wife from a previous relationship.  While the parties lived together, the husband played an active role in caring for both children and was a father-figure for Jessica.  The parties discussed, but did not proceed with, the husband’s adoption of Jessica.  The parties did amend Jessica’s birth registration to indicate, falsely, that the husband was Jessica’s natural father and to change her name to his.

 

On March 17, 1994, in a consent judgment in proceedings under The Family Maintenance Act, the husband acknowledged both Jessica and Jeena as children of the marriage and was granted access to them.  He agreed to pay maintenance for Jeena, but the judgment was silent as to maintenance for Jessica and for the wife.  The wife commenced divorce proceedings in February 1995 and included in her claim the request for a declaration that the husband is in loco parentis to Jessica.  The husband contested the claim.  The interim order of April 19, 1995 ordered the husband to pay monthly support for Jessica and for the wife, suspended access of the husband until a further order of the court and ordered a report from Conciliation Services concerning access.  That report of October 1995 recorded the husband’s desire to sever his relationship with Jessica.

 

At trial, DeGraves J. ordered spousal support, a reduction in the monthly support for Jeena, awarded costs to the wife and found that the husband had repudiated his in loco parentis relationship with Jessica.  On appeal, the Court of Appeal did not find that the award of spousal support warranted appellate review and dismissed the husband’s cross-appeal.  The Court of Appeal allowed  the wife’s appeal on the issue of the reduction of monthly support for Jeena.  The Court of Appeal  dismissed the wife’s appeal for support for Jessica and set aside the trial judge’s order as to costs and directed that no costs be awarded at trial. 

 

Origin of the case:                                                Manitoba

 

File No.:                                                 26456

 

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     July 10, 1997

 

Counsel:                                                                Carla B. Paul for the Appellant

Paul R. Girdlestone for the Respondent

                                                                                                                                                                


26456    Sharon Leslie Chartier c. Gerald Leo Joseph Chartier

 

Droit de la famille – Aliments – Lois – Interprétation – Dans quelles circonstances, s'il y a lieu, un adulte qui tient lieu ou a tenu lieu de père ou de mère conformément à l'art. 2  de la Loi sur le divorce , L.R.C. (1985), ch. 3 (2 e  suppl .), peut-il se retirer de cette position?

 

Les parties ont commencé à cohabiter comme conjoint de fait en novembre 1989 et se sont mariées le 1er juin 1991. Leur enfant, Jeena, est née le 29 août 1990. Les parties se sont séparées en mai 1992, se sont réconciliées par la suite pour un mois ou deux et se sont définitivement séparées en septembre 1992.

 

Jessica est l'enfant de l'épouse, issue d'une relation précédente. Quand les parties cohabitaient, l'époux a joué un rôle actif en prenant soin des deux enfants et en tenant lieu de père pour Jessica. Les parties ont discuté de l'adoption de Jessica par l'époux, mais n'y ont pas donné suite. Les parties ont modifié l'enregistrement de la naissance de Jessica pour y indiquer, faussement, que l'époux était le père naturel de Jessica et pour qu'elle porte son nom.

 

Le 17 mars 1994, dans un jugement sur consentement dans une procédure prévue par la Loi sur l'obligation alimentaire, l'époux a reconnu Jessica et Jeena comme des enfants du mariage et a obtenu des droits de visite pour les deux. Il a accepté de verser une pension alimentaire pour Jeena, mais le jugement ne mentionnait pas de pension alimentaire pour Jessica ni pour l'épouse. Cette dernière a intenté une action en divorce en février 1995 et dans sa revendication figurait une demande de déclaration selon laquelle le mari tient lieu de père à Jessica. L'époux a contesté la revendication. L'ordonnance intérimaire du 19 avril 1995 a ordonné à l'époux de verser une pension alimentaire mensuelle pour Jessica et pour l'épouse, a suspendu les droits de visite de l'époux jusqu'à ce que la cour rende une nouvelle ordonnance et a ordonné la production d'un rapport par les services de conciliation quant aux droits de visite. Ce rapport, en date d'octobre 1995, faisait état du souhait de l'époux de rompre sa relation avec Jessica.

 

Au procès, le juge DeGraves a ordonné le versement d'une pension alimentaire à l'épouse, une réduction de la pension alimentaire mensuelle pour Jeena, a adjugé les dépens à l'épouse et a conclu que l'époux avait renié sa relation de personne tenant lieu de père auprès de Jessica. En appel, la Cour d'appel n'a pas conclu que l'attribution d'une pension alimentaire pour l'épouse justifiait une révision en appel et a rejeté l'appel incident de l'époux. La Cour d'appel a autorisé l'appel de l'épouse sur la question de la réduction de la pension alimentaire mensuelle pour Jeena. La Cour d'appel a rejeté l'appel de l'épouse pour une pension alimentaire pour Jessica et a annulé l'ordonnance du juge de première instance relativement aux dépens et a ordonné qu'il n'y ait aucune adjudication de dépens en première instance.

 

Origine :                                                 Manitoba

 

No du greffe :                                                         26456

 

Jugement de la Cour d'appel :                            Le 10 juillet 1997

 

Avocats :                                                               Carla B. Paul pour l'appelante

Paul R. Girdlestone pour l'intimé

                                                                                                                                                                 


26473    Her Majesty The Queen v. Joann Kimberley White

 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Right to remain silent - Self-incrimination - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that statements compelled by the operation of s. 61 of the Motor Vehicle Act (reporting requirement) are not properly admissible in evidence on a criminal trial for reasons analogous to those in R. v. Fitzpatrick, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 154 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge did not err in placing the onus on the Crown to prove a statement was not made under s. 61 of the Motor Vehicle Act - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge did not err in his determination of what constitutes a statement made under the compulsion of s. 61 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

 

Around midnight on October 6-7, 1994, a motorist who had been changing a tire was struck by a vehicle which did not remain at the scene.  The following morning the Respondent called the RCMP to report an accident the night before in which she had swerved to avoid a deer and hit a jack and perhaps a person changing a tire.  The police officer went to her residence where he saw a pick-up truck where damage to it was visible from the road.  The officer asked for and received the Respondent’s driver’s licence and read her the s. 10(b) caution.  The Respondent decided that she would go to a neighbour’s home and telephone counsel from there.  On her return, the Respondent made a further statement that there were deer on the curve, that she had swerved and when she thought she had hit the jack, she panicked.  The officer seized the vehicle without a warrant to do a mechanical inspection on it and to examine the area along the right side of the vehicle and turn signal.

 

The Respondent was charged with failing to remain at the scene of an accident.  At trial, the trial judge held a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the statements to the police.  He held that the statements were not admissible as a violation of s. 7  of the Charter.  He held that there was a rule of automatic exclusion of all statements which are compelled by statute.  The Respondent was acquitted.  The Crown appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed.

 

Origin of the case:                                                British Columbia

 

File No.:                                                 26473

 

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     January 20, 1998

 

Counsel:                                                                William F. Ehrcke Q.C. for the Appellant

Peter Burns for the Respondent

                                                                                                                                                                


26473    Sa Majesté la Reine c. Joann Kimberley White

 

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit criminel - Droit de garder le silence - Auto-incrimination - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que les déclarations forcées résultant de l’application de l’art. 61 de la Motor Vehicle Act (exigence de déclaration) ne sont pas admissibles en preuve dans un procès criminel pour des motifs analogues à ceux exposés dans R. c. Fitzpatrick, [1995] 4 R.C.S. 154? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que le juge du procès n’a pas commis d’erreur en imposant au ministère public le fardeau de prouver qu’une déclaration n’a pas été faite en vertu de l’art. 61 de la Motor Vehicle Act? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que le juge du procès n’a pas commis d’erreur dans sa détermination de ce qui constitue une déclaration faite sous la contrainte imposée par l’art. 61 de la Motor Vehicle Act?

 

Vers minuit la nuit du 6 au 7 octobre 1994, un conducteur qui était en train d’installer une roue de secours a été heurté par un véhicule qui a quitté les lieux. Le lendemain matin, l’intimée a appelé la GRC pour rapporter un accident survenu la nuit précédente dans lequel elle avait fait une embardée pour éviter un chevreuil et avait heurté un cric et peut-être une personne qui installait une roue de secours. L’agent de police s’est rendu chez elle et il y a vu une camionnette dont les dommages étaient visibles de la route. L’agent a demandé et a reçu le permis de conduire de l’intimée et lui a lu la mise en garde visée à l’al. 10b). L’intimée a décidé d’aller chez un voisin et, de cet endroit, d’appeler un avocat. À son retour, l’intimée a dit une autre fois qu’il y avait un chevreuil dans la courbe, qu’elle a fait une embardée et que, lorsqu’elle a pensé qu’elle avait heurté le cric, elle a paniqué. L’agent a saisi le véhicule sans mandat pour en faire une inspection mécanique et en examiner le côté droit et le clignotant.

 

L’intimée a été accusée d’avoir quitté les lieux d’un accident. Au procès, le juge a tenu un voir-dire pour déterminer l’admissibilité des déclarations faites au policier. Il a conclu que les déclarations n’étaient pas admissibles, constituant une violation de l’art. 7  de la Charte. Il a conclu qu’il existait une règle d’exclusion automatique de toutes les déclarations qui étaient exigées par une loi. L’intimée a été acquittée. La Cour d’appel a rejeté l’appel du ministère public.

 

Origine:                                                                  Colombie-Britannique

 

No du greffe:                                                          26473

 

Arrêt de la Cour d'appel:                                     Le 20 janvier 1998

 

Avocats:                                                                William F. Ehrcke, c.r., pour l'appelante

Peter Burns pour l'intimée

                                                                                                                                                                


26212    Mary Lawlor v. M.J. Oppenheim, C.A., Attorney in fact in Canada for Lloyd’s Non-Marine Underwriters

 

Commercial law - Insurance - Motor vehicles - Agency - Whether a valid contract of insurance is created when the renewal policy is delivered by an insurance agent to the insured, and the premium is paid to the agent, notwithstanding that the premium is not remitted by the agent to the insurer and the insurer is not advised of the policy - Whether an existing contract of automobile insurance may be terminated apart from the circumstances expressly stipulated in the governing legislation - Whether an agent can unilaterally terminate a contract of insurance without the knowledge or consent of the insured.

 

In October, 1991, Craig Royal requested that J.J. Lacey Insurance Limited (“Lacey”) provide him with automobile insurance coverage. Lacey placed coverage with the Respondent Lloyd’s Non-Marine Underwriters (“Lloyd’s”) under a policy in force from October 8, 1991 until October 8, 1992. Lacey collected a premium and sent it to Lloyd’s. When it expired, Lacey issued a Lloyd’s renewal policy to Royal providing the same coverage from October 8, 1992 to October 8, 1993, and collected premiums of $311.36 from Royal. Lacey provided Royal with a “Certificate of Automobile Insurance” showing Lloyd’s as the insurer.  Lacey did not forward the premium to Lloyd’s and did not advise Lloyd’s of the issuance of the renewal policy. The policy did not conform with Lloyd’s numbering system.  Royal’s new policy number indicated that it would become a Hiland Insurance Limited (“Hiland”) policy or would be transferred to Hiland once Hiland was authorized to issue automobile insurance. Hiland was authorized to issue automobile insurance policies in Newfoundland as of January 28, 1993. Lacey and Hiland shared premises and some employees.

 

No policy had been placed with Hiland for Royal when, on June 8, 1993, he was involved in an accident with the Appellant. However, Hiland accepted the claim and appointed an adjuster. Royal signed a “notice of loss” prepared by a Lacey/Hiland employee. On June 25, 1993, Hiland issued a six-month policy insuring Royal from April 8, 1993 to October 8, 1993 on terms identical to those under the Lloyd’s policy. Royal did not question Hiland’s name on any of the papers, and cooperated with Lacey/Hiland personnel and their adjustor in their efforts to settle the claims of the Appellant and her husband, who is now deceased. The latter claim was settled by Hiland prior to Mr. Lawlor’s death, and Hiland paid some sums to the Appellant.

 

Hiland experienced financial difficulties and a winding-up order was made against it on November 4, 1994. The Property and Casualty Insurance Corporation raised the issue of a Lloyd’s contract being in effect on the accident date, and settlement negotiations terminated. Lloyd’s does not accept liability to indemnify, so the Appellant brought this proceeding to determine whether Lloyd’s is liable under the policy of automobile insurance to indemnify Royal in respect of the claim being made by the Appellant. The chambers judge found Lloyd’s liable. A majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

 

Origin of the case:                                                Newfoundland

 

File No.:                                                 26212

 

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     July 23, 1997

 

Counsel:                                                                Neil Finkelstein, Matthew P. Gottlieb and Glen L.C. Noel for the

Appellant

Philip J. Buckingham for the Respondent

                                                                                                                                                                


26212    Mary Lawlor c. M.J. Oppenheim, C.A., fondé de pouvoir au Canada pour Lloyd's Non-Marine Underwriters

 

Droit commercial – Assurance – Véhicules automobiles – Agence – Un contrat d'assurance valide est-t-il créé lorsqu'un agent d'assurance remet une police de renouvellement à l'assuré et que la prime lui est versée, bien qu'il n'ait pas remis la prime à l'assureur et que ce dernier n'ait pas été avisé de la police? – Un contrat d'assurance automobile existant peut-il prendre fin autrement que dans les cas expressément prévus par la loi applicable? – Un agent peut-il mettre unilatéralement fin à un contrat d'assurance à l'insu de l'assuré ou sans son consentement?

 

En octobre 1991, Craig Royal a demandé à J.J. Lacey Insurance Limited (Lacey) de lui procurer une couverture d'assurance automobile. Lacey a souscrit une couverture auprès de l'intimé Lloyd's Non-Marine Underwriters (Lloyd) aux termes d'une police en vigueur du 8 octobre 1991 au 8 octobre 1992. Lacey a perçu une prime et l'a fait parvenir à Lloyd. À l'expiration de la police, Lacey a émis une police de renouvellement de Lloyd à Royal, qui offrait la même couverture du 8 octobre 1992 au 8 octobre 1993, et il a perçu une prime s'élevant à 311,36 $ de Royal. Lacey a fourni à Royal un «Certificat d'assurance automobile» indiquant que Lloyd est l'assureur. Lacey n'a pas envoyé la prime à Lloyd et ne l'a pas avisé de l'émission de la police de renouvellement. La police n'était pas conforme au système de numérotation de Lloyd. Le numéro de la nouvelle police de Royal indiquait qu'elle deviendrait une police de Hiland Insurance Limited (Hiland) ou serait transférée à Hiland dès que cette dernière serait autorisée à émettre des assurances automobiles. Hiland a été autorisée à émettre des polices d'assurance automobile à Terre-Neuve, le 28 janvier 1993. Lacey et Hiland partageaient des locaux et avaient des employés communs.

 

Aucune police n'avait été souscrite auprès de Hiland pour Royal quand, le 8 juin 1993, il a été impliqué dans un accident avec l'appelante. Toutefois, Hiland a accepté la réclamation et a nommé un expert en sinistres. Royal a signé un «avis de sinistre»  préparé par un employé de Lacey/Hiland. Le 25 juin 1993, Hiland a émis une police de six mois assurant Royal du 8 avril 1993 au 8 octobre 1993 selon des modalités identiques à celles prévues dans la police de Lloyd. Royal n'a posé aucune question relativement à la présence du nom de Hiland sur les documents et il a collaboré avec le personnel de Lacey/Hiland et leur expert en sinistres pour régler les réclamations de l'appelante et de son mari, maintenant décédé. La dernière réclamation a été réglée par Hiland avant le décès de M. Lawlor et Hiland a versé certains montants à l'appelante.

 

Hiland a fait face à des difficultés financières et une ordonnance de mise en liquidation a été prononcée contre elle le 4 novembre 1994. La Société d'indemnisation en matière d'assurance a soulevé la question d'un contrat de Lloyd qui aurait été en vigueur à la date de l'accident et les négociations sur le règlement ont pris fin. Lloyd n'a pas reconnu son obligation d'indemniser, l'appelante a donc intenté le présent recours pour que soit décidé si Lloyd est tenue en vertu de la police d'assurance automobile d'indemniser Royal relativement à la réclamation présentée par l'appelante.  Le juge en chambre a conclu que Lloyd était responsable. Les juges de la Cour d'appel, à la majorité, ont accueilli l'appel.

 

Origine :                                                 Terre-Neuve

 

No du greffe :                                                         26212

 

Jugement de la Cour d’appel :                            Le 23 juillet 1997

 

Avocats :                                                               Neil Finkelstein, Matthew P. Gottlieb et Glen L.C. Noel pour l'appelante

Philip J. Buckingham pour l'intimé

                                                                                                                                                                


 

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 1998 and all the applications for leave to appeal filed or heard in 1998 up to now.

 

Cet index comprend les requêtes en autorisation de pourvoi en délibéré au début de 1998 et toutes celles produites ou entendues en 1998 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                                                                                      

 

 

600 Talbot Street London Ltd. v. Middlesex Condominium Corporation No. 87

   (Ont.), 26569, *02 15.10.98                                                                                                       1248(98)                           1514(98)

2550-9613 Québec Inc. c. Ville de Val D’Or (Qué.), 26176, *02 5.3.98                              185(98)                             389(98)

9004-6673 Québec Inc. c. Roxboro Excavation Inc. (Qué.), 26815, *A                            1346(98)

65302 British Columbia Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26352, *03 8.10.98                 1135(98)                           1471(98)

166404 Canada Inc. v. Coulter (Ont.), 26652, *02 15.10.98                                                 1372(98)                           1512(98)

412316 Alberta Ltd. v. Ernst & Young Inc. (Alta.), 26429, *02 2.4.98                                378(98)                             582(98)

449136 Ontario Inc. v. Clarke (Ont.), 26297, *02 26.2.98                                                    209(98)                             346(98)

478649 Ontario Ltd. v. Corcoran (Ont.), 26458, *02 11.6.98                                               815(98)                             1008(98)

604598 Saskatchewan Ltd. v. Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority

   (Sask.), 26566, *02 1.10.98                                                                                                       1245(98)                           1397(98)

705076 Ontario Ltd. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 23

   (Ont.), 26121, *01 2.4.98                                                                                                           411(98)                             585(98)

 

Leave to cross-appeal is dismissed 23.4.98 / Demande d’appel-incident

est rejetée 23.4.98                                                                                                      661(98)                             661(98)

 

872899 Ontario Inc. v. Iacovoni (Ont.), 26891, *A                                                               1597(98)

872935 Ontario Ltd. v. Sherwood Design Services Inc. (Ont.), 26725, *B                       1508(98)

2903113 Canada Inc. c. Régie des marchés agricoles et alimentaires du

   Québec (Qué.), 26256, *02 30.4.98                                                                                          451(98)                             701(98) A.K. c. H.S. (Qué.), 26790, *A 1343(98)

A.L.B. v. The Queen (B.C.), 26879, *A                                                                                      1597(98)

A.M.G. v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26383, *01 2.4.98                                                             411(98)                             584(98)

A.S. Transport Inc. c. Sous-poste de camionnage en vrac Laprairie-Napierville

   Inc. (Qué.), 26819, *A                                                                                                              1347(98)

A & L Investments Ltd. v. The Queen in right of the Province of Ontario

   (Ont.), 26395, *02 19.3.98                                                                                                         386(98)                             476(98)

Abbey v. The Queen (Qué.), 26716, *A                                                                                    1127(98)

Abbott Laboratories, Ltd. v. Apotex Inc. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26424, *01 30.4.98                      579(98)                             708(98)


Abraham v. Coopers and Lybrand Ltd. (Ont.), 26694, *02 5.11.98                                      1560(98)                           1667(98)

Abrahams v. Scott (B.C.), 26224, *02 19.2.98                                                                           147(98)                             281(98)

Adbusters Media Foundation v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (B.C.),

   26369, *02 2.4.98                                                                                                                       378(98)                             581(98)

Advance Cutting & Coring Ltd. v. The Queen (Qué.), 26664, *A                                      920(98)

Agioritis v. Maroudis (Sask.), 26873, *A                                                                                1552(98)

Ahluwalia v. Richmond Cabs Ltd. (B.C.), 26620, *01 1.10.98                                               1360(98)                           1401(98)

Ahluwalia & Others v. Richmond Cabs Ltd. (B.C.), 26621, *02 1.10.98                             1360(98)                           1401(98)

Air Canada v. Ticketnet Corporation (Ont.), 26421, *02 20.8.98                                        1141(98)                           1192(98)

Air Line Pilots Association v. Canadian Airlines International Ltd. (B.C.),

   26221, *02 19.3.98                                                                                                                     273(98)                             460(98)

Allard v. Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge (B.C.), 26467, *02 14.5.98             697(98)                             790(98)

Alta Ltée c. Corporation des maîtres mécaniciens en tuyauterie du Québec

   (Qué.), 26533, *02 13.8.98                                                                                                        1144(98)                           1181(98)

Andritsopoulous v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26866, *A                    1551(98)

Andrushko v. Canada Safeway Ltd. (B.C.), 26896, *A                                                         1598(98)

Antippa c. Dulude (Qué.), 26849, *A                                                                                       1459(98)

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

Arrance v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26802, *B                                                                       1601(98)

Arsenault v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26311, *01 2.4.98                                                       377(98)                             581(98)

Arsenault-Cameron v. Government of Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.), 26682, *B            1388(98)

Arthurs v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26800, *B                                                                        1600(98)

Assurance-Vie Desjardins c. Sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec (Qué.), 26382,

   *02 4.6.98                                                                                                                                   694(98)                             943(98)

Athwal v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26294, *02

   12.2.98    75(98)                                                                                                                          221(98)

Attorney General of Canada v. Halpert (Crim.)(B.C.), 26534, *02 9.7.98                           1084(98)                           1084(98)

Aubin c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26674, *01 29.10.98                                                             1386(98)                           1608(98)

Augustine v. Lopes (Ont.), 26582, *02 1.10.98                                                                         1247(98)                           1393(98)

Ayre v. Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society (N.S.), 26783, *A                                                   1342(98)

Aytel Property Management Inc. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region

   No. 23 (Ont.), 26121, *01 2.4.98                                                                                              411(98)                             585(98)

 

Leave to cross-appeal is dismissed 23.4.98 / Demande d’appel-incident

est rejetée 23.4.98                                                                                                      661(98)                             661(98)

 

B.M. c. S.L. (Qué.), 26742, *A                                                                                                    1211(98)

BC School Sports v. Peerless (B.C.), 26656, *02 22.10.98                                                     1378(98)                           1562(98)

BOT Construction Ltd. v. The Queen (Ont.), 26758, *A                                                       1213(98)

Baas v. Jellema (B.C.), 26706, *02 22.10.98                                                                             1386(98)                           1564(98)

Baker v. Francis (Ont.), 26562, the application for leave to appeal is granted on

   the limited issue of interpretation of s. 4(b) of the Federal Child Support

   Guidelines 20.8.98 / La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accueillie à l’égard

   de la seule question de l’interprétation de l’al. 4b) des Lignes directrices

   fédérales sur les pensions alimentaires pour enfants 20.8.98                                          1149(98)                           1193(98)

Bal v. Attorney General for Ontario (Ont.), 26116, *02 12.2.98                                           77(98)                               225(98)

Balanyk v. Greater Niagara General Hospital (Ont.), 26498, *02 20.8.98                        930(98)                             1189(98)

Barrons v. The Queen in right of Ontario (Ont.), 26486, *02 4.6.98                                    779(98)                             946(98)

Barrouk c. Crowther (C.A.F.)(Alb.), 26447, *01 17.9.98                                                       1230(98)                           1289(98)

Barry v. Oakley (N.S.), 26655, *02 15.10.98                                                                             1382(98)                           1524(98)


Bartels v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26482, *01 11.6.98                                                          865(98)                             1016(98)

Bassi v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (Ont.), 26890, *A                                    1597(98)

Bastings-Allard c. Bastings (Qué.), 26079, *02 8.1.98                                                           2179(97)                           20(98)

Bastion Development Corporation v. Barnes & Kissack Inc. (B.C.), 26796, *A             1344(98)

Bax v. Workers’ Compensation Board (Sask.), 26515, *02 20.8.98                                     1140(98)                           1191(98)

Bazgan v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26457, *01 4.6.98                                                          776(98)                             936(98)

Beaulac v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26416, *03 7.5.98                                                          570(98)                             757(98)

Bellerose c. Commission de l’assurance-emploi Canada (C.A.F.)(Qué.), 26594,

   *02 15.10.98                                                                                                                               1358(98)                           1517(98)

Benge c. Comité d’appel de la Commission de la fonction publique (C.A.F.)

   (Ont.), 26651, *B                                                                                                                       1602(98)

Bergeron (Roland) c. Corps canadien des Commissionnaires (Qué.), 26365, *02

   30.4.98    527(98)                                                                                                                        704(98)

Bergeron (Roland) c. Union des agents de sécurité du Québec, Métallurgistes

   Unis d’Amérique, local 8922 (Qué.), 26364, *02 30.4.98                                                   526(98)                             704(98)

Bernier c. Commission de la santé, de la sécurité et de l’indemnisation des

   accidents au travail (N.-B.), 26639, *02 29.10.98                                                                1501(98)                           1607(98)

Best v. Best (Ont.), 26345, *03 19.3.98                                                                                       271(98)                             462(98)

Betker v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26026, *01 26.2.98                                                           207(98)                             344(98)

Beyer v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 26437, *01 2.7.98                                                             648(98)                             1082(98)

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

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

Blanchard c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26268, *01 22.1.98                                                      2229(97)                           80(98)

Bluebird Footwear Inc. c. General Motors Acceptance Corporation

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

Board of Police Commissioners of the City of Regina v. Regina Police

   Association (Sask.), 26871, *A                                                                                               1597(98)

Board of School Trustees of School District No. 46 (Sunshine Coast) v. Sunshine

   Coast Teachers’ Association (B.C.), 26204, *02 12.2.98                                                     12(98)                               215(98)

Bodenstein v. The Queen (Ont.), 26728, *A                                                                            1657(98)

Boffo v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26526, *01 18.6.98                                                              925(98)                             1020(98)

Bonanca v. Jones (Ont.), 26521, *02 3.9.98                                                                             1227(98)                           1277(98)

Bond v. Novak (B.C.), 26811, *03 15.10.98                                                                               1502(98)                           1527(98)

Bradley v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26308, *02 19.2.98                                                      150(98)                             286(98)

Brasserie Labatt Ltée c. Ladouceur, ès qualités d’arbitre de griefs (Qué.), 26605,

   *02 15.10.98                                                                                                                               1366(98)                           1519(98)

Brertton v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26669, *01 17.9.98                                                       1225(98)                           1299(98)

Brigis v. St. Lawrence Seaway Authority (Ont.), 26427, *02 30.4.98                                  569(98)                             699(98)

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

British Columbia Government and Service Employees’ Union v. Government of

   the Province of British Columbia (B.C.), 26274, *03 12.2.98                                             69(98)                               216(98)

British Columbia Human Rights Commission v. Blencoe (B.C.), 26789, *03

   8.10.98    1376(98)                                                                                                                      1477(98)

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority v. N.D. Lea & Associates Ltd.

   (B.C.), 26479, *02 18.6.98                                                                                                         862(98)                             1018(98)

British Columbia Securities Commission v. Global Securities Corporation (B.C.),

   26887, *A                                                                                                                                   1553(98)

Brohman v. Jonkman (Ont.), 26367, *02 26.2.98                                                                     208(98)                             345(98)

Brouillette c. Société d’agriculture du Comté de Verchères (Qué.), 25791, *01

   26.3.98    415(98)                                                                                                                        533(98)


Brown v. Royal Bank of Canada (Alta.), 26283, *02 12.3.98                                                278(98)                             425(98)

Bukmeier v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26579, *01 2.7.98                                                        689(98)                             1078(98)

Bull v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26669, *01 17.9.98                                                              1225(98)                           1299(98)

Burke v. Workers’ Compensation Board of Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.),

   26512, *02 13.8.98                                                                                                                     1143(98)                           1180(98)

Burton v. Dreifelds (Ont.), 26680, *02 8.10.98                                                                         1364(98)                           1464(98)

Buxbaum v. Buxbaum (Ont.), 26490, *02 20.8.98                                                                    930(98)                             1189(98)

Byer c. Reyes (Qué.), 26539, *01 15.10.98                                                                                 1365(98)                           1519(98)

CP. Containers (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research (Ont.),

   26319                                                                                                                                           5(98)                                 232(98)

 

The applications for an extension of time are granted.  The applications

 for oral hearings are dismissed. An order will go staying the following

orders pending the determination of the appeals in  Royal Bank of

Canada v. Director of Investigation and Research (Ont.) (26316);

Canadian Pacific Limited, et al v. Director of Investigation and Research

(Ont.) (26317).

 

a)  The order granted on February 20, 1997 by Farley J. in Ontario Court

(General Division) Commercial List File Nos. B55/95F, B55/95G and B55/95H;

 

b)  The order granted on May 21, 1996 by Farley J. in Ontario Court

(General Division) Commercial List File No. B55/95F; and

 

c)  The order granted on March 19, 1997 by Farley J. in Ontario Court

(General Division) Commercial List File Nos. B55/95B, B55/95F and B55/95M.

 

CSL Group Inc. v. The Queen in right of Canada (F.C.A.)(Que.), 26828, *A       1348(98)

Cain v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26132, *01 8.1.98                                        2177(97)                   18(98)

Caisse populaire de Saint-Boniface Ltée v. Hongkong Bank of Canada (Man.),

   26847, *A                                                                                                 1350(98)

Calvert v. Calvert (Ont.), 26497, *02 7.5.98                                                     659(98)                    761(98)

Canada Post Corporation v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers (Ont.),

   26357, *02 19.3.98                                                                                    335(98)                    463(98)

Canada Post Corporation v. Smith (Ont.), 26740, *B                                       1605(98)

Canada Square Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mancha Consultants Ltd.

   (Ont.), 26806, *A                                                                                      1345(98)

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Montego Forest Products (Holdings)

   Ltd. (Ont.), 26568, *02 8.10.98                                                                   1243(98)                   1477(98)

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Sovereign Life Insurance Co. (B.C.),

   26181, *01 12.2.98                                                                                    70(98)                      212(98)

Canadian Mobile Sign Association v. Corporation of the City of Burlington

   (Ont.), 26277, *01 19.3.98                                                                         271(98)                    460(98)

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Addy (Ont.), 26318                                                   5(98)                        232(98)

 

The applications for an extension of time are granted.  The applications

 for oral hearings are dismissed. An order will go staying the following

orders pending the determination of the appeals in  Royal Bank of

Canada v. Director of Investigation and Research (Ont.) (26316);

Canadian Pacific Limited, et al v. Director of Investigation and Research


(Ont.) (26317).

 

a)  The order granted on February 20, 1997 by Farley J. in Ontario Court

(General Division) Commercial List File Nos. B55/95F, B55/95G and B55/95H;

 

b)  The order granted on May 21, 1996 by Farley J. in Ontario Court

(General Division) Commercial List File No. B55/95F; and

 

c)  The order granted on March 19, 1997 by Farley J. in Ontario Court

(General Division) Commercial List File Nos. B55/95B, B55/95F and B55/95M.

 

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research (Ont.), 26317,

    *05 31.7.98                                                                                             5(98)                        1271(98)

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26363, *02

   2.4.98                                                                                                      456(98)                    587(98)

Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission v. Pearson

   (Alta.), 26286, *05 30.9.98                                                                         148(98)                    1541(98)

Canadian Standards Association v. Campbell (B.C.), 26433, *02 14.5.98          650(98)                    785(98)

Canning v. The Queen (Man.), 26814, *A                                                       1346(98)

Caplan v. Minister of Human Resources Development (F.C.A.)(N.S.), 26381,

   *02 2.4.98                                                                                                417(98)                    586(98)

Cardinal v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26669, *01 17.9.98                                 1225(98)                   1299(98)

Cargill Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Man.), 26547, *02 1.10.98                           1242(98)                   1396(98)

Carpenter Fishing Corporation v. The Queen in right of Canada (F.C.A.)(B.C.),

   26484, *02 20.8.98                                                                                    1134(98)                   1194(98)

Carter v. Boardman (N.B.), 25921, *01 2.7.98                                                 1083(98)                   1083(98)

Cazzetta c. États-Unis dAmérique (Crim.)(Qué.), 26326, *01 19.3.98               334(98)                    462(98)

Celix v. U.S.F. & G. Insurance Company of Canada (Ont.), 26563, *B              1375(98)

Cercle dOr Taxi Ltée c. Ville de Montréal (Qué.), 26607, *01 29.10.98              1387(98)                   1609(98)

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds v. Shama Textiles Inc. (Que.), 26799, *A          1344(98)

Chantiam v. Packall Packaging Inc. (Ont.), 26776, *A                                    1215(98)

Chapman v. Webster (Man.), 26468, *01 4.6.98                                             781(98)                    947(98)

Chappell v. J.M.F. (B.C.), 26571, *02 17.9.98                                                 1233(98)                   1300(98)

Chatwell v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26492, *01 5.10.98 application to quash

   appeal as of right granted 4.5.98; reasons delivered 18.6.98 / requête en

   annulation dappel de plein droit accueillie 4.5.98; motifs déposés 18.6.98     1275(98)                   1510(98)

Cheema v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26302, *01 26.2.98                                 202(98)                    342(98)

Cheung v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26327, *01 2.4.98                                    377(98)                    583(98)

Chisan v. 478370 Alberta Inc. (Alta.), 26888, *A                                             1657(98)

Chiselita v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26471, *01 4.6.98                                  777(98)                    936(98)

Christian v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26428, *01 30.4.98                                578(98)                    707(98)

Christiansen v. Paramount Developments Corporation  (Alta.), 26545, *02

   17.9.98                                                                                                    1238(98)                   1302(98)

Chu v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26741, *A          1211(98)

Church of Scientology of Toronto v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26177, *01

   9.4.98                                                                                                      525(98)                    593(98)

Citizens Legal Challenge Inc. v. Attorney General of Ontario (Ont.), 26385,

   *01 2.4.98                                                                                                457(98)                    589(98)

City of Calgary v. Costello (Alta.), 26293, *02 5.3.98                                       152(98)                    396(98)

City of Nanaimo v. Rascal Trucking Ltd. (B.C.), 26786, *A                              1342(98)


City of Saskatoon v. Public Service Alliance of Canada (F.C.A.)(Sask.), 26810,

   *A                                                                                                           1346(98)

City of Surrey v. McIntosh Estates Ltd. (B.C.), 26266, *02 19.2.98                   69(98)                      280(98)

Clément c. Polyvalente La-Porte-du-Nord (Qué.), 26619, *01 29.10.98               1504(98)                   1610(98)

Cloutier c. Automobiles Cloginor Inc. (Qué.), 26253, *02 19.3.98                      382(98)                    470(98)

Coffrages Roca Inc. c. La Reine (Qué.), 26747, *A                                         1348(98)

Colas c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26269, *01 5.3.98                                         273(98)                    392(98)

Collie Woollen Mills Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26518, *02 17.9.98         1232(98)                   1290(98)

Color Your World Corporation  v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation  (Ont.),

   26584, *02 24.9.98                                                                                    690(98)                    1305(98)

Comité paritaire de lindustrie de lautomobile de la Mauricie c. Gestion

   Jean-Guy Roy Inc. (Qué.), 26227, *02 5.3.98                                               206(98)                    391(98)

Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail c. Caron, Belanger, Ernst

   & Young Inc. (Qué.), 26192, *02 5.3.98                                                       186(98)                    395(98)

Commission scolaire des patriotes c. Syndicat du personnel de soutien de la

   Commission scolaire des patriotes (Qué.), 26495, *02 4.6.98                        817(98)                    940(98)

Commission scolaire Kativik c. Lachapelle (Qué.), 26390, *02 21.5.98             656(98)                    827(98)

Commonwealth Insurance Co. c. Hôtel le Chanteclerc (1985) Inc. (Qué.),

   26721, *A                                                                                                 1127(98)

Communauté urbaine de Montréal c. Chubb du Canada Compagnie dassurance

   (Qué.), 26611, *01 15.10.98                                                                       1373(98)                   1521(98)

Communauté urbaine de Québec c. Galeries de la Capitale Inc. (Qué.), 26863,

   *A                                                                                                           1550(98)

Comsa (Stefan Hadrian) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26700, *01 17.9.98          1229(98)                   1288(98)

Comsa (Stefan Hadrian) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26850, *A                       1500(98)

Conrad v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26643, *01 24.9.98                                  1125(98)                   1304(98)

Coombe v. Constitution Insurance Co. of Canada (Ont.), 26348, *02 12.3.98    189(98)                    427(98)

Co-operators General Insurance Co. v. Bapoo (Ont.), 26466, *02 11.6.98          866(98)                    1016(98)

Co-operators General Insurance Co. v. Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. (N.S.),

   26445, *02 4.6.98                                                                                     778(98)                    939(98)

Co-operators General Insurance Co. v. Melanson (N.B.), 26271, *01 5.3.98       206(98)                    391(98)

Coronation Insurance Company c. Bouchard (Qué.), 26842, *A                        1349(98)

Coronation Insurance Company c. Gagnon (Qué.), 26840, *A                           1349(98)

Coronation Insurance Company c. Pelletier (Qué.), 26841, *A                          1349(98)

Corporation of the Town of Wasaga Beach v. Bay Colony Ltd. (Ont.), 26102,

   *02 12.2.98                                                                                              76(98)                      224(98)

Cousins v. The Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.), 26276, *01 8.1.98                                   2181(97)                   22(98)

Couture (Alex) c. Municipalité de la ville de Charny (Qué.), 26678, *A                921(98)

Couture (Marcel) v. Lamontagne (Sask.), 26419, *02 11.6.98                           814(98)                    1008(98)

Cridge v. Pierce (B.C.), 26838, *A                                                                 1349(98)

Cruise Canada Inc. c. Clermont (Qué.), 26730, *A                                          1210(98)

D.E. c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26399, *01 7.5.98                                           376(98)                    755(98)

D.J.S. v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26573, *01 9.7.98                                     648(98)                    1084(98)

DAgostino v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26455, *01 18.6.98                             923(98)                    1019(98)

Dang v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26285, *01 19.2.98                                     181(98)                    283(98)

Darrach v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26564, *03 4.6.98                                    813(98)                    937(98)

Daum v. Schroeder (Sask.), 26004, *A                                                          1095(97)

Davies v. The Queen (Yuk.), 26870, *A                                                          1551(98)

Deblois c. Tremblay (Qué.), 26604, *05 29.6.98                                              744(98)                    1176(98)

Debruin v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26623, *B                                              1602(98)


Deloitte & Touche Inc. v. The Queen in right of Canada (Sask.),

   26413, *02 9.4.98                                                                                     450(98)                    592(98)

Deposit Insurance Corporation of Ontario v. Nesbitt, Burns Ltd. (Ont.),

   26422, *03 7.5.98                                                                                     572(98)                    760(98)

Deschamps  c. Procureur général du Canada (C.A.F.)(Qué.),  26154, *02

   8.1.98                                                                                                      2180(97)                   20(98)

Deschamps Pontiac Buick Ltée c. Monette (Qué.), 26379, *02 21.5.98             570(98)                    823(98)

Deslauriers (Claude) c. Bureau de LOAGQ (Qué.), 26565, *02 13.8.98             1146(98)                   1183(98)

Deslauriers (Claude) c. Bureau de direction de lOrdre des arpenteurs-géomètres

   du Québec (Qué.), 26591, *02 13.8.98                                                        1147(98)                   1184(98)

Deslauriers (Claude) c. Labelle (Qué.), 26592, *02 13.8.98                              1154(98)                   1186(98)

Deslauriers (Claude) c. Ordre des arpenteurs-géomètres du Québec (Qué.),

   26301, *02 29.1.98                                                                                    7(98)                        156(98)

Dicaire c. Commission de lassurance-emploi Canada (C.A.F.)(Qué.), 26225,

   *01 5.3.98                                                                                                275(98)                    394(98)

DiDomizio v. Porto (Ont.), 26702, *B                                                             1661(98)

Direx v. Dixon (Ont.), 26836, *A                                                                     1349(98)

Distributions Percour Inc. c. Boutique de sexe Ultramag Inc. (Qué.), 26577,

   *02 17.9.98                                                                                              1236(98)                   1291(98)

Dixon v. Governor in Council (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26234, *02 8.1.98                         2231(97)                   23(98)

Dnistransky (Daryl) v. Horner (Man.), 26432, *02 14.5.98                                 654(98)                    786(98)

Dnistransky (Gary) v. Horner (Man.), 26432, *02 14.5.98                                 654(98)                    786(98)

Dobnik v. Darcys Import Co. (Ont.), 26613, *01 1.10.98                                 1355(98)                   1400(98)

Doherty v. Doherty (N.B.), 26411, *02 2.4.98                                                  413(98)                    584(98)

Don Bodkin Leasing Ltd. v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (Ont.), 26791, *A              1343(98)

Donnelly v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26371, *02 19.3.98                               385(98)                    475(98)

Donohue v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26867, *A                   1551(98)

Doody (Brian) v. Canada (Employment Insurance Commission) (F.C.A.)(Que.),

   26729, *02 29.10.98                                                                                  1502(98)                   1607(98)

Doody (Brian) c. Professional Training Committee of the Barreau du Québec

   (Qué.), 26733, *B                                                                                      1560(98)

Dopf v. Royal Bank of Canada (B.C.), 26525, *02 10.9.98                               1217(98)                   1280(98)

Dow v. United States of America (Crim.)(B.C.), 26359, *01 30.4.98                  567(98)                    699(98)

Downs v. Shore (B.C.), 26780, *A                                                                  1215(98)

Dubois c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26252, *01 26.2.98                                     202(98)                    343(98)

Dupont c. La Reine (Qué.), 26853, *A                                                            1500(98)

Durack v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 26660, *01 13.8.98                                1152(98)                   1184(98)

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

   25545, *A                                                                                                 2143(96)

Eagle v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 26553, *01 2.7.98                                    565(98)                    1079(98)

Easton v. The Queen (Ont.), 26353, *02 4.6.98                                              780(98)                    946(98)

Ebco Industries Ltd. v. Discovery Enterprises Inc. (B.C.), 26817, *A                1346(98)

Eisenhauer v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 26561, *01 20.8.98                             1140(98)                   1191(98)

Eli Lilly and Co. v. Apotex Inc. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26259, *02 8.1.98                      2232(97)                   24(98)

Ellipse Fiction/Ellipse programme c. Cinévidéo Plus Inc. (Qué.), 26258, *A       1869(97)

Ellipse Fiction/Ellipse programme c. International Image Services Inc. (Qué.),

   26446, *A                                                                                                 179(98)

Ellis-Don Ltd. v. Ontario Labour Relations Board (Ont.), 26709, *A                   1126(98)

Endean v. The Queen in right of the Province of British Columbia (B.C.), 26679,

   *B                                                                                                           1390(98)


Entreprises J.J.P. Inc. c. Métro-Richelieu Inc. (Qué.), 26617, *02 29.10.98       1503(98)                   1610(98)

Entreprises Raymond Denis Inc. c. Ville de Val-Bélair (Qué.), 26756, *A           1212(98)

Erin Dancer Holding Corporation  v. Corporation of the Town of Richmond Hill

   (Ont.), 26788, *A                                                                                      1342(98)

Etienne v. Remus (Ont.), 26627, *02 1.10.98                                                  1363(98)                   1395(98)

Evans v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26351, *01 18.6.98                                    865(98)                    1024(98)

F.M. c. P.B. (Qué.), 26813, *A                                                                      1346(98)

F.N. v. The Queen (Nfld.), 26805, *A                                                             1345(98)

Fafard (Dany) c. Commission denquête chargée de faire enquête sur la Sûreté

   du Québec (Qué.), 26856, *A                                                                     1500(98)

Fafard (Jules) c. Commission de la construction du Québec (Qué.), 26585, *02

   13.8.98                                                                                                    1153(98)                   1185(98)

Farber v. Townsgate 1 Ltd. (Ont.), 26557, *02 17.9.98                                     1239(98)                   1303(98)

Fédération des médecins résidents du Québec c. Université de Montréal (Qué.),

   26163, *02 12.3.98                                                                                    149(98)                    420(98)

Federation of Women Teachers Associations of Ontario v. Ontario Human

   Rights Commission (Ont.), 26431, *05 8.5.98                                              201(98)                    796(98)

Ferland v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26478, *01 11.6.98                                  863(98)                    1011(98)

Ferris v. The Queen (B.C.), 26837, *A                                                           1349(98)

Feuerwerker v. Roodman (Ont.), 26374, *02 19.3.98                                       383(98)                    471(98)

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

Find v. Bombardier Credit Ltd. (Ont.), 26575, *01 1.10.98                                1243(98)                   1396(98)

Fingold v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26335, *02 26.2.98                                 207(98)                    345(98)

Fink v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26647, *B                                                    1604(98)

Fiorelli v. Stephens (Ont.), 26723, *02 5.11.98                                                1556(98)                   1664(98)

Foote v. The Queen (B.C.), 26895, *A                                                           1598(98)

Forrayi v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 26343, *01 28.5.98                                   748(98)                    868(98)

Fortin c. Gosselin (C.A.F.)(Qué.), 26552, *01 2.7.98                                       647(98)                    1081(98)

Foster v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 25058, *01 29.1.98                                  15(98)                      161(98)

Francoeur c. Ménard (Qué.), 26222, *02 19.3.98                                             204(98)                    466(98)

Fras v. Jurkojc (Ont.), 26284, *02 12.2.98                                                      14(98)                      218(98)

Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v. Can-Dive Services Ltd. (B.C.), 26415, *03

   4.6.98                                                                                                      751(98)                    948(98)

Free World Trust c. Électro Santé inc. (Qué.), 26406, *03 8.10.98                    1139(98)                   1466(98)

Freeman v. The Queen (Ont.), 26353, *02 4.6.98                                            780(98)                    946(98)

French (Doug) v. The Queen (Ont.), 26529, *A                                               1348(98)

French (James Alistair) v. Chapman (Ont.), 26368, *02 19.3.98                       336(98)                    464(98)

Friday v. Bear Island Foundation (Ont.), 26460, *02 14.5.98                             693(98)                    789(98)

Fritz v. Pimm Investments Ltd. (Ont.), 26349, *02 19.2.98                               153(98)                    288(98)

G.G. c. J.L. (Qué.), 26829, *A                                                                       1348(98)

Gadzella v. Gadzella (Sask.), 26618, *01 15.10.98                                         1367(98)                   1520(98)

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

Gagnon c. Provident, compagnie dassurances (Qué.), 26726, *02 29.10.98     1558(98)                   1613(98)

Gallant v. Province of New Brunswick (N.B.), 26785, *A                                  1342(98)

Gariépy v.The Queen in right of Canada (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26794, *A                    1343(98)

Gatz v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26801, *B                                                   1600(98)

Gauthier (Mark Anthony) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26255, *01 19.3.98          384(98)                    474(98) Gauthier (Michael) v. Mousseau (Man.), 26715, *02 29.10.98                                                          1391(98)                   1615(98)

Gauthier and Associates v. 482511 Ontario Ltd. (Ont.), 26844, *A                    1350(98)

Gencorp Canada Inc. v. Superintendent of Pensions for Ontario (Ont.), 26626,


   *02 15.10.98                                                                                             1371(98)                   1512(98)

General Motors Corporation v. Baljian (Ont.), 26864, *A                                   1550(98)

Gerling Globale compagnie dassurances générales c. Coopérative dhabitation

   La Frontalière (Qué.), 26331, *02 30.4.98                                                    454(98)                    702(98)

Gerling Globale compagnie dassurances générales c. Services dhypothèques

   Canada-Vie Ltée (Qué.), 26330, *02 30.4.98                                                453(98)                    702(98)

Gernhart v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26469, *02 2.7.98                                 331(98)                    1080(98)

Girard c. Corporation municipale de Saint-Léonard de Portneuf (Qué.), 26559,

   *02 13.8.98                                                                                              1144(98)                   1181(98)

Girimonte v. The Queen (Ont.), 26126, *05 27.2.98                                         404(98)                    404(98)

Girocredit Bank Aktiengesellschaft Der Sparkassen v. Bader (B.C.), 26869, *A                               1551(98)

Gladue v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26300, *03 19.3.98                                   274(98)                    467(98)

Goel (Bharat) v. MacNeil (Ont.), 26717, *01 15.10.98                                      1352(98)                   1515(98)

Goel (Bharat) v. Mandel (Ont.), 26719, *02 15.10.98                                        1353(98)                   1515(98)

Goel (Bharat) v. Minister of Human Resources Development (F.C.A.)(Ont.),

   26449, *01 20.8.98                                                                                    929(98)                    1188(98)

Goel (Bharat) v. Ontario Labour Relations Board (Ont.), 26491, *01 20.8.98      929(98)                    1188(98)

Goel (Ram) v. Boland (Ont.), 26720, *01 15.10.98                                           1353(98)                   1516(98)

Golub v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26298, *01 4.5.98                                      459(98)                    753(98)

Granovsky v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26615,

   *03 8.10.98                                                                                              1368(98)                   1474(98)

Gray v. The Queen in right of the Province of Ontario (Ont.), 26410, *02

   16.4.98                                                                                                    528(98)                    661(98)

Great Tempo S.A. v. Jian Sheng Co. (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26704, *A                       1126(98)

Grimsson v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26595, *01 2.7.98                                 691(98)                    1083(98)

Grismer v. British Columbia Council of Human Rights (B.C.), 26481, *03

   8.10.98                                                                                                    1232(98)                   1472(98)

Grochocki v. Solicitor General of Canada (F.C.A.)(Man.), 26239, *01

   29.1.98                                                                                                    7(98)                        155(98)

Groupe Montech Inc. c. Montage et découpage Promag Inc. (Qué.), 26745, *05

   1.10.98                                                                                                    1211(98)                   1541(98)

Guarantee Company of North America v. Gordon Capital Corporation  (Ont.),

   26654, *03 8.10.98                                                                                    1356(98)                   1463(98)

Guardian Insurance Co. v. Ontario Tree Fruits Ltd. (Ont.), 26773, *A                1214(98)

Guardian Insurance Co. of Canada v. Miller (Alta.), 26214, *02 8.1.98               2231(97)                   23(98)

Gurtler v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 26640, *01 17.9.98                                 1222(98)                   1287(98)

Guyatt v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26332, *01 14.5.98                                   567(98)                    782(98)

Gwynne v. Minister of Justice (Crim.)(B.C.), 26501, *01 4.6.98                         815(98)                    945(98)

H.K. c. Direction de la protection de la jeunesse (Centre jeunesse de Montréal)

   (Qué.), 26760, *01 15.10.98                                                                       1381(98)                   1523(98)

Hagen v. Stromner (Alta.), 26541, *02 10.9.98                                                1221(98)                   1282(98)

Hahn v. The Queen (Crim.)(P.E.I.), 26685, *01 3.9.98                                     1227(98)                   1277(98)

Halifax Insurance Co. v. McMahon (Ont.), 26263, *02 12.2.98                          77(98)                      226(98)

Hamel c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26288, *01 12.3.98                                      270(98)                    419(98)

Havelange v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 26761, *B                                         1660(98)

Hawrish v. Law Society of Saskatchewan (Sask.), 26752, *A                           1212(98)

Headway Property Investment 78-1 Inc. v. Edgecombe Properties Ltd. (Ont.),

   26857, *A                                                                                                 1550(98)

Henderson v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26299, *01 12.3.98                             276(98)                    423(98)

Henry v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26489, *01 9.4.98                                      448(98)                    589(98)


Hess v. Fair-Day Investments Ltd. (Ont.), 26304, *A                                       1123(98)

Hickey v. Hickey (Man.), 26430, *03 7.5.98                                                    658(98)                    758(98)

Highmark Residences Inc. v. The Queen in right of Ontario (Ont.), 26396,

   *02 19.3.98                                                                                              387(98)                    476(98)

Hill v. McMillan (Man.), 26724, *A                                                                  1128(98)

Hoque v. Montreal Trust Co. of Canada (N.S.), 26393, *02 26.3.98                   416(98)                    534(98)

Horn v. Dreifelds (Ont.), 26670, *02 8.10.98                                                   1363(98)                   1464(98)

Horrod v. Wang (B.C.), 26768, *A                                                                  1214(98)

Hoyeck c. Banque Laurentienne du Canada (Qué.), 26200, *01 19.3.98            379(98)                    468(98)

Hughes v. Pfizer Canada Inc. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26485, *02 11.6.98                     864(98)                    1012(98)

Human Life International in Canada Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue

   (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26661, *B                                                                           1374(98)

Hunter v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26580, *01 13.8.98                                   1142(98)                   1178(98)

Husain v. Canadian Arilines International Ltd. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26798, *A            1344(98)

Hussmann Canada Inc. v. Leonetti (Ont.), 26759, *A                                      1213(98)

Ignace v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26185, *01 14.5.98                                   692(98)                    787(98)

Immeubles Gaston et Rejeanne Inc. c. Caisse populaire de Notre-Dame de

   Mont-Carmel (Qué.), 26172, *02 12.2.98                                                      74(98)                      219(98)

Immeubles Gaston et Rejeanne Inc. c. Caisse populaire de Notre-Dame de

   Mont-Carmel (Qué.), 26173, *02 12.2.98                                                      75(98)                      220(98)

Industrielle-Alliance, Compagnie dassurance sur la vie c. Sous-ministre du

   Revenu du Québec (Qué.), 26400, *02 4.6.98                                              695(98)                    944(98)

Ingles v. Corporation of the City of Toronto (Ont.), 26634, *B                           1603(98)

Innopac Inc. v. Reynolds (Ont.), 26531, *02 3.9.98                                         1228(98)                   1278(98)

Intercredit Establishment Vaduz c. Ville de Pincourt (Qué.), 26134, *01

   29.1.98                                                                                                    8(98)                        157(98)

Investigation Team of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries v. Kaplan (Alta.),

   26290, *02 12.2.98                                                                                    78(98)                      226(98)

Irving Oil Ltd. v. Moquin (N.B.), 26737, *B                                                      1605(98)

J.-J.L. c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26653, *01 1.10.98                                      1246(98)                   1393(98)

J.L.-J.E. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26279, *01 8.1.98                                  2227(97)                   19(98)

J.-P.C. c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26269, *B                                                  273(98)

Jacob v. The Queen (B.C.), 26885, *A                                                           1552(98)

James (Michael C.) v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26692, *B                            1662(98)

James (Warrington Olanzo) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26405, *01 4.6.98       779(98)                    945(98)

James & Boyden v. United Kingdom (Ont.), 26378, *05 21.4.98                       524(98)                    670(98)

Jaremko v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 875 (Ont.),

   26714, *02 5.11.98                                                                                    1556(98)                   1664(98)

John Carten Personal Law Corporation v. Attorney General for British Columbia

   (B.C.), 26625, *02 8.10.98                                                                         1371(98)                   1465(98)

John W. Harvey Real Estate Co. v. Spence (Ont.), 26517, *01 20.8.98             928(98)                    1187(98)

Johnson (Heather) v. Arbez (Man.), 26784, *A                                                1342(98)

Johnson (Marc) v. United States of America (Crim.)(Ont.), 26309, *01 5.3.98    204(98)                    389(98)

Johnston v. M & E Holdings Ltd. (N.S.), 26522, *02 17.9.98                            1226(98)                   1299(98)

Jonasson v. Jonasson (B.C.), 26250, *02 22.1.98                                           6(98)                        80(98)

Jones v. Smith (Crim.)(B.C.), 26500, *03 1.6.98                                             822(98)                    932(98)

K.L.W. v. Winnipeg Child and Family Services (Man.), 26779, *03 8.10.98        1367(98)                   1469(98)

K.V.N.G.W. v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 26388, *01 30.4.98                           580(98)                    709(98)

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. The Queen in right of the Province of British

   Columbia (B.C.), 26572, *02 17.9.98                                                          1244(98)                   1284(98)


KPMG v. Hill (Sask.), 26356, *02 28.5.98                                                       750(98)                    870(98)

Kainth v. The Queen (Ont.), 26832, *A                                                           1348(98)

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

Kamloops Indian Band v. Canadian National Railway Co. (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26882,

   *A                                                                                                           1552(98)

Karpeta v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission

   (Ont.), 26671, *02 15.10.98                                                                        1383(98)                   1525(98)

Kaushal v. The Queen (Ont.), 26622, *A                                                        1348(98)

Kelly c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26240, *01 12.2.98                                         72(98)                      219(98)

Khan v. Timakis (Ont.), 26839, *A                                                                 1500(98)

Khanna v. The Queen (Ont.), 26754, *A                                                         1212(98)

Kibale c. La Reine (Ont.), 26636, *A                                                              812(98)

Kieling v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. (Sask.), 26386, *02 12.2.98                            72(98)                      211(98)

Klevering v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Crim.)(Ont.), 26436, *02 19.3.98                    384(98)                    474(98)

Knight v. The Queen (Man.), 26859, *A                                                          1550(98)

Kornelsen v. Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (Alta.), 26707, *02

   29.10.98                                                                                                  1388(98)                   1609(98)

Kouldjim v. University of Ottawa (Ont.), 26511, *02 17.9.98                              1157(98)                   1297(98)

Krapohl (Heinz Gunter) v. The Queen (Ont.), 26688, *05 7.10.98                      1123(98)                   1541(98)

Krapohl (Hildegard) v. Federal Republic of Germany (Ont.), 24584, *5 7.10.98   1124(98)                   1541(98)

Krieser v. Bank of Montreal (Ont.), 26624, *02 8.10.98                                    1368(98)                   1474(98)

Krlinski v. Crestvalley Homes Ltd. (Ont.), 26681, *02 15.10.98                         1383(98)                   1526(98)

Kroppmanns v. Townsend (B.C.), 26686, *02 15.10.98                                    1375(98)                   1523(98)

Kubicek v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26334, *02 12.3.98                               189(98)                    426(98)

Kwan v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 26408, *01 14.5.98                                    574(98)                    782(98)

L.C. v. Mills (Crim.)(Alta.), 26358, *03 12.2.98                                                149(98)                    222(98)

L.J.H. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 26296, *01 29.1.98                                   9(98)                        158(98)

L.K. v. Childrens Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton (Ont.), 26244, *01 8.1.98       2177(97)                   17(98)

L.K.N. c. I.G. (Qué.), 26434, *02 4.6.98                                                         777(98)                    938(98)

LaBelle v. Law Society of Upper Canada (Ont.), 26488, *01 1.10.98                  1246(98)                   1394(98)

Laberge c. Caisse de dépôt et de placement du Québec (Qué.), 26889, *A       1597(98)

Laboratoires Abbott ltée c. Bourque (Qué.), 26803, *A                                    1345(98)

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

Lagowski v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 26635, *01 8.10.98                               1152(98)                   1461(98)

LaLanne v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 26687, *B                                              1658(98)

Laliberté c. La Reine (C.A.F.)(Qué.), 26734, *A                                               1210(98)

Lamontagne c. Corporation professionnelle des médecins du Québec (Qué.),

   26633, *B                                                                                                 1660(98)

Langenhahn v. Czyz (Alta.), 26710, *B                                                           1663(98)

Lapointe v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26578, *B                                             1134(98)

Laurendeau c. Université Laval (Qué.), 26453, *02 28.5.98                               749(98)                    869(98)

Laurent Brodeur Inc. c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.), 26158, *02

   8.1.98                                                                                                      2180(97)                   21(98)

Lavigne v. Human Resources Development (F.C.A.)(Que.), 26774, *A              1214(98)

Lawlor v. Oppenheim (Nfld.), 26212, *03 19.2.98                                             153(98)                    289(98)

Lawrence v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26610, *01 1.10.98                               1156(98)                   1402(98)

Ledinski v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 26698, *01 29.10.98                             1389(98)                   1614(98)

Légaré c. Commission de lassurance-emploi Canada (C.A.F.)(Qué.), 26593, *02

   15.10.98                                                                                                  1357(98)                   1516(98)

Legault c. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.)(Qué.),


   26354, *01 12.3.98                                                                                    338(98)                    422(98)

Lemieux c. Gestion Segi Ltée (Qué.), 26251, *02 5.3.98                                  205(98)                    390(98)

Leonard v. Houle (Ont.), 26440, *01 14.5.98                                                   655(98)                    787(98)

Lepage v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26320, *03 19.2.98                                   76(98)                      288(98)

Leroux c. Centre Hospitalier Ste-Jeanne DArc (Qué.), 26650, *A                     859(98)

Lessard c. Corporation municipale de Courcelles (Qué.), 26275, *02 26.3.98     414(98)                    532(98)

Lewis v. The Queen in right of the Province of Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.),

   26603, *B                                                                                                 1359(98)

Lienaux v. Campbell (N.S.), 26171, *02 29.1.98                                              11(98)                      160(98)

Lin v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (Ont.), 26827, *A                                             1347(98)

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Minister of Justice (B.C.), 26858, *A   1550(98)

Livingston v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 26609, *01 17.9.98                            1148(98)                   1294(98)

Lo v. ScotiaMcLeod Inc. (B.C.), 26616, *02 1.10.98                                        1359(98)                   1400(98)

London Salvage & Trading Co. v. Sunoco Inc. (Ont.), 26241, *02 29.1.98         16(98)                      162(98)

Lore v. The Queen (Crim.)(Qué.), 26683, *B                                                   1248(98)

Lovelace v. The Queen in right of Ontario (Ont.), 26165, *03 12.2.98                2016(97)                   224(98)

Lutzer v. Sonnenburg (Ont.), 26831, *A                                                         1348(98)

Lyons v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.B.), 26312, *01 12.3.98                                    277(98)                    424(98)

M.-J.R. c. M.B. (Qué.), 26347, *02 5.3.98                                                       276(98)                    395(98)

M.S. v. The National Parole Board (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26696, *02 13.8.98              1143(98)                   1178(98)

M.S. v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26516, *01 11.6.98                                      861(98)                    1009(98)

M.S. v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26886, *A                                                   1553(98)

M.V. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26527, *C                                                   1276(98)

M & D Farm Ltd. v. Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation (Man.),

   26215, *03 12.2.98                                                                                    71(98)                      217(98)

M-Jay Farms Enterprises Ltd. v. Canadian Wheat Board (Man.), 26346, *02

   19.2.98                                                                                                    183(98)                    284(98)

Macciocchi v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26128, *01 2.4.98                               376(98)                    582(98)

MacDonald v. MacDonald (Alta.), 26474, *02 11.6.98                                      866(98)                    1017(98)

MacDonell c. Flahiff (Qué.), 26502, *01 8.10.98                                              1223(98)                   1467(98)

Mackenzie v. Mackenzie (N.S.), 26824, *A                                                    1347(98)

MacKinnon v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26641, *01 22.10.98                           1384(98)                   1564(98)

MacLean v. Dabbs (Ont.), 26855, *02 22.10.98                                              1555(98)                   1565(98)

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Council of the Haida Nation (B.C.), 26394, *02

   7.5.98                                                                                                      657(98)                    758(98)

MacNeil v. MacNeil (B.C.), 26435, *01 14.5.98                                                697(98)                    790(98)

Madison Developments Ltd. v. Plan Electric Co. (Ont.), 26397, *02 7.5.98        528(98)                    759(98)

Mailhot c. Ville du Lac Etchemin (Qué.), 26207, *01 5.3.98                              274(98)                    393(98)

Malboeuf v. The Queen (Ont.), 26746, *A                                                       1212(98)

Malhotra v. Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (Ont.), 26310, *01 19.3.98        340(98)                    473(98)

Maljkovich v. Maljkovich (Ont.), 26420, *02 30.4.98                                        573(98)                    706(98)

Malmberg v. Municipal District of Cardston No. 6 (Alta.), 26402, *02 9.4.98       525(98)                    594(98)

Manac Inc. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Que.), 26744, *A                                        1211(98)

Marchand (Claude) c. Hydro-Québec (Qué.), 26631, *02 29.10.98                     1504(98)                   1611(98)

Marchand (René) c. Chaudière de la (Qué.), 26880, *A                                     1552(98)

Marks v. Oniel (Ont.), 26338, *02 2.4.98                                                        417(98)                    586(98)

Marshall v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26602, *01 17.9.98                                 1218(98)                   1285(98)

Matsqui Indian Band v. Canadian National Railway Co. (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26881,

   *A                                                                                                           1552(98)

Matthews v. Nowell (Ont.), 26372, *05 8.9.98                                                  272(98)                    1405(98)


Matthiessen v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26731, *01 5.11.98                           1555(98)                   1665(98)

Mazzeo v. The Queen in right of Ontario (Ont.), 26387, *02 15.10.98                1379(98)                   1522(98)

McCarthy v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26344, *01 19.3.98                                339(98)                    472(98)

McCaw v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26589, *01 17.9.98                                   1148(98)                   1293(98)

McColl v. The Corporation of the Town of Gravenhurst (Ont.), 26845, *A           1350(98)

McCreery v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26672, *01 17.9.98                               1237(98)                   1301(98)

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

McMechan v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 26638, *01 17.9.98                             1219(98)                   1297(98)

McMichael v. The Queen in right of Ontario (Ont.), 26443, *01 11.6.98              778(98)                    1010(98)

McMynn v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26242/43, *01 29.1.98                           10(98)                      160(98)

Mendez v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26323, *01 12.3.98                                  188(98)                    425(98)

Messer v. Messer (Sask.), 26380, *01 9.4.98                                                 451(98)                    593(98)

Meulen v. Veterinary Medical Board of Manitoba (Man.), 26289, *02

   26.2.98                                                                                                    203(98)                    343(98)

Michalski (Beata) v. Olson (Man.), 26432, *02 14.5.98                                    654(98)                    786(98)

Michalski (Janina) v. Olson (Man.), 26432, *02 14.5.98                                   654(98)                    786(98)

Mid Canada Millwork Ltd. v. Delano Building Products Ltd. (Man.), 26809, *A    1345(98)

Minister of Economic Development and Tourism v. Municipal Corporation of the

   City of Yellowknife (N.W.T.), 26337, *02 19.2.98                                          183(98)                    285(98)

Minister of Finance v. Upper Lakes Shipping Ltd. (Ont.), 26503, *02 1.10.98     1250(98)                   1398(98)

Minister of Forests v. MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. (B.C.), 26394, *02 7.5.98             657(98)                    758(98)

Minister of National Revenue v. Glaxo Wellcome PLC (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26834, *A                               1349(98)

Mondesir v. Manitoba Association of Optometrists (Man.), 26816, *A               1346(98)

Monette c. Poissant (Qué.), 26322, *02 12.3.98                                              337(98)                    422(98)

Monfette c. Hôtel-Dieu de Saint-Jérôme (Qué.), 26697, *A                               1124(98)

Montplaisir c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26257, *01 21.5.98                                569(98)                    823(98)

Moore v. Johnson (B.C.), 26586, *02 15.10.98                                                1249(98)                   1514(98)

Morency c. Commission de la Santé et de la Sécurité du travail du Québec

   (Qué.), 26632, B                                                                                       1505(98)

Morrisey v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 26703, *03 8.10.98                                 1235(98)                   1462(98)

Mosher (Donald B.) v. Padovan (Ont.), 26662, *01 8.10.98                               1370(98)                   1475(98)

Mosher (Donald B.) v. The Queen in right of Ontario (Ont.), 26663, *02 8.10.98 1369(98)                   1476(98)

Muise v. Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (N.S.), 26804, *A        1345(98)

Multani v. Multani (Ont.), 26245, *02 12.3.98                                                  278(98)                    424(98)

Muscillo Transport Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia (Ont.), 26295, *02 12.2.98        79(98)                      227(98)

N.H. v. H.M. (B.C.), 26555, *03 18.6.98                                                         867(98)                    1024(98)

N.V. Reykdal & Associates Ltd. v. K. & Fung Canada Ltd. (Alta.), 26764, *A    1213(98)

Naef v. McLean Brothers Fisheries Inc. (Ont.), 26389, *02 2.7.98                     373(98)                    1078(98)

Naima c. Sears Canada Inc. (Qué.), 26874, *A                                               1552(98)

Nanaimo Regional General Hospital v. Heinrichs (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26463, *02

   11.6.98                                                                                                    820(98)                    1015(98)

National Bank of Canada v. Gagliano (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26848, *A                       1459(98)

Nelson (Doris Merrill) v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Crim.)(B.C.), 26684, *A                1209(98)

Nelson (Thomas Richard) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26130, *01 29.1.98        10(98)                      159(98)

Nespolon v. Alford (Ont.), 26862, *A                                                              1550(98)

Neuman v. The Queen (Alta.), 26778, *A                                                       1215(98)

New Investors Committee of Maters Mortgages Inc. v. Peat Marwick Thorne Inc.

   (Ont.), 26179, *02 19.2.98                                                                         181(98)                    285(98)

New Investors Committee of Maters Mortgages (NIC) v. KPMG Inc. (Ont.),

   26826, *A                                                                                                 1350(98)


Nguyen v. United States of America (Crim.)(Ont.), 26691, *01 17.9.98              1239(98)                   1283(98)

Noname v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26543, *01 20.8.98                                 1139(98)                   1190(98)

Nordyne v. The Queen (Crim.)(Que.), 26574, *01 8.10.98                                 1234(98)                   1462(98)

Noskey v. The Queen (Alta.), 26022, *A                                                        1121(97)

Nourhaghighi v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26267, *01 19.3.98                          335(98)                    463(98)

Olah v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26280, *01 19.2.98                                      146(98)                    282(98)

Olson (Clifford Robert) v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26505, *01 18.6.98            861(98)                    1018(98)

Olson (Victor Brian) v. Law Society of Manitoba (Man.), 26442, *02 28.5.98      751(98)                    871(98)

OMalley v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26480, *01 10.9.98                                1216(98)                   1281(98)

Ontario Adult Entertainment Bar Association v. Municipality of Metropolitan

   Toronto (Ont.), 26325, *02 19.2.98                                                             182(98)                    283(98)

Oprea v. Royal Insurance Company of Canada (Ont.), 26749, *A                      1212(98)

Orlov v. Metropolitan Toronto Police (Ont.), 26825, *A                                     1347(98)

Osiel v. Royal Bank of Canada (Ont.), 26504, *02 5.11.98                               1559(98)                   1666(98)

Othelo c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26426, *01 9.4.98                                        449(98)                    591(98)

Pacific Press v. The Queen (B.C.), 26751, *05 28.10.98                                 1554(98)                   1627(98)

Parisé c. Sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec (Qué.), 26072, *02 22.1.98        2230(97)                   82(98)

Pascal v. Walker (Crim.)(B.C.), 26186, *02 14.5.98                                        693(98)                    788(98)

Patel v. Department of National Health and Welfare (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 25997, *01

   2.7.98                                                                                                      1084(98)                   1084(98)

Patenaude c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.), 26588, *02 17.9.98             1224(98)                   1288(98)

Paul v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.B.), 26718, *01 5.11.98                                      1506(98)                   1666(98)

Pearl v. Gentra Canada Investments Inc. (Que), 26807, *A                              1345(98)

Perley v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.B.), 26599, *01 17.9.98                                    1156(98)                   1296(98)

Pesic v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26020, *B                                                  1448(97)

Petro-Canada Inc. c. T.I.W. Industries Ltd. (Qué.), 26223, *02 5.3.98               275(98)                    393(98)

Pham v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26459, *01 4.5.98                                      530(98)                    753(98)

Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada v. Attorney General of the

   Province of British Columbia (B.C.), 26260, *02 12.2.98                               71(98)                      211(98)

Pinsonneault c. La Reine (Qué.), 26795, *A                                                    1343(98)

Placements Armand Laflamme Inc. c. Roy (Qué.), 26659, *A                          859(98)

Poliquin de la firme Samson Bélair/Deloitte & Touche Inc. c. Perron-Malenfant

   (Qué.), 26451, *03 18.6.98                                                                         926(98)                    1023(98)

Pomerleau c. Verge (Qué.), 26270, *02 22.1.98                                              2229(97)                   81(98)

Posen v. Stoddart Publishing Co. (Ont.), 26782, *A                                        1342(98)

Poudrier v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26554, *01 13.8.98                                 1151(98)                   1179(98)

Poulin (Gilles) c. Serge Morency et Associés Inc. (Qué.), 26340, *03 4.6.98      694(98)                    942(98)

Poulin (Jean-Claude) c. Gilbert (Qué.), 26407, *02 28.5.98                              748(98)                    868(98)

Power Workers Union v. Lincoln Hydro Electric Commission (Ont.), 26418,

   *02 30.4.98                                                                                              568(98)                    700(98)

Pregent v. The Queen (Ont.), 26753, *A                                                         1212(98)

Procureur général du Québec c. Dupont (Qué.), 26232, *02 12.3.98                  337(98)                    421(98)

Procureur général du Québec c. Raby (Qué.), 26238, *02 19.3.98                     380(98)                    469(98)

Provincial Court Judges Association of British Columbia v. Attorney General of

   British Columbia (B.C.), 26812, *A                                                             1346(98)

Provincial Tax Commissioner v. Maritime Dredging Ltd. (P.E.I.), 26423, *02

   4.6.98                                                                                                      651(98)                    942(98)

Public School Boards Association of Alberta v. Attorney General of Alberta

   (Alta.), 26701, *B                                                                                      1385(98)

Pushpanathan v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.)(Ont.),


   25173, *C                                                                                                 210(98)

Puskas v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26373, *01 5.10.98 application to quash

   appeal as of right granted 4.5.98; reasons delivered 18.6.98 / requête en

   annulation dappel de plein droit accueillie 4.5.98; motifs déposés 18.6.98     1275(98)                   1510(98)

Pyne v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26648, *01 15.10.98                                    1365(98)                   1518(98)

Quenneville (Maurice) c. Directeur de la protection de la jeunesse (Qué.),

   26477, *02 4.6.98                                                                                     816(98)                    940(98)

Quenneville (Stéphane) c. Directeur de la protection de la jeunesse (Qué.),

   26476, *02 4.6.98                                                                                     816(98)                    939(98)

R. v. Bunn (Crim.)(Man.), 26339, *03 4.6.98                                                   746(98)                    934(98)

R. v. Dalton (Crim.)(Nfld.), 26712, *B                                                             1378(98)

R. v. Drake (Crim.)(P.E.I.), 26201, *01 19.3.98                                               188(98)                    478(98)

R. v. Druken (Crim.)(Nfld.), 26254, *03 12.2.98                                               73(98)                      222(98)

R. v. Elliott (Crim.)(Ont.), 26600, *01 8.10.98                                                  1218(98)                   1466(98)

R. v. Gillies (B.C.), 26772, *A                                                                       1214(98)

R. c. Grégoire (Crim.)(Qué.), 26226, *03 12.2.98                                             73(98)                      221(98)

R. v. Khan (Man.), 26765, *A                                                                        1213(98)

R. v. L.F.W. (Crim.)(Nfld.), 26329, *03 4.6.98                                                 745(98)                    933(98)

R. v. Martel Building Ltd. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26893, *A                                         1598(98)

R. v. Middleton (Ont.), 26860, *A                                                                   1550(98)

R. v. Oickle (Crim.)(N.S.), 26535, *03 8.10.98                                                1129(98)                   1460(98)

R. v. Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) Northeast Region (Crim.)(Ont.),

   26333, *01 12.3.98                                                                                    270(98)                    419(98) R. v. Proulx (Crim.)(Man.), 26376, *03 4.6.98                                                                   746(98)                    935(98)

R. v. R.A.R. (Crim.)(Man.), 26377, *03 4.6.98                                                 747(98)                    935(98)

R. v. R.N.S. (Crim.)(B.C.), 26462, *03 4.6.98                                                  776(98)                    937(98)

R. v. Robertson (Crim.)(Nfld.), 26614, *A                                                        811(98)

R. v. Watt (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26537, *02 17.9.98                                                 1241(98)                   1292(98)

R. v. White (Glenn) (Crim.)(Nfld.), 26705, *B                                                   1501(98)

R. v. White (Joann Kimberley) (Crim.)(B.C.), 26473, *03 17.9.98                      1124(98)                   1285(98)

R. in right of Newfoundland v. Wells (Nfld.), 26362, *03 19.3.98                        385(98)                    478(98)

R. in right of Ontario v. Nesbitt, Burns Inc. (Ont.), 26422, *03 7.5.98                572(98)                    760(98)

R. in right of the Province of Newfoundland v. Atlantic Leasing Ltd. (Nfld.),

   26846, *05 20.10.98                                                                                  1350(98)                   1578(98)

R. in right of the Province of Ontario v. Mason (Ont.), 26797, *A                      1344(98)

R.G.F. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26461, *01 14.5.98                                   653(98)                    785(98) R.L. v. Childrens Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton (Ont.), 26644, *01 17.9.98                               1220(98)                   1298(98)

Rafuse v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 26307, *01 19.3.98                                   339(98)                    472(98)

Recalma v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26668, *A                                           920(98)

Renaud c. Commission des affaires sociales (Qué.), 26677, *A                       921(98)

Richer (Sylvio) c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26769, *A                                        1347(98)

Richer (Sylvio) c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26852, *A                                        1500(98)

Richter & Associés Inc. c. Sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec (Qué.), 26272,

   *03 7.5.98                                                                                                452(98)                    756(98)

Richter & Associés Inc. c. Wightman (Qué.), 26735, *A                                  1210(98)

Ricken Leroux Inc. c. Ministre du Revenu du Québec (Crim.)(Qué.), 26287,

   *01 19.3.98                                                                                              184(98)                    465(98)

Ringer v. Centurami (Ont.), 26328, *01 2.4.98                                                 418(98)                    587(98)

Riopel c. La Reine (Qué.), 26787, *A                                                             1342(98)

Rival Company of Canada Ltd. v. Baxter (Que.), 26538, *02 4.6.98                   818(98)                    941(98)


Robert v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26120, *01 11.6.98                                   863(97)                    1011(98)

Robertson v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (B.C.), 26448, *02 14.5.98                               575(98) 783(98)

Robinson v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Man.), 26513, *02 2.7.98                              561(98)                    1194(98)

Rocheleau c. Ville de Bedford (Qué.), 26425, *02 21.5.98                                576(98)                    825(98)

Rockwood v. Minister of National Revenue (Nfld.), 26777, *02 29.10.98             1391(98)                   1615(98)

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

   25618, *A                                                                                                 1958(96)

Rodrigue (Réal) c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.), 26884, *A                   1657(98)

Rodrigue (Réal) c. Ville de Québec (Crim.)(Qué.), 26438, *01 21.5.98               696(98)                    828(98)

Roland Home Improvements Ltd. v. National Bank of Canada (Ont.), 26528, *02

   2.7.98                                                                                                      566(98)                    1079(98)

Rounds v. The Queen in right of Canada (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26775, *A                   1214(98)

Roussel c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26551, *01 8.10.98                                    1142(98)                   1460(98)

Roy c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26452, *01 26.3.98                                          414(98)                    531(98)

Royal Bank of Canada v. Director of Investigation and Research (Ont.),

   26315                                                                                                      5(98)                        232(98)

The applications for an extension of time are granted.  The applications

 for oral hearings are dismissed. An order will go staying the following

orders pending the determination of the appeals in  Royal Bank of

Canada v. Director of Investigation and Research (Ont.) (26316);

Canadian Pacific Limited, et al v. Director of Investigation and Research

(Ont.) (26317).

 

a)  The order granted on February 20, 1997 by Farley J. in Ontario Court

(General Division) Commercial List File Nos. B55/95F, B55/95G and B55/95H;

 

b)  The order granted on May 21, 1996 by Farley J. in Ontario Court

(General Division) Commercial List File No. B55/95F; and

 

c)  The order granted on March 19, 1997 by Farley J. in Ontario Court

(General Division) Commercial List File Nos. B55/95B, B55/95F and B55/95M.

 

Royal Bank of Canada v. Director of Investigation and Research (Ont.),

   26316, *05 22.9.98                                                                                    5(98)                        1541(98)

Royal Bank of Canada v. Sprung Instant Structures Ltd. (Alta.), 26392, *02

   9.4.98                                                                                                      449(98)                    591(98)

Ruscetta v. Graham (Ont.), 26637, *01 15.10.98                                             1372(98)                   1513(98)

S.A. Louis Dreyfus & Cie c. Holding Tusculum B.V. (Qué.), 26843, *A             1350(98)

Saca v. York University (Ont.), 26336, *02 26.2.98                                         208(98)                    388(98)

Sam Lévy & Associés Inc. c. Campro Investments Inc. (Qué.), 26875, *A         1597(98)

Samadi v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26472, *01 11.6.98                                  818(98)                    1013(98)

Samra v. McGraw (Ont.), 26665, *02 15.10.98                                                1382(98)                   1524(98)

Sansalone v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. (B.C.), 26708, *B                     1659(98)

Sansaloni c. Ville de Montréal (Qué.), 26361, *01 21.5.98                                577(98)                    826(98)

Sauve v. Pokorny (Ont.), 26262, *02 29.1.98                                                  12(98)                      155(98)

Sawicki v. The Queen (Ont.), 26031, *A                                                         1325(97)

Scalera v. Oppenheim (B.C.), 26695, *B                                                        1658(98)

Schafer v. Attorney General of Canada (Ont.), 26246, *01 29.1.98                    15(98)                      162(98)

Seaspan International Ltd. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26868, *A                      1551(98)

Sengmueller v. Wilson (Ont.), 26235, *02 29.1.98                                           8(98)                        157(98)


Senior c. Racicot (Qué.), 26673, *02 29.10.98                                                1557(98)                   1612(98)

Service Employees Union, Local 210 v. Sisters of St. Joseph of the Diocese

   of London in Ontario (Ont.), 26233, *02 19.2.98                                           151(98)                    287(98)

Sewell v. Hnatyshyn (Ont.), 26536, *02 17.9.98                                               1238(98)                   1302(98)

Shanoha v. Motorways (1980) Ltd. (Man.), 26763, *A                                       1213(98)

Sheikholeslami v. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26608, *02

   1.10.98                                                                                                    1250(98)                   1399(98)

Shell Canada Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Alta.), 26596, *03 8.10.98                 1354(98)                   1472(98)

Shewfelt v. The Queen in right of Canada (B.C.), 26606, *02 24.9.98                773(98)                    1305(98)

Shoshana v. Townsgate 1 Ltd. (Ont.), 26412, *02 30.4.98                                572(98)                    706(98)

Shynuk v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 25758, *01 12.2.98                                  952(97)                    223(98)

Silbernagel v. Canadian Stevedoring Co. (B.C.), 26291, *02 19.2.98                 146(98)                    280(98)

Sillipp v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26409, *01 14.5.98                                    574(98)                    783(98)

Silverside Computer Systems Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue (F.C.A.)

   (Ont.), 26507, *02 18.6.98                                                                         927(98)                    1022(98)

Sim v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26548, *02 11.6.98                                      819(98)                    1014(98)

Simanek v. Train (Ont.), 26248, *A                                                                1867(97)

Sinclair v. Law Society of Manitoba (Man.), 26743, *A                                     1211(98)

Singh v. Kovach (B.C.), 25784, *B                                                                 1507(98)

Sivakumar v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26530, *01 17.9.98                            1235(98)                   1290(98)

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

Société nationale immobilière Sonatim Inc. c. Société de développement de l’Île

   Bizard Inc. (Qué.), 26713, *05 19.8.98                                                        1209(98)                   1271(98)

Somra v. 432080 Ontario Ltd. (Ont.), 26667, *A                                              1208(98)

Sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec c. Béton St-Pierre Inc. (Qué.), 26520, *01

   8.10.98                                                                                                    1380(98)                   1470(98)

Sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec c. Richter et Associés Inc. (Qué.), 26666,

   *A                                                                                                           920(98)

Sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec c. St-Pierre (Qué.), 26524, *01 8.10.98    1380(98)                   1471(98)

Spence c. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse

   (Qué.), 26823, *A                                                                                      1348(98)

Spencer v. King (N.B.), 26496, *02 1.10.98                                                    1357(98)                   1395(98)

Sreih c. La Reine (Qué.), 26762, *A                                                               1350(98)

Standard Life Compagnie dassurance c. Cyr (Qué.), 26237, *01 19.3.98          380(98)                    468(98)

Stark v.The Queen (B.C.), 26792, *A                                                             1343(98)

Stenzler v. Ontario College of Pharmacists (Ont.), 26820, *A                           1347(98)

Stuart v. Ernst & Young (B.C.), 25964, *B                                                      659(98)

Sullivan c. Camp Carowanis Inc. (Qué.), 26771, *A                                         1214(98)

Summerbell v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26630, *01 17.9.98                            1219(98)                   1286(98)

Sutherland v. The Queen in right of Canada (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26056, *B              1967(97)

Swicheniuk v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 26649, *01 10.9.98                          1221(98)                   1282(98)

Sykes v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26736, *B                                                 1599(98)

Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, section locale 60 c. Ville

   dEdmundston (N.-B.), 26414, *01 30.4.98                                                  527(98)                    705(98)

Syndicat des travailleurs(euses) des épiciers unis Métro-Richelieu (CSN) c. E.

   Chèvrefils & Fils Inc. (Qué.), 26230, *02 12.3.98                                          336(98)                    421(98)

Szondy c. Racicot (Qué.), 26675, *02 29.10.98                                               1558(98)                   1613(98)

T.B.K. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26581, *01 9.7.98                                     648(98)                    1085(98)

T.G. v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 26550, *01 13.8.98                                      1151(98)                   1179(98)

Taggart v. Brancato Construction Ltd. (Ont.), 26532, *02 17.9.98                     1234(98)                   1301(98)


Takacs v. Gallo (B.C.), 26657, *02 22.10.98                                                  1379(98)                   1562(98)

Taylor v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 25726, *01 17.9.98                                    1155(98)                   1295(98)

Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc. c. American Business Information, Inc.

   (F.C.A.)(Que.), 26403, *02 21.5.98                                                             656(98)                    828(98)

Terceira v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26546, *03 8.10.98                                 1150(98)                   1461(98)

Terrasse Jewellers Inc. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Qué.), 26598, *A                      691(98)

Têtu c. Bouchard (Qué.), 26892, *A                                                               1597(98)

Thawani v. Sarmiento (Man.), 26711, *01 15.10.98                                          1374(98)                   1521(98)

Théroux c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26292, *01 5.3.98                                      184(98)                    388(98)

Thibault c. Collège des médecins du Québec (Qué.), 26576, *02 17.9.98          1224(98)                   1287(98)

Thibodeau c. Ville de Sept-Îles (Qué.), 26391, *02 21.5.98                              571(98)                    824(98)

Thornhill Aggregates Ltd. v. Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge (B.C.),

   26818, *A                                                                                                 1347(98)

Titan Fishing Ltd. v. The Queen in right of Canada (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26484, *02

   20.8.98                                                                                                    1134(98)                   1194(98)

Town of Port McNeill v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26628, *01 17.9.98               1149(98)                   1294(98)

Tremblay (Greggory) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 26549, *01 10.9.98             1216(98)                   1280(98)

Tremblay (Sonia) c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.), 26883, *A                 1657(98)

Tremblay (Sonia) c. Ville de Québec (Crim.)(Qué.), 26439, *01 21.5.98             696(98)                    829(98)

Tremblay & Compagnie Syndics et Gestionnaires Ltée c. Sous-ministre du

   Revenu du Québec (Qué.), 26272, *03 7.5.98                                              452(98)                    756(98)

Trengrove Developments Inc. (94-2663(GST)G) v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.),

   26793, *A                                                                                                 1343(98)

Trudel c. Sûreté du Québec (Qué.), 26544, *02 13.8.98                                   1153(98)                   1186(98)

Trust prêt et revenu, Daishowa inc. c. Commission de la santé et de la sécurité

   du travail (Qué.), 26597, *02 17.9.98                                                           1241(98)                   1293(98)

Tsawwassen Indian Band v. Corporation of Delta (B.C.), 26273, *02 26.2.98     203(98)                    342(98)

Turgeon c. Ville de Plessisville (Qué.), 26341, *02 30.4.98                              455(98)                    703(98)

Turner v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.B.), 26264, *01 19.2.98                                    152(98)                    287(98)

Tyndall v. Local 511, Sheeters, Deckers & Cladders Section of the Sheet Metal

   Workers International Assoc. (Man.), 26519, *A                                         562(98)

Ultramar Canada Inc. c. Richter et Associés Inc. (Qué.), 26658, *A                  859(98)

Union des employés de commerce, local 501, T.U.A.C. c. Arkwright Boston

   Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. (Qué.), 26401, *02 21.5.98                    575(98)                    825(98)

Union of Nova Scotia Indians v. Attorney General of Nova Scotia (N.S.), 26861,

   *A                                                                                                           1550(98)

Unishare Investments Ltd. v. The Queen (Ont.), 26350, *01 19.3.98                 277(98)                    477(98)

United Artists Corporation  v. Pink Panther Beauty Corporation  (F.C.A.)(Ont.),

   26689, *B                                                                                                 1390(98)

United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1518 v. KMart Canada Ltd.

   (B.C.), 26209, *03 12.2.98                                                                         2228(97)                   213(98) United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1288P v.

   Allsco Building Products Ltd. (N.B.), 26203, *03 12.2.98                              2227(97)                   213(98)

University of Saskatchewan v. Firemans Fund Insurance Co. of Canada

   (Sask.), 26370, *02 19.3.98                                                                       340(98)                    473(98)

V.S. c. Y.B. (Qué.), 26475, *01 8.10.98                                                         1244(98)                   1469(98)

Vacation Brokers Inc. v. Patterson (Ont.), 26306, *02 29.1.98                         14(98)                      158(98)

Vancouver Port Corporation v. Seaport Crown Fish Co. (B.C.), 26483, *02

   18.6.98                                                                                                    924(98)                    1019(98)

Varma (Aditya Narayan) v. Canada Post Corporation (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 26487,


   *01 1.10.98                                                                                              1249(98)                   1398(98)

Varma (Aditya Narayan) v. Forsyth (Ont.), 26750, *A                                       1212(98)

Vaughan v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26342, *01 28.5.98                                750(98)                    870(98)

Vidal c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26205, *01 8.1.98                                          2178(97)                   19(98)

Ville de Boisbriand c. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la

   jeunesse (Qué.), 26583, *03 8.10.98                                                           1231(98)                   1468(98)

Ville de Chambly c. Gagnon (Qué.), 26195, *03 19.3.98                                  187(98)                    466(98)

Ville de Montréal c. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la

   jeunesse (Qué.), 26583, *03 8.10.98                                                           1231(98)                   1468(98)

Ville de Saint-Hubert c. Blanchet (Qué.), 26872, *A                                        1551(98)

Ville de Saint-Hubert c. S.S.Q. Société dassurance générale (Qué.), 26738, *A                               1211(98)

Ville de Saint-Laurent c. 150460 Canada Inc. (Qué.), 26821, *A                       1347(98)

Villeneuve c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.), 26499, *02 11.6.98              864(98)                    1012(98)

Vlad v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26509, *01 11.6.98                                      814(98)                    1007(98)

Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.)(Y.T.),

   26808, *A                                                                                                 1345(98)

W.A. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 26398, *B                                                923(98)

W.C.W. v. The Queen (B.C.), 26770, *A                                                        1214(98)

W.R. Scott Equipment Ltd. v. Guardian Insurance Company of Canada (Alta.),

   26556, *02 17.9.98                                                                                    1240(98)                   1284(98)

W.W.H. v. The Queen (Crim.)(P.E.I.), 26464, *01 11.6.98                               813(98)                    1007(98)

Walcott v. The Queen in right of Ontario (Ont.), 26567, *02 3.9.98                   1228(98)                   1278(98)

Wallach v. Blue Ridge Lumber (1981) Ltd. (Alta.), 26693, *B                           1661(98)

Wal-Mart Canada Inc. v. United Steelworkers of America (Ont.), 26355, *02

   7.5.98                                                                                                      412(98)                    755(98)

Warren v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.W.T.), 26216, *01 14.5.98                               650(98)                    784(98)

Washington v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26366, *01 4.6.98                              745(98)                    933(98)

Weidenfeld v. Hashey (Ont.), 26629, *02 8.10.98                                            1369(98)                   1475(98)

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

Wells v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26642, *B                                                 1377(98)

Westbank First Nation v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (B.C.),

   26450, *03 18.6.98                                                                                    924(98)                    1020(98)

Western Surety Co. v. Sobeys Inc. (N.B.), 26470, *02 18.6.98                         927(98)                    1022(98)

White v. Cugliari (Ont.), 26722, *A                                                                 1127(98)

Wiemer v. Minister of Human Resources Development (F.C.A.)(Man.), 26748,

   *B                                                                                                           1603(98)

Wild v. The Queen (B.C.), 26384, *A                                                             4(98)

Wilder v. Wolch (Man.), 26375, *02 2.4.98                                                     456(98)                    588(98)

Will-Kare Paving & Contracting Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(N.S.), 26601, *03

   8.10.98                                                                                                    1355(98)                   1473(98)

Wong v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Sask.), 26465, *02 11.6.98                                 819(98)                    1014(98)

Woodward v. Stelco Inc. (Ont.), 26865, *A                                                     1551(98)

Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia v. Kovach (B.C.), 25784, *B                              1506(98)

Wust v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26732, *B                                                  1599(98)

Wyeth-Ayerst Canada Inc. c. Deghenghi (Qué.), 26739, *A                              1211(98)

Yaari v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26690, *01 22.10.98                                    1385(98)                   1563(98)

Yake v. Law Society of Alberta (Alta.), 26360, *01 7.5.98                                652(98)                    760(98)

Yorke v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 26508, *01 11.6.98                                    862(98)                    1010(98)

Young v. The Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.), 26542, *01 18.6.98                                    925(98)                    1021(98)

Yuen v. The Queen in right of Ontario (Ont.), 26231, *02 8.1.98                       2181(97)                   22(98)


Zaretski v. Workers Compensation Board (Sask.), 26727, *B                         1508(98)

Zink c. Graybec Immobilier Inc. (Qué.), 26314, *03 19.3.98                             383(98)                    470(98)

Zündel v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 26417, *02

   30.4.98                                                                                                    653(98)                    707(98)


 CUMULATIVE INDEX ‑ APPEALS                                   INDEX CUMULATIF ‑ POURVOIS

 

 

This index includes appeals standing for judgment at the beginning of 1998 and all appeals heard in 1998 up to now.

 

Cet index comprend les pourvois en délibéré au début de 1998 et tous ceux entendus en 1998 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

 

 

Abdallah v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26028, *01 29.5.98                                                  963(98)                             963(98)

Adrien v. Zittrer, Biblin and Associates Inc. (Ont.), 24711, *03 22.1.98                         1859(97)                           97(98)

Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 25348, *04 9.7.98                                   94(98)                               1094(98)

Apotex Inc. v. Merck Frosst Canada Inc. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 25419, *04 9.7.98                  94(98)                               1093(98)

Arp v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26100                                                                                  1028(98)

Attorney General for Ontario v. M. (Ont.), 25838                                                              489(98)

Attorney General of Canada v. Schreiber (F.C.A.)(Alta.), 26039, *04 Gonthier

   and Iacobucci JJ. dissenting 28.5.98 / les juges Gonthier et Iacobucci sont

   dissidents 28.5.98                                                                                                                 540(98)                             882(98)

BC Gas Utility Ltd. v. Westcoast Energy Inc. (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 25259,

   *02 McLachlin J. dissenting 19.3.98 / le juge McLachlin est dissidente

   19.3.98                                                                                                                                    2037(97)                           492(98)

Batchewana Indian Band v. Corbiere (Ont.), 25708                                                        1545(98)

Bekoe v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 25615, *01 30.1.98                                                       196(98)                             196(98)

Bernier c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26219, *01 26.5.98                                                        880(98)                             880(98)

Bese v. Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute (Crim.)(B.C.), 25855                            1026(98)

Bisson c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 25821, *03 19.2.98                                                         196(98)                             298(98)

Campbell v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 25780                                                                      881(98)                            

Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Pineview Poultry Products Ltd. (N.W.T.),

   25192, *04 McLachlin and Major JJ. dissenting 5.11.98 / les juges

   McLachlin et Major sont dissidents 5.11.98                                                                    490(98)                             1674(98)

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Liberty Net

   (F.C.A.)(Crim.)(Ont.), 25228, the appeal of the decision of the Federal Court

   of Appeal on jurisdiction is allowed with costs, McLachlin and Major JJ.

   dissenting; the second appeal is dismissed with costs 9.4.98 / le pourvoi

   formé à l’encontre de la décision rendue par la Cour d’appel fédérale

   relativement à la compétence est accueilli avec dépens, les juges McLachlin

   et Major sont dissidents; le deuxième pourvoi est rejeté avec dépens 9.4.98            2196(97)                           611(98)

Canderel Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24663, *04 12.2.98                                       2161(97)                           233(98)

Caslake v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 25023, *01 22.1.98                                                  2036(97)                           97(98)

Charemski v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26033, *01 26.2.98                                               356(98)                             405(98)

Children’s Foundation v. Bazley (B.C.), 26013                                                                 1542(98)

Chippewas of Kettle v. Attorney General of Canada (Ont.),

   25795, *02 19.5.98                                                                                                                 839(98)                             839(98)


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

   25617, *04 23.2.98                                                                                                                 354(98)                             354(98)

Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd. v. The Queen (Ont.), 25326, *01 30.4.98                174(98)                             718(98)

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

   Sarnia (Ont.), 25604,*02 hearing and judgment 16.3.98; reasons delivered

   22.10.98 / audition et jugement 16.3.98; motifs déposés 22.10.98                                 488(98)                             1582(98)

Continental Bank Leasing Corporation v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 25532,

   *04 L’Heureux-Dubé and Bastarache JJ. dissenting 3.9.98 / les juges

    L’Heureux-Dubé et Bastarache sont dissidents 3.9.98                                                  171(98)                             1309(98)

Cook v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 25852, *04 3.9.98, the appeal is allowed,

   the judgments of the British Columbia Court of Appeal and of the British

   Columbia Supreme Court is set aside, and a new trial is ordered,

   L’Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin JJ. dissenting 1.10.98 / le pourvoi est

   accueilli, les jugements de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie-Britannique et

   de la Cour suprême de la Colombie-Britannique sont annulés et un nouveau

   procès est ordonné, les juges L’Heureux-Dubé et McLachlin sont dissidentes

   1.10.98                                                                                                                                    1027(98)                           1406(98)

Côté v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 25854, *01 9.7.98                                                            544(98)                             1093(98)

D.D.W. v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 25970, *01 15.10.98                                                     1579(98)                           1579(98)

Daigle c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 26168, *01 26.6.98                                                         1058(98)                           1058(98)

Dancorp Developments Ltd. v. Metropolitan Trust Co. of Canada (B.C.),

   25355, *02 30.10.98                                                                                                               540(98)                             1628(98)

Delisle c. Attorney General of Canada (Qué.), 25926                                                      1544(98)

Dixon v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 25834, *01 19.2.98                                                        2194(97)                           297(98)

Dowling v. City of Halifax (N.S.), 25493, *04 20.1.98                                                        93(98)                               169(98)

Duha Printers (Western) Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Man.), 25513, *04

   28.5.98                                                                                                                                    488(98)                             882(98)

Éditions Vice-Versa Inc. c. Aubry (Qué.), 25579, *02 le juge en chef Lamer

   et le juge Major sont dissidents 9.4.98 / Lamer C.J. and Major J. dissenting

   9.4.98                                                                                                                                      2195(97)                           610(98)

Eurig v. Registrar of the Ontario Court (General Division) (Ont.), 25866, *04

   Gonthier and Bastarache JJ. dissenting 22.10.98 / les juges Gonthier et

   Bastarache sont dissidents 22.10.98                                                                                 715(98)                             1581(98)

FBI Foods Ltd. v. Cadbury Schweppes Inc. (B.C.), 25778                                                716(98)

Fontaine v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (B.C.), 25381, *02

   hearing and judgment 14.11.97; reasons delivered 19.3.98 / audition et

   jugement 14.11.97; motifs déposés 19.3.98                                                                       2063(97)                           493(98)

Garland v. Consumers’ Gas Co. (Ont.), 25644, *04 Bastarache J. dissenting

   30.10.98 / le juge Bastarache est dissident 30.10.98                                                        541(98)                             1629(98)

Gauthier c. Corporation municipale de la ville de Lac Brôme (Qué.), 25022,

   *04 le Juge en chef et le juge McLachlin sont dissidents 9.7.98 / the Chief

   Justice and McLachlin J. are dissenting 9.7.98                                                                2162(97)                           1093(98)

Gellvear v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 25973, *01 23.6.98                                                  1057(98)                           1057(98)

Grail v. Ordon (Ont.), 25702                                                                                                  1055(98)

Hall c. Sous-ministre du revenu du Québec (Qué.), 25369, *04 hearing and

   judgment 3.12.97; reasons delivered 12.2.98 / audition et jugement 3.12.97;

   motifs déposés 12.2.98                                                                                                        2162(97)                           234(98)

Hodgson v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 25561, *01 24.9.98                                                  541(98)                             1310(98)

Hogarth v. Hall (Ont.), 25702                                                                                                1055(98)

Horne v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 25240, *01 23.1.98                                                      169(98)                             169(98)

Ikea Ltd. v. The Queen (B.C.), 25674, *02 12.2.98                                                               2161(97)                           234(98)


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

   Province of Manitoba (Man.), 24846                                                                                92(98)

Jussila v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 25888, *01 29.4.98                                                     768(98)                             768(98) Lauda v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26444, *01 16.10.98                                                                                          1580(98)                           1580(98)

Law v. Minister of Human Resources Development (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 25374                    93(98)

Lepage v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26320                                                                           1026(98)

Lucas v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 25177, *01 McLachlin and Major

   JJ. dissenting 2.4.98 / les juges McLachlin et Major sont dissidents 2.4.98               1859(97)                           609(98)

M.R.M. v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 26042                                                                           1057(98)

MacAlpine v. Corporation of the City of Sarnia (Ont.), 25604, *02 hearing and

   judgment 16.3.98; reasons delivered 22.10.98 / audition et jugement 16.3.98;

   motifs déposés 22.10.98                                                                                                      488(98)                             1582(98) Malott v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 25613, *01 12.2.98                                                                                            1857(97)                           233(98)

Maracle v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 26034, *01 23.1.98                                                   170(98)                             170(98)

McQuaid v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 25833, *01 19.2.98                                                  2194(97)                           297(98)

Ménard v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 25707, *01 9.7.98                                                      543(98)                             1093(98)

Minister of finance for the Province of New Brunswick v. Union of New

   Brunswick Indians (N.B.), 25427, *03 Gonthier and Binnie JJ. dissenting

   18.6.98 / les juges Gonthier et Binnie sont dissidents 18.6.98                                       543(98)                             1029(98)

Minister of Health and Community Services v. M.L. (N.B.), 26321, *03

   23.6.98                                                                                                                                    1056(98)                           1056(98)

Mullins-Johnson v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 25860, *01 26.5.98                                    962(98)                             962(98)

Neuman v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Man.), 25565, *04 21.5.98                                                173(98)                             841(98)

Nijjar v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 25987, *01 27.2.98                                                         406(98)                      &nbs