Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

May 8, 1998  744 - 772                                                                         le 8 mai 1998

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Her Majesty The Queen

Beverly A. Brown

A.G. for Ontario

v. (26600)

Donald Alexander Elliott (Ont.)

Gregory Lafontaine

Gregory Lafontaine and Associate

FILING DATE 24.4.1998

Yvan Deblois

Pierre Le Gallais

Joli-Coeur Lacasse Lemieux Simard St-Pierre

c. (26604)

Michel Tremblay (Qué.)

Normand Gosselin

Gosselin, Ouellet, Grondin, Houle

DATE DE PRODUCTION 17.4.1998

MAY 4, 1998 / LE 4 MAI 1998

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

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges McLachlin et Iacobucci

                                              Gordon Wardell Washington, Gordon Thompson and Curtis Davis

                                                                                                v. (26366)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Disclosure - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial judge properly denied the Applicants’ request for disclosure of the notes of police officers who were subaffiants in the affidavit supporting an authorization to intercept private communications - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial judge properly denied the Applicant’s request to cross-examine the affiant and certain of the sub-affiants as part of an application challenging the admissibility of evidence obtained pursuant to authorization to intercept private communications.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

May 31, 1994

Ontario Court (General Division) (Gotlib J.)

Motion for the disclosure allowed in part:  Crown to make disclosure under par. 19(a), (f), (t), (u), (w), (y), (z) and (bb) of affidavit

July 5, 1994

Ontario Court (General Division) (Gotlib J.)

Conviction: Trafficking narcotics: Washington (5 counts), Thompson (2 counts), and Davis (4 counts)

October 10, 1997

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(McMurtry C.J.O., Abella J.A., and Borins J.  [ad hoc])

Appeal dismissed

January 26, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed 

                                                                                    Her Majesty the Queen

                                                                                                v. (26329)

                                                                                      L.F.W. (Crim.)(Nfld.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sentencing - Conditional sentence - Whether the imposition of the conditional sentence option has resulted in a mandatory policy direction from Parliament to the judiciary to adopt a new sentencing approach for all offences carrying sentences of less than two years - Whether the courts have jurisdiction to restrict the application of conditional sentences to certain types of offences in accordance with the primacy of certain principles of sentence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                    Her Majesty the Queen

                                                                                                v. (26339)

                                                                        Thomas Andrew Bunn (Crim.)(Man.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sentencing - Conditional sentence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the conditional sentencing provisions in conflict with other courts of appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider the principles of sentencing in imposing a conditional sentence on the Respondent - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the phrase “endanger the safety of the community”.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                    Her Majesty the Queen

                                                                                                v. (26376)

                                                                      Jeromie Keith D. Proulx (Crim.)(Man.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sentencing - Conditional sentence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the conditional sentencing provisions in conflict with other courts of appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider the fundamental principle and all other principles of sentencing in imposing a conditional sentence on the Respondent - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the phrase “endanger the safety of the community”.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                    Her Majesty the Queen

                                                                                                v. (26377)

                                                                                      R.A.R. (Crim.)(Man.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sentencing - Conditional sentence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the conditional sentencing provisions in conflict with other courts of appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider the fundamental principle and all other principles of sentencing in imposing a conditional sentence on the Respondent - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the phrase “endanger the safety of the community”.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache

                                                                                  Bradley Roderick Forrayi

                                                                                                v. (26343)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Conviction for first degree murder - Decision of legal aid not to fund counsel to represent Applicant on his appeal - Application for the assignment of counsel under s. 684  of the Criminal Code  denied - Appeal from conviction dismissed.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

March 8, 1995

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Tidman J.)

Conviction: life imprisonment for first degree murder

February 13, 1997

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (Hallett J.A.)

Application for the assignment of counsel under s. 684  of the Criminal Code  denied

November 5, 1997

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

(Roscoe, Freeman and Bateman JJ.A.)

Appeal from conviction dismissed

January 23, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada (Gonthier J.)

Motion for an extension of time deferred to panel considering leave application

March 3, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

                                                    Jean-Claude Poulin, Fernand Lamarche et Richard Millette

                                                                                                c. (26407)

                                                    Jean-Guy Gilbert, Des-Neiges Leblanc et Raymond Couture

- et -

Gilles Perron, Me Daniel Rock et Me Jean Dury (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Droit des professions - Police - Comité de déontologie policière du Québec blâmant la conduite des demandeurs lors d’une enquête policière - La Cour d’appel, à la majorité, a-t-elle erré en concluant que les demandeurs n’ont pas réussi à démontrer que la décision du Comité était manifestement déraisonnable? - La décision du Comité signale-t-elle l’acceptation d’un standard trop bas pour l’imposition d’une sanction à un professionnel dans le cadre d’une enquête disciplinaire ou déontologique?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 21 novembre 1997

Cour d’appel du Québec (Beauregard [dissident], Rousseau-Houle et Forget jj.c.a.)

Appel rejeté

Le 15 janvier 1998

Cour suprême du Canada (L’Heureux-Dubé j.)

Requête en prorogation de délai accordée

Le 2 février 1998

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

                                                                                       Jacques Laurendeau

                                                                                                c. (26453)

                                                                                     Université Laval (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Code civil - Responsabilité civile - Dommages-intérêts - Dommages-intérêts exemplaires - Preuve - Action en dommages fondée sur le conflit d’intérêts entre le demandeur et son directeur de thèse de maîtrise rejetée - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en rejetant l’appel du demandeur?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

                                                                                                   KPMG

                                                                                                v. (26356)

                                                                                       Nigel T. Hill (Sask.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

International law - Conflict of laws - Procedural law - Courts - Jurisdiction - Respondent commencing action against Applicant in Saskatchewan for negligent advice concerning off-shore investment - Applicant having offices in both Saskatchewan and off-shore location of Vanuatu - Respondent having lived in Vanuatu at the time the investment was made - Respondent suffering damages as a result of the failure of the investment - Respondent now residing in Saskatchewan - Applicant’s application to strike Respondent’s statement of claim on basis of forum non conveniens dismissed - Whether uncertainty exists regarding application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens as expressed in Amchem Products Inc. v. B.C.(W.C.B.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 897. - Whether Court of Appeal failed to correctly apply the forum non conveniens test - Whether confusion exists in the Courts of Appeal concerning application of the doctrine - Whether risk of forum shopping created.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:   Cory, Major and Binnie JJ. /

Les juges Cory, Major et Binnie

                                                                                   Gerald Michael Vaughan

                                                                                                v. (26342)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Procedural law - Not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder - Review board - Whether the Applicant had a unilateral right to waive the annual review board hearing required by s. 672.81(1)  of the Criminal Code  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeals arising form the application for habeas corpus.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                            Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd.

                                                                                                v. (26415)

                                                                               Can-Dive Services Ltd. (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Contracts - Insurance - Insurance marine - Procedural law - Courts - Stare decisis - Application of Vandepitte v. Preferred Accident Insurance Corporation of New York, [1932] S.C.R. 22 (P.C.) - Whether a provincial appellate court may treat a decision of this Court and the Privy Council as impliedly overruled - Whether there is an exception to the doctrine of privity of contract in respect of third parties mentioned in insurance policies - Whether the extension of insurance benefits to a third party depends upon the subjective intention of the insured - If a third party obtains an inchoate benefit under a contract of which he is not aware, can the benefit be modified by the contracting parties prior to the third party taking any steps to ratify the contract - Whether a waiver of subrogation in an insurance policy prevents an action by the insured itself against a third party?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                        Victor Brian Olson

                                                                                                v. (26442)

                                                                         The Law Society of Manitoba (Man.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Jurisdiction - Evidence - Professional misconduct hearing -  Whether the Court of Appeal should be bound by  fact findings  made by the committee where the reasons for judgment of the committee indicate that it did not follow jurisprudence which requires that, he who asserts must prove and, where wrongful conduct is alleged, the person alleging the wrongful conduct has an onus of establishing same by a standard of proof which must be clear and convincing and which must overcome the presumption of innocence - Where the committee adjudicating the question of professional misconduct are benchers of the Law Society who are responsible for the budget of the Society and who have indicated that they intend to use the power to levy costs against persons convicted of professional misconduct as a source of needed revenue, whether or not a proceeding conducted in such circumstances is contrary to the Charter , in that it deprives a person of his or her right to life, liberty and security of the person, other than in a manner which is consistent with fundamental justice -  Whether or not there is a duty on the Court of Appeal to give greater scrutiny to the decision of the committee and not to bind itself by jurisprudence normally applicable with respect to reviewing and overturning findings of fact made by an independent tribunal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -- REHEARING /

DEMANDE DE RÉEXAMEN -- NOUVELLE AUDITION

CORAM:   Cory, Major and Bastarache JJ. /

Les juges Cory, Major et Bastarache

Ricardo Jose Saca v. York University (Ont.)  26336

May 4, 1998 / le 4 mai 1998

                                                  CORAM: Cory, Major and Binnie JJ. /

Les juges Cory, Major et Binnie

Oral hearing on leave and extension of time to file a notice of appeal /  Audition orale sur autorisation d’appel et prorogation du délai pour produire un avis d’appel.

Bac Dinh Pham et al.

   v. (26459)

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

Kenneth R. Steinberg, for the motion.

S. David Frankel, Q.C., contra.   (Vancouver)

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Search and seizure - Wiretap authorizations - Intercepted communications - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the “confirmation order” under s. 188.1(2)  of the Criminal Code  was not required before the telephone company could assist the police in intercepting the Applicants’ private communications - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that an “assistance order” under s. 487.02  of the Criminal Code  was not required before the telephone company could assist the police in intercepting the Applicants’ private communications.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

May 4, 1998 / le 4 mai 1998

CORAM:   Cory, Major and Binnie JJ.

Les juges Cory, Major et Binnie

Oral hearing on leave and extension of time to file a notice of appeal /  Audition orale sur autorisation d’appel et prorogation du délai pour produire un avis d’appel

David Joseph Golub

    v. (26298)

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

David E. Harris, for the motion.

Scott Hutchison and Alex Alvaro, contra.

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Arrest - Search and seizure - Whether the grounds necessary for arrest under s. 495  of the Criminal Code  are lower than the grounds to justify a search by warrant - What are the spatial limitations upon a search made incident to an arrest - Whether there is an exigent circumstances exception to the Charter  prohibition upon arrest without warrant in a dwelling house - If there is such an exception, whether the standard of possibility is constitutionally permissible - What is the proper interpretation of the warrantless search for firearms provision in s. 103(2)  of the Criminal Code , and did the trial judge err in her interpretation and application of the provision - Does s. 103(2) violate s. 8  of the Charter  - If s. 8 of the Charter  was violated, should the evidence have been excluded.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

MAY 7, 1998 / LE 7 MAI 1998

26399                    D.E. - c. - SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE (Crim.)(Qué.)

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

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Preuve - Divulgation de preuve - Destruction d’éléments matériels de preuve - Est-ce que l’arrêt R. c. Carosella, [1997] 1 R.C.S. 80, s’applique? - Est-ce que la Cour d’appel a confondu la preuve de la dénégation d’un droit constitutionnel avec le fardeau qu’a le prévenu d’établir le type de réparation idoine à son redressement? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en omettant de conclure que l’inaccessibilité à une preuve matérielle pertinente entraînait la dénégation d’un droit constitutionnel? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en omettant de se prononcer sur le droit qu’avait le prévenu à la divulgation d’une preuve pertinente et en manquant de considérer les options disponibles? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en spéculant sur l’ampleur du préjudice qu’a causé à la défense le fait qu’une preuve matérielle ne lui soit pas accessible, vu les délais pré-inculpatoires? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en n’examinant pas le raisonnement du juge de première instance qui semble lier un redressement à la preuve d’une faute commise par la partie adverse? - Est-ce que l’arrêt des procédures est un redressement indiqué lorsque la Cour ne peut se prévaloir d’autres options?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

26355                    WAL-MART CANADA INC. - v. - UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF AMERICA AND THE ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD (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

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Administrative law - Appeal - Certification - Respondent union obtaining large number of signed membership cards to support application for certification - Respondent alleging that Applicant engaging in unfair labour practices in breach of s. 70 of Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O 1995, c.1. Sch. A., thereby undermining certification process by refusing to answer questions of employees concerning the possible closure of store in response to potential union certification - Respondent not achieving required support on subsequent representation vote and applying for automatic certification pursuant to Section 11(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 - Board concluding that Applicant had breached s. 70 and that only appropriate remedy in the circumstances was automatic certification - Application for judicial review dismissed - Leave to appeal to Court of Appeal denied - Whether discretion granted to Board pursuant to s. 11(1) of the Act to certify a trade union as bargaining agent without majority support violates section 2(d)  of the Charter  - Whether such violation justified under section 1  - Whether Divisional Court erred in refusing to address the Charter  arguments under section 11(1) - Whether Board exceeded its jurisdiction under section 11(1) by failing to consider whether any other remedies would have been sufficient to counter the effects of a contravention of the Act.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26272                    DANS L’AFFAIRE DE LA FAILLITE DE: NOLISAIR INTERNATIONAL INC. - RICHTER & ASSOCIÉS INC. c. LE SOUS-MINISTRE DU REVENU DU QUÉBEC - et entre - DANS L’AFFAIRE DE LA FAILLITE: SÉCURITÉ SAGLAC (1992) INC. - TREMBLAY & COMPAGNIE SYNDICS ET GESTIONNAIRES LTÉE c. LE SOUS-MINISTRE DU REVENU DU QUÉBEC et LE PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL DU CANADA AUX DROITS DU MINISTÈRE DU REVENU DU CANADA (Qué.)

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

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Droit fiscal - Faillite - Législation - Interprétation - Fiducie réputée - Retenues à la source - Dette fiscale - Critères d’application d’une fiducie réputée - Article 20 de la Loi sur le ministère du Revenu, L.R.Q., chap. M-31 - Paragraphe 67(3)  de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité , L.R.C. (1985), chap. B-3  - Article 227 de la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu, L.R.C. (1985), chap. I- 3  - Quelles sont les conditions requises pour créer une fiducie légale réputée? - Quelles sont, aux termes du paragraphe 67(3)  de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité  les conditions d’applicabilité, en cas de faillite, d’une fiducie réputée créée par une loi provinciale? - Quelle autorité doit-on accorder à un bulletin d’information ministériel et à des notes explicatives d’un projet de la loi ultérieurement adopté?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Dans l’affaire de la faillite de: Sécurité Saglac (1992) Inc.

Dans l’affaire de la faillite de: Nolisair International Inc.

Le 16 février 1994

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

Requête de l’intimé en appel d’une décision du syndic ayant rejeté une preuve de réclamation rejetée

Le 9 septembre 1997

Cour d’appel du Québec (Fish J.C.A. [dissident],

Deschamps et Chamberland JJ.C.A.)

Appel accueilli

Le 7 novembre 1997

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

26416                    JEAN VICTOR BEAULAC v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN  (Crim.)(B.C.)

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

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Language rights - Whether the courts below applied the appropriate standard in the application of s. 530(4)  of the Criminal Code , which gives a trial judge the discretion to order a trial in the official language spoken by the accused.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

May 12, 1995

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Conviction: first degree murder

October 29, 1997

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Mcfarlane, Southin, Goldie JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

December 29, 1997

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

26394                    THE MINISTER OF FORESTS AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ON BEHALF OF HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  v. MacMILLAN BLOEDEL LIMITED and COUNCIL OF THE HAIDA NATION AND MILES RICHARDSON ON THEIR OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE HAIDA NATION - and between - MacMILLAN BLOEDEL LIMITED v. COUNCIL OF THE HAIDA NATION AND MILES RICHARDSON ON THEIR OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE HAIDA NATION and THE MINISTER OF FORESTS AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ON BEHALF OF HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  (B.C.)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes - Interpretation - Plain meaning rule - Whether the fundamental principle of statutory interpretation is more accurately expressed in the second edition of Driedger’s Construction of Statutes or the third edition of that work.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26430                    PATRICIA CAROLYN HICKEY v. WALTER DONALD HICKEY  (Man.)

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

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family law - Maintenance - Variation of spousal and child support - Ten year old spousal and child support order varied by Chambers Judge due to Respondent’s income and eroding effect of inflation on quantum - Child support doubled to $1,500 per month for one child - Spousal support increased by $300 per month to $1,300 per month - Former wife having upgraded her education but earning income of less than $6,000 per annum - Former husband self-employed, earning in excess of $100,000 per annum - Federal Child Support Guidelines enacted prior to appeal - Court of Appeal refusing to consider Guidelines or changes to Income Tax Act regarding deductibility of child support- Court of Appeal reducing child support to $900 per month and spousal support to $1,000 per month retroactive to date of original award - Whether Court of Appeal erred  in failing to consider new legislation and in reducing support.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

January 15, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

26397                    MADISON DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED ET AL v. PLAN ELECTRIC CO. ET AL (Ont.)

CORAM:               Cory, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Insurance - Contracts - Subcontracts - Whether a builders’ risk policy precludes an insurer from pursuing a subrogated claim against a subcontractor for its negligence or that of its employees by virtue of Commonwealth Construction Co. v. Imperial Oil Ltd., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 317, when the owner and contractor are the only named insureds - Whether the Court of Appeal misinterpreted Commonwealth as it applies to builder’s risk policies - Whether it is appropriate to interpret insurance obligations in a construction subcontract based on policy considerations, notwithstanding the express terms of the insurance policy - Whether the negligent employees of a subcontractor are protected from subrogated claims pursuant to a subcontract despite the fact that they are not parties to this agreement - Whether the Court of Appeal misinterpreted London Drugs Ltd. v. Kuehne and Nagel International Ltd., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 299 when it held that the decision is not restricted to limitation of liability cases and that it has effectively superseded Greenwood Shopping Plaza v. Beattie, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 288 in the context of insurance obligations and rights of subrogation against employees?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26422                    DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION OF ONTARIO v. NESBITT, BURNS INC. ET AL and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO v. NESBITT, BURNS LIMITED ET AL (Ont.)

CORAM:               Cory, Major and Binnie JJ.

The applications for leave to appeal are granted.

Les demandes d'autorisation d'appel sont accordées.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes - Interpretation - Torts - Damages - Contribution and indemnity - Statutory immunity of the Deposit Insurance Corporation of Ontario - Is a claim for contribution and indemnity the same as a claim for damages? - Can a person who is protected by statutory immunity from actions or other proceedings for damages be liable to pay contribution or indemnity to someone who is liable to a plaintiff for those damages? - Is the beneficiary of a statutory immunity clause “unjustly enriched” if a defendant who is found liable to a plaintiff for damages cannot claim over against the beneficiary for contribution or indemnity?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26360                    WARREN J.M. YAKE v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA (Alta.)

CORAM:               Cory, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application to file further material is granted but the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande pour déposer d’autres documents est accordée mais la demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Jurisdiction - Evidence - Professional misconduct hearing - Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to address the threshold question of whether it was permissible for a professional misconduct hearing to take on the appearance and air of a criminal prosecution - Whether Court of Appeal of Alberta erred in not finding that the panel conducting the hearing trenched on the federal criminal power jurisdiction, and therefore rendered the discipline hearing ultra vires - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not considering and applying the appropriate standard of proof where allegations of criminal conduct were being made - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its endorsement, without analysis or evaluation of the Law Society’s erroneous findings of fact - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its failure to consider the issue of the Law Society’s bias against the Applicant - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of "material particular" and whether there had been a dishonest deprivation.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26497                    JONATHAN ASHTON CALVERT v. MARY LOUISE CALVERT BY HER LITIGATION GUARDIAN STEPHEN M. GRANT (Ont.)

CORAM:               Cory, Major and Binnie 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

Family law - Divorce - Interpretation of  the Divorce Act , R.S.C. 1985, c.3 (2nd Supp .) - Living “separate and apart” - Capacity to form intent to divorce - Rights and obligations of incompetent spouses in relation to matters of family law.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27.3.1998 (REVISED / RÉVISÉE)

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Attorney General of Canada

    v. (25944)

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

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

Opposed

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to May 29, 1998.

29.4.1998

Before / Devant:   BINNIE J.

Motion for a stay of execution

M & D Farms Ltd. et al.

    v. (26215)

The Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation (Man.)

Requête en vue de surseoir à l’exécution

Opposed.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

1.  The abridgement of time periods is granted as requested.

2.  Pending the disposition by this Court of the appeal herein or until this Court should otherwise order, the respondent be and it is hereby restrained from taking any further proceedings to sell or otherwise dispose of the land legally described as: the North East Quarter of Section Twenty-seven, in Township Three and Range Thirteen, West of the Principal Meridian, in Manitoba.

3.  The applicants are to have their costs of this motion.

30.4.1998

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Silverside Computer Systems Inc.

    v. (26507)

The Minister of National Revenue et al. (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer la réplique de la requérante

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to April 21, 1998.

4.5.1998

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

Motion to quash

James Puskas

    v. (26373)

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

Requête en annulation

James Lockyer, for the appellant.

Robert Frater (respondent), for the motion.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE reasons to follow; extension of time for leave to appeal granted to 60 days.

4.5.1998

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

Motion to quash

Delbert Ross Chatwell

    v. (26492)

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

Requête en annulation

James Lockyer, for the appellant.

Jennifer Woollcombe (respondent), for the motion.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE reasons to follow;  extension of time for leave to appeal granted to 60 days.

4.5.1998

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

Motion to quash

M.V.

   v. (26527)

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

Requête en annulation

Jean Richer, for the appellant.

Alex Alvaro (respondent), for the motion.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE     extension of time for leave to appeal to end of June granted.

30.4.1998

Before / Devant:   CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER

 Motion to state a constitutional question

Denis Lucien LePage

    v. (26320)

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

Requête pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle

Daniel J. Brodsky and Mara B. Greene, for the motion.

Eric Siebenmorgen, contra.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

1.  Does s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 , infringe the rights and freedoms guaranteed by s. 15(1)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  on the ground that it discriminates against people with a mental disorder or mental disability?

1. L’article   672.54  du Code criminel , L.R.C. (1985), ch.   C-46 , porte-t-il atteinte aux droits et libertés garantis par le par.   15(1)  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libert é s  pour le motif qu’il crée de la discrimination à l’endroit des personnes souffrant de troubles mentaux ou de déficience mentale?

2.  Does s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code , R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46  infringe the rights and freedoms guaranteed by s. 7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  on the ground that it deprives persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder of their right to liberty and security of the person contrary to the principles of fundamental justice?

2. L’article   672.54  du Code criminel , L.R.C. (1985), ch.   C-46 , porte-t-il atteinte aux droits et libertés garantis par l’art.   7  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libert é s  pour le motif que, d’une manière incompatible avec les principes de justice fondamentale, il prive de leur droit à la liberté et à la sécurité de leur personne les personnes faisant l’objet d’un verdict de non-responsabilité criminelle pour cause de troubles mentaux?

3. If the answer to Question 1 or 2 is ‘yes’, is the infringement demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society as a reasonable limit pursuant to s. 1  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

3.  En cas de réponse affirmative à la première ou à la deuxième question, l’atteinte portée constitue‑t‑elle une restriction raisonnable dont la justification peut se démontrer dans le cadre d’une société libre et démocratique, conformément à l’article premier de la Charte canadienne des droits et libert é s ?

4.5.1998

Before / Devant:   CORY J.

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

Her Majesty The Queen

    v. (26376)

Jeromie Keith D. Proulx (Man.)

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

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to December 16, 1997.

5.5.1998

Before / Devant:   CORY J.

Motion for an order reducing the number of copies to be filed

Denis Lucien LePage

    v. (26320)

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

Requête visant le dépôt d'un nombre réduit d'exemplaires

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

Order will go directing the Registrar to accept 10 copies of the 20 volumes of the appellant’s record in support of his appeal.

5.5.1998

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Mavis Baker

    v. (25823)

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire et le dossier de l’intimé

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to August 10, 1998.

5.5.1998

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file a respondent’s record

Gordon Wayne Bese

     v. (25855 - 856 - 751)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le dossier d’un intimé

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to April 21, 1998.

6.5.1998

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Attorney General for Ontario

IN/DANS:              Brian Arp

v. (26100)

Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Factum is limited to 20 pages and oral argument to 15 minutes.

6.5.1998

Before / Devant:   CORY J.

Motion to extend the time for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                A.G. of B.C.

IN/DANS:              W. (D.D.)

v. (25970)

Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai pour la demande d’autorisation d’intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

The time to bring this application to intervene is extended to the 17th of April 1998.

The applicant is granted leave to intervene.   The factum is to be limited to 20 pages and the oral argument is not to exceed 10 minutes.

Neither the factum nor the oral submissions are to repeat those made by the respondent.

The factum is to be completed and filed on or before the 28th day of May 1998.

6.5.1998

Before / Devant:   CORY J.

Hearing of miscellaneous motion

James G. Stuart et al.

    v. (25964)

Ernst & Young (B.C.)

Audience sur autre requête

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

Upon the consent of the parties, an Order will go holding this application for leave to appeal in abeyance for 30 days from the 7 May 1998.

In the absence of further request for a delay by the parties, the application will be dealt with at that time.

29.4.1998

CORAM:               L’Heureux-Dubé, Cory, Iacobucci, Major and Binnie JJ.

William Rodney Jussila

    v. (25888)

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

Rajko Dodic, for the appellant.

Joshua B. Hawkes, for the respondent.

L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ   (orally for the Court) -- We are all of the view that the verdict reached by the trial judge was not unreasonable in all the circumstances of this case.  Accordingly, this appeal as of right is dismissed.

[traduction] LE JUGE L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ  (oralement pour la Cour) -- Nous sommes tous d’avis que le verdict prononcé par le juge du procès n’était pas déraisonnable compte tenu de toutes les circonstances de l’affaire. Par conséquent, le présent appel de plein droit est rejeté.

APRIL 27, 1998 / LE 27 AVRIL 1998

25173                               VELUPPILLAI PUSHPANATHAN - v. - MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION (F.C.A.) (Ont.)

Please not there will not be a rehearing of the appeal Veluppillai Pushpanathan v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (25173).

Veuillez noter qu’il n’y aura pas de nouvelle audition dans l’appel Veluppillai Pushpanathan c. Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration (25173).

AGENDA for the week beginning May 11, 1998.

ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 11mai 1998.

Date of Hearing/                           Case Number and Name/    

Date d'audition                             Numéro et nom de la cause

The Court is not sitting this week

La Cour ne siège pas cette semaine

NOTE: 

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

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

                                                         SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

                                                             CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME

REVISED

- 1997 -

- 1998 -