Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

January 30, 1998  144 - 178                                                               le 30 janvier 1998

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Gerald Michael Vaughan

Dana L. Venner

Min. of the A.G.

v. (26342)

Her Majesty The Queen as represented by the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board (Ont.)

Richard D. Schneider

Ontario Review Board

FILING DATE 19.12.1997

Warren J.M. Yake

Timothy S.B. Danson

Danson Recht & Freedman

v. (26360)

The Law Society of Alberta (Alta.)

Lindsay MacDonald

FILING DATE 7.1.1998

Madison Developments Ltd. et al.

David T. Stockwood, Q.C.

Stockwood, Spies & Campbell

v. (26397)

Plan Electric Co. et al. (Ont.)

Harvey Poss, Q.C.

Poss & Halfnight

FILING DATE 22.12.1997

Donald Eddé

Ronald Picard

Trudel, Nadeau, Lesage, Larivière & Assoc.

c. (26399)

Sa Majesté La Reine (Qué.)

Marc Édouard Grimard

Subs. procureur général

DATE DE PRODUCTION 23.12.1997

Union des employés de commerce, local 501, T.U.A.C.

Robert Laurin

Laurin, Laplante

c. (26401)

Arkwright Boston Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. (Qué.)

Michael H. Kay

Kugler Kandestin

DATE DE PRODUCTION 30.12.1997

John Thomas Malmberg et al.

P.E. James Prentice, Q.C.

Rooney Prentice

v. (26402)

Municipal District of Cardston No. 6 (Alta.)

T.D. Marriott

Brownlee Fryett

FILING DATE 19.12.1997

Marcel Couture

Lawrence J. Zatlyn, Q.C.

Zatlyn & Holash Law Office

v. (26419)

Daniel Lamontagne (Sask.)

R.A. Gibbons

Wilhelm Migneault Gibbons Greenwood

FILING DATE 15.1.1998

Vlado Maljkovich

Vlado Maljkovich

v. (26420)

John Maljkovich (Ont.)

Ronald P. Bohm

Stong Blackburn Machon Bohm

FILING DATE 29.12.1997

John Brigis

John Brigis

v. (26427)

The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority (Ont.)

Gina M. Scarcella

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 29.12.1997

Malcolm Keith MacNeil

Bill Graham

v. (26435)

Deborah Elizabeth MacNeil (B.C.)

Robert Ross

FILING DATE 6.1.1998

Kornelis Klevering

Kornelis Klevering

v. (26436)

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

Anne-Marie Waters

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 7.1.1998

Beata Michalski

Wayne M. Oncbulenko

Levene, Levine, Tadman

v. (26432)

Graydon Olson et al. (Man.)

Dana Nelko

Fillmore & Riley

FILING DATE 5.1.1998

Canadian Standards Association

William M. Holburn, Q.C.

Alexander, Holburn, Beaudin & Lang

v. (26433)

Jim Campbell et al. (B.C.)

Patrick G. Guy

Acheson & Co.

FILING DATE 6.1.1998

JANUARY 23, 1998 / LE 23 JANVIER 1998

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

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Cory et McLachlin

                                                                                              Steven Olah

                                                                                                v. (26280)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Insanity - Not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder - Whether the trial judge erred in his charge to the jury on insanity - Whether the trial judge erred in limiting the notion of wrong in the context of s. 16(1) to wrong according to the moral standards of society - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that insanity includes being deprived of the capacity for rational perception and rational choice about the rightness or wrongness of an act - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that impulse was part of the insanity issue - Whether the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that they could return a verdict of first degree murder based on the murder occurring in the course of a kidnapping or forcible confinement - Whether the Applicant’s s. 15 Charter rights were violated because his co-accused who was a young offender received a lighter sentence than he did.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                             Jonathan Trelawny Silbernagel

                                                                                                v. (26291)

                                                       Canadian Stevedoring Co Ltd, Alexander James Ritchie

                                                             and Attorney General for British Columbia (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Judgments and orders - Appeal - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  -  Right to a trial by jury - Whether the Court of Appeal could be seen to be disinterested in the striking out of Rule 18A of the  British Columbia Rules of Court - Whether Rule 18A is contrary to sections 7  and 15  of the Charter .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                      Dr. Ismail Abrahams

                                                                                                v. (26224)

                                                                                   Holly Elaine Scott (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Battery - Damages - Intentional torts - Negligence - Physicians and Surgeons - Whether a trial judge can conclude that a physician is liable in battery without first finding the facts, that is, without deciding what it was that the physician, in fact, did - Whether an appellate court should order a new trial if it finds that a trial judge has misconstrued the evidence on an important point and that this error contributed to the trial judge’s ultimate conclusion.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

April 19, 1995

Supreme Court of British Columbia (Curtis J.)

Respondent’s action for damages allowed

July 29, 1997

Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Rowles, Prowse JJ.A., Southin J.A. (dissenting in part))

Applicant’s appeal and Respondent’s cross-appeal dismissed

September 26, 1997

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

                                              Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission

                                                                                                v. (26286)

                                                                                     Russel Pearson (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional Law - Division of Powers - Procedural Law - Pre-trial Procedure - Forum Conveniens - Dismissal of motion to strike out notice of motion seeking declaratory relief - Whether Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench or the Federal Court of Canada has jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality under the Charter of a policy made by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission - Whether the Federal Court of Canada has jurisdiction to consider the constitutional authority of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission to license or regulate a particular broadcasting undertaking - Whether the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench rather than the Federal Court of Canada was the forum conveniens to determine the legality under the Charter of a broadcasting policy made by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache

                                                                                                      L.C.

                                                                                                v. (26358)

                                                               Brian Joseph Mills and Her Majesty the Queen

- and between -

Her Majesty the Queen

- and -

Brian Joseph Mills and L.C. (Crim.)(Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Right to a fair trial - Right to make full answer and defence - Right to privacy - When determining whether there has been a breach of the rights of the accused to a fair trial and to make full answer and defence pursuant to ss. 7  and 11(d)  of the Charter , what is the required approach to recognizing and accommodating all of the Charter  rights impacted by Bill C-46, specifically (a) the right to privacy protected by both ss. 7  and 8  of the Charter  and (b) the right to equality before and under the law pursuant to ss. 15  and 28  of the Charter  including the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of gender or physical and mental disability - If all of the Charter  rights impacted by Bill C-46 are recognized and accommodated does Bill C-46 infringe the rights of an accused pursuant to ss. 7  or 11(d)  of the Charter  - In what circumstances is s. 1 available to justify a breach of the rights of an accused under s. 7  of the Charter  - If Bill C-46 is held to breach the ss. 7 or 11(d) rights of an accused, is the legislation saved by s. 1  of the Charter .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                Fédération des médecins résidents du Québec

                                                                                                c. (26163)

                                                                                     Université de Montréal

-et-

Fédération des médecins résidents du Québec

c.

Université de McGill

-et-

Fédération des médecins résidents du Québec

c.

Université de Laval

-et-

Fédération des médecins résidents du Québec

c.

Université de Sherbrooke (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Collèges et universités - Contrats - Politique de tarification - Résident en médecine - Frais de scolarité - Droits acquis - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle adéquatement appliqué la notion de “contrat d’adhésion” définie à l’art. 1379 du Code civil du Québec, L.Q. 1991, ch. 64? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle adéquatement appliqué la notion de “clause abusive” d’un contrat d’adhésion que l’on trouve à l’art. 1437 C.c.Q.? - Subsidiairement, la Cour d’appel a-t-elle adéquatement appliqué la notion de droits acquis contractuels?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 6 juin 1994

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

Requêtes en jugement déclaratoire de la demanderesse accueillies en partie

Le 2 juin 1997

Cour d’appel du Québec

(LeBel, Delisle et Zerbisias [ad hoc] jj.c.a.)

Pourvois des intimées accueillis

Le 29 août 1997

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

                                                                                         J. Sidney Bradley

                                                                                                v. (26308)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Reasonable expectation of profit - Business or hobby - Whether this decision is inconsistent with the principles set out in Moldowan v. The Queen [1978] 1 S.C.R. 480 - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision that the Applicant’s farming business had no reasonable expectation of profit.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                         Service Employees Union, local 210

                                                                                                v. (26233)

                                                  The Sisters of St-Joseph of the Diocese of London in Ontario,

                                                                    operating St-Joseph’s Hospital, Chatham

                                                                                                      and

                                         R.H. McLaren, R.E. Burnell, Q.C., R.W. Stewart and J. Sasseville (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Arbitration - Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that a board of arbitration must defer to the decisions of management and may not interpret the provisions of a collective agreement as a whole so as to require management to act reasonably in exercising its rights under the collective agreement, by basing its decisions on relevant and cogent considerations? - Did the Court of Appeal err in failing to apply the relevant principles of judicial review, by failing entirely to consider whether the job posting provisions of the collective agreement constituted an express provision which limited management’s right to post the position outside the bargaining unit?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM: Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache JJ. /

Les juges Iacobucci, Major et Bastarache

                                                                                       Steven Allen Turner

                                                                                                v. (26264)

                                                                                    Her Majesty the Queen

and between

Lorelei Ann Turner

v.

Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(N.B.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Offences - Manslaughter - Unlawful act manslaughter - Failure to provide the necessaries of life - Whether failure to provide the necessaries of life can be a predicate offence to unlawful act manslaughter - Whether the requirement that an accused prove the presence of a lawful excuse violates s. 11(d)  of the Charter  - Whether the Crown proved the essential elements of the offence - Whether the Court of Appeal put an onus on the Applicant to call evidence of her incapacity .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                        The City of Calgary

                                                                                                v. (26293)

                                                        Elizabeth Jean Costello and Mary Ann Dickhoff (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Trespass - Damages - Municipal law - Expropriation - Interest - Whether an expropriation declared void gives rise to damages for trespass - Appropriate measure of damages - Whether initiating proceedings to recover property is sufficient mitigation - Loss of opportunity - Awarding of compound interest.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                              Mary Lawlor

                                                                                                v. (26212)

                    M.J. Oppenheim, C.A., Attorney in fact in Canada for Lloyd’s Non-Marine Underwriters (Nfld.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Insurance - Motor vehicles - Agency - mandate - 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.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                                Mary Fritz

                                                                                                v. (26349)

                                                        Pimm Investments Limited and Metske Veenstra (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Real property - Landlord tenant - Remedies - Could the Respondents maintain an action for contractual damages notwithstanding the fact that they had an order for possession, an order determining and expunging the Agreement for Sale of Land, merged the lands with a fourth apartment unit and sold all the units to a third party?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -- REHEARING

DEMANDE DE RÉEXAMEN -- NOUVELLE AUDITION

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

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Cory et McLachlin

Edward Lian-Seng Wen v. Canadian Airlines International Ltd. et al. (B.C.)(25653).

JANUARY 29, 1998 / LE 29 JANVIER 1998

26262                    MARY SAUVE - v. - IVAN J. POKORNY (Ont.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Cory and McLachlin JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Civil procedure - Trial - Evidence - Torts - Civil jury trial - Fresh Evidence - When should the Court replace a juror who has been discharged from a civil jury trial - Burden of proving informed consent for elective surgery - Causation - Admission of fresh evidence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26239                    JOZEF GROCHOCKI v. SOCILITOR GENERAL OF CANADA (F.C.A.)(Man.)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Jurisdiction - Whether the Court of Appeal correctly determined that it had no jurisdiction to grant an extension of time in which to appeal from a decision of the Federal Court (Trial Division).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26301                    CLAUDE DESLAURIERS c. L’ORDRE DES ARPENTEURS-GÉOMÈTRES DU QUÉBEC, ROCH LABELLE, ÈS QUALITÉS DE SYNDIC, JEAN-CHARLES LEGAULT, ÈS QUALITÉS DE SYNDIC-ADJOINT ET YVON CHABOT, ÈS QUALITÉS DE SECRÉTAIRE-GÉNÉRAL DE L’O.A.G.Q. et LE COMITÉ DE DISCIPLINE DE L’ORDRE DES ARPENTEURS-GÉOMÈTRES DU QUÉBEC, L’OFFICE DES PROFESSIONS DU QUÉBEC, LE TRIBUNAL DES PROFESSIONS DU QUÉBEC ET LE PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL DU QUÉBEC  (Qué.)

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

La requête en sursis d’exécution et la demande d’autorisation d’appel sont rejetées avec dépens.

The motion for a stay of execution and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Procédure civile - Appel - Compétence - Accès aux tribunaux - Ordonnance de la Cour supérieure obligeant le demandeur à obtenir l’autorisation préalable d’un juge avant d’intenter de nouvelles procédures contre les intimés - Le juge de première instance pouvait-il restreindre le droit du demandeur de recourir aux tribunaux? - Est-ce que trois juges de la Cour d’appel du Québec ont compétence pour réviser le jugement d’un juge unique de la même Cour refusant au demandeur la permission d’en appeler?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

26134                    INTERCREDIT ESTABLISHMENT VADUZ c. VILLE DE PINCOURT ET LE PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL DU QUÉBEC  (Qué.)

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

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit municipal - Droit fiscal - Taxes foncières basées sur la superficie des immeubles - Validité - Lorsqu’un règlement municipal impose une taxe foncière spéciale pour défrayer le coût de travaux d’infrastructures à deux secteurs distincts de propriétaires, soit ceux qui retirent des travaux un bénéfice éventuel et à long terme et ceux qui en retirent un bénéfice immédiat, la municipalité doit-elle créer deux bassins de taxation de façon à ce que les propriétaires de chaque secteur ne supportent le fardeau fiscal de ces travaux que dans la proportion du bénéfice qu’ils en retirent? - Les règlements municipaux attaqués en l’espèce sont-ils nuls, abusifs, déraisonnables, injustes, oppressifs et discriminatoires au motif qu’ils violent le principe qu’une taxe foncière spéciale doit être imposée aux bénéficiaires et proportionnellement au bénéfice que ceux-ci en retirent?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

26235                    FREDERICK SENGMUELLER v. HOLDEN DAY WILSON, CHARLES COCHRAN MARK AND THOMAS G. BASTEDO  (Ont.)

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

Procedural Law - Appeal - Quashing appeals - Whether Court of Appeal properly quashed appeal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26306                    VACATION BROKERS INC. v. ALAN HILLS PATTERSON  (Ont.)

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

International law - Procedural law - Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments (U.K.) Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.R-6 and the Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, set out as a Schedule to that act - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario correctly allowed the registration of a United Kingdom order for enforcement in Ontario.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26296                    L.J.H. v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Man.)

CORAM:               Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Full answer and defence - Whether the effect of the judgment of the Court of Appeal is to not allow a trial judge discretion to enter a judicial stay of proceedings when the court is satisfied that the accused cannot make full answer and defence within the meaning of the Criminal Code  and ss. 7  and 11(d)  of the Charter  - Whether the effect of the judgment of the Court of Appeal is to force an accused to have to rely solely on the Crown’s obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in circumstances where the accused does not have the ability to make full answer and defence for himself in his trial.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26130                    THOMAS RICHARD NELSON v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)

CORAM:               Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache JJ.

The application for extension of time and the application to file a lengthy memorandum are granted; the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande visant le dépôt d’un long mémoire est accordée; la demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Defences - Self-defence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the trial judge did not err in failing to direct the jury to assess the Applicant’s defence of self-defence by the standard of a reasonable person with the diminished intelligence of the Applicant.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26242/26243       ROBERT J. McMYNN v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - AND - JOANNE J. McMYNN v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (B.C.)

CORAM:               Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache JJ.

The applications for extension of time are granted; the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

Les demande de prorogation de délai sont accordées; les demandes d’autorisation d’appel sont rejetées.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Statutes - Interpretation - Whether buses owned by the Applicants who, in their personal capacities, are in the business of leasing out buses, come within the statutory definition of “qualified transportation equipment”, so as to qualify for refundable investment tax credits and deductions under section 127  of the Income Tax Act , R.S.C. 1985 (5th Supp.) c. 1  - Meaning of “principal business is passenger, property or passenger and property transport”.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

July 22, 1994

Tax Court of Canada (Rowe J.)

Applicants’ appeals from assessments for the  years 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989 allowed; assessments referred back to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment

May 30, 1997

Federal Court of Appeal

(Marceau, Linden and Robertson JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed; Decision of Tax Court is set aside and the assessments of the Minister of National Revenue for the years 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 is affirmed

June 16, 1997

Tax Court of Canada (Rowe J.)

Amended judgment: Appeal from the assessments is dismissed

October 2, 1997

Supreme Court of Canada

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

26171                    CHARLES D. LIENAUX AND KAREN L. TURNER-LIENAUX v. WESLEY G. CAMPBELL et al. (N.S.)

CORAM:               Iacobucci, Major 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

Procedural law - Civil Procedure - Motion to strike out statement of claim - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no abuse of process.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

25058               HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. DENNIS W. FOSTER (Crim.)(Sask.)

CORAM:           Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache JJ.

The application for this Court to appoint counsel and the application for leave to file an appeal in forma pauperis are dismissed.  The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande à la Cour visant à commettre d’office un avocat et la demande d’autorisation d’appel in forma pauperis sont rejetées.  La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal granted the Applicant leave to appeal to this Court.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26246                    REVA SCHAFER, ELI SCHAFER, A MINOR BY HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN, REVA SCHAFER, LINDA SHUB AND MITCHELL SHUB, A MINOR BY HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN, LINDA SHUB v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA  (Ont.)

CORAM:               Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Civil - Unemployment Insurance Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. U-1, ss. 11(3)(a) and (4)(a) - Whether the distinctions drawn between adoptive and biological families by these sections are contrary to s. 15(1)  of the Charter  - Whether the effect of these sections on adoptive children is contrary to s. 15(1)  of the Charter .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26241                    LONDON SALVAGE & TOWING CO. LTD. v. SUNOCO INC. AND SNC/FW LTD. (Ont.)

CORAM:               Iacobucci, Major 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

Commercial Law - Contracts - Acceptance of bids - Deemed acceptance by failure to promptly reject all or part of an offer to purchase - Whether the Court of Appeal failed to find that deemed acceptance of a bid in its entirety can be based on the absence of a prompt rejection of any part of the bid.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

25840                    ALEXANDER FLINT McLELLAN  - v. -  HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (F.C.A.)(Man.)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and Bastarache JJ.

The application for reconsideration of the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande de réexamen de la demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

14.1.1998

Before / Devant: LE REGISTRAIRE

Requête en dispense d’impression

Edwin Pearson

    c. (24107)

Procureur général du Canada (Qué.)

Motion to dispense with printing

Avec le consentement des parties.

ACCORDÉE / GRANTED

22.1.1998

Before / Devant: GONTHIER J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Minority Advocacy and Rights Council et al.;

Canadian Centre for Philanthropy

IN/DANS:              Vancouver Society of Immigrant & Visible Minority Women

v. (25359)

Minister of National Revenue (B.C.)

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Motion granted as per requests a) and b) provided that the factum be filed by February 2, 1998, and that oral argument not exceed 15 minutes.

23.1.1998

Before / Devant:   GONTHIER J.

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

Bradley Roderick Forrayi

    v. (26343)

Her Majesty The Queen (N.S.)

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

DEFERRED / RÉFÉRÉE    The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is deferred to the panel seized of the application for leave.

26.1.1998

Before / Devant:    THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file an intervener’s factum

Jeffrey Rose

    v. (25448)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to January 15, 1998.

26.1.1998

Before / Devant: GONTHIER J.

Motion for a stay of execution

Edward Charles Richardson

    v. (26313)

Judith Richardson (B.C.)

Requête en vue de surseoir à l'exécution

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

27.1.1998

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file the applicants’ reply

Nancy Brohman et al.

    v. (26367)

Ginus Raymond Jonkman et al. (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer la réplique des requérants

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE     Time extended to January 27, 1998.

28.1.1998

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file an intervener’s factum

Jeffrey Rose

    v. (25448)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

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

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to January 21, 1998.

La requête de l’intervenant, le Procureur général du Québec pour obtenir une ordonnance prorogeant le délai pour produire le mémoire au 21 janvier 1998 est accordée.

28.1.1998

Before / Devant: GONTHIER J.

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

Patricia Carolyn Hickey

    v. (26430)

Walter Donald Hickey (Man.)

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

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to January 19, 1998.

29.12.1997

Her Majesty The Queen

   v. (26404)

Isaac Monney (Ont.)

AS OF RIGHT

14.1.1998

Arthur Robert Winters

     v. (26180)

Legal Services Society (B.C.)

16.1.1998

The Minister of Health and Community Services

    v. (26321)

M.L. and R.L. (N.B.)

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Alberta

IN/DANS:              Dennis David Wilson

v. (25970)

Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)

20.1.1998

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

Robert J. Dowling

    v. (25493)

City of Halifax (N.S.)

Eric K. Slone and Andrew J. Munro, for the appellant.

Mary Ellen Donovan and Joel E. Fichaud, Q.C., for the respondent.

JUSTICE L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ (orally for the Court) -- The Court is ready to render judgment now.  Justice Cory will give the judgment of the Court.

[traduction]

LE JUGE L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ (oralement au nom de la Cour) -- La Cour est prête à rendre jugement séance tenante, lequel sera rendu par le juge Cory.

CORY J. -- The appeal is allowed with costs to the appellant in this Court and in the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

LE JUGE CORY -- Le pourvoi est accueilli avec dépens en faveur de l’appelant devant notre Cour et la Cour d’appel de la Nouvelle-Écosse.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court to determine the reasonable notice which should have been given to the appellant for wrongful dismissal.  We do not accept any argument relating to near cause.

L’arrêt de la Cour d’appel est annulé et l’affaire est renvoyée devant la Cour suprême de la Nouvelle-Écosse pour qu’elle détermine le préavis raisonnable qui aurait dû être donné à l’appelant relativement à son congédiement injustifié.  Nous n’acceptons pas que l’existence de quelque motif insuffisant soit pertinente.

This disposition is without prejudice to the respondent bringing any separate action to address any claims it may have against the appellant apart from reducing the period of reasonable notice owing to the appellant.

La présente décision est sans préjudice à tout recours distinct que l’intimée pourrait exercer au sujet de toute réclamation qu’elle pourrait faire valoir contre l’appelant, sauf quant à la réduction du préavis raisonnable auquel celui-ci a droit.

23.1.1998

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

Damon Gregory Horne

    v. (25240)

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

Damon Gregory Horne, in person.

Paul Moreau, for the respondent.

L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ J. (orally for the Court) -- We are ready to render judgment.

[traduction]

LE JUGE L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ (oralement pour la Cour) -- Nous sommes prêts à rendre jugement.

Mr. Horne, before rendering judgment, the court wishes, as a matter of courtesy, to acknowledge the great effort you obviously went to in preparing and conducting your appeal before us.  You should know that, in our view, no lawyer could have changed the result at which we have arrived.

Mr. Justice Cory will deliver the judgment of the Court.

Monsieur Horne, avant de rendre sa décision, la Cour tient, par courtoisie, à souligner les efforts considérables que vous avez de toute évidence  déployés afin de préparer et de présenter votre pourvoi devant nous. Sachez que, à notre avis, aucun avocat n’aurait pu obtenir un résultat différent de celui que nous avons décidé.

Monsieur le juge Cory va prononcer le jugement de la Cour.

CORY J. -- A clear and correct warning was properly given to the jury with regard to the evidence of Ms. McKenzie.

There was as well a great deal of cogent evidence that corroborated her testimony.

In these circumstances, we agree with the reasons of the majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal that the verdict of the jury was not unreasonable.

This appeal as of right is therefore dismissed.

LE JUGE CORY -- Une mise en garde appropriée,  claire et correcte a été donnée au jury relativement au témoignage de Mme McKenzie.

Il y avait, de plus, une preuve convaincante considérable corroborant son témoignage.

Dans ces circonstances, nous souscrivons aux motifs de la majorité de la Cour d’appel selon lesquels le verdict du jury n’était pas déraisonnable.

Le présent appel de plein droit, est par conséquent, rejeté.

23.1.1998

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

Mark John Maracle

    v. (26034)

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

John R. Mann and Noëlle Caloren, for the appellant.

Alexander Alvaro, for the respondent.

L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ J. (orally for the Court) -- The majority of Cory, McLachlin and Major JJ. would allow the appeal.  In their view, the trial judge carefully considered all the relevant factors referred to by this Court in Askov and Morin and made no error in the manner in which he exercised his discretion, L’Heureux-Dubé and Iacobucci JJ. dissenting for the following reasons.  In their view, the Ontario Court of Appeal was correct in finding error in the trial judge’s dealing with the period of delay and the matter of prejudice to the appellant.  Balancing all of the revelant guidelines from Askov and Morin, the Court of Appeal properly reversed the stay ordered by the trial judge and so they would accordingly dismiss the appeal.

[traduction] LE JUGE L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ (oralement au nom de la Cour) -- Les juges majoritaires Cory, McLachlin et Major sont d’avis d’accueillir l’appel.  Selon eux, le juge du procès a examiné attentivement tous les facteurs pertinents mentionnés par notre Cour dans Askov et Morin et n’a commis aucune erreur dans la façon dont il a exercé son pouvoir discrétionnaire, les juges L’Heureux-Dubé et Iacobucci étant dissidents pour les raisons suivantes.  À leur avis, la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario a eu raison de conclure que le juge du procès a commis une erreur en ce qui a trait à la longueur du délai et au préjudice causé à l’appelant.  Soupesant toutes les lignes directrices pertinentes tirées de Askov et de Morin, la Cour d’appel a, à bon droit, infirmé l’arrêt des procédures ordonné par le juge du procès, et, en conséquence, ils rejetteraient l’appel.

26.1.1998

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

Continental Bank Leasing Corporation

    v. (25532)

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

    and between

Her Majesty The Queen

    v. (25521)

Continental Bank of Canada (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

H. Lorne Morphy and Kent E. Thomson, for the appellant the Continental Bank Leasing Corporation (25532).

Harry Underwood and Ira Nishisato, for the intervener the Canadian Bankers’ Association.

Larry R. Olsson, Q.C. and S. Patricia Lee, for the respondent Her Majesty The Queen (25532).

S. Patricia Lee and Larry R. Olsson, Q.C., for the appellant Her Majesty The Queen (25521).

Kent E. Thomson and H. Lorne Morphy, for the respondent Continental Bank of Canada (25521).

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Taxation - Assessment - Commercial Law - Partnership - A subsidiary of a bank formed a partnership, transferred the assets of its leasing business into the partnership and was wound-up into the bank - The bank purported to sell the partnership interest ‐ The Bank’s motivation was to dispose of the subsidiary’s business - Whether a partnership had been formed - Whether the partnership was void for illegality or ultra vires the bank ‐ Whether the disposition of the partnership interest was an adventure in the nature of trade.

Nature de la cause:

Droit fiscal - Cotisation - Droit commercial - Société - Une filiale d’une banque a formé une société et transféré l’actif de son entreprise de location à la société, puis a elle-même été liquidée et transférée à la banque - La banque a voulu vendre la participation dans la société - La banque voulait disposer de l’entreprise de la filiale - Une société avait-elle été formée? - La société était-elle nulle parce qu’illégale ou ultra vires de la banque? - La disposition de la participation dans la société était-elle une opération commerciale?

27.1.1998

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

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union et al.

    v. (25356)

Canada Safeway Ltd. et al. (Sask.)

    and between

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union et al.

    v. (25366)

Battlefords and District Co-Operative Ltd. (Sask.)

Leila J. Gosselin and Larry W. Kowalchuk, for the appellants (25356 - 25366).

Larry B. LeBlanc, Q.C., for the respondent Canada Safeway.

Dale K. Hallson, for the respondent Battlefords & District Co-Operative.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Labour law - Arbitration - Collective agreement - Interpretation - Judicial review - Standard of review - Part-time employee - Grievance alleged breach of “most available hours clause” of collective agreement - Reduction in scheduled hours of work - “Constructive lay-off” - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the decision of the Board was patently unreasonable.

Nature de la cause:

Droit du travail - Arbitrage - Convention collective - Interprétation - Contrôle judiciaire - Norme du contrôle - Employée à temps partiel - Grief de l’appelante alléguant violation de la clause de la convention collective relative à la «disponibilité optimale des heures de travail»- Réduction du nombre des heures de travail prévues à l’horaire - «Licenciement par interprétation» - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que la décision du conseil était manifestement déraisonnable?

28.1.1998

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

Fayezah Jassim Shalaan

    v. (26029)

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

Patrick J. Duncan, Q.C., for the appellant.

Stephanie A. Cleary, for the respondent.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE (orally) -- This appeal comes to us as of right.  Substantially for the reasons of Jones J.A. of the Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia, we are all of the view that this appeal fails and is therefore dismissed and the Order of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.

[traduction] LE JUGE EN CHEF (oralement) -- Le présent pourvoi est formé de plein droit.  Essentiellement pour les raisons exposées par le juge Jones de la Cour d’appel de la Nouvelle-Écosse, nous sommes tous d’avis que le présent pourvoi échoue et il est donc rejeté, l’ordonnance de la Cour d’appel étant confirmée.

28.1.1998

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

Melville Neuman

    v. (25565)

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

Joe E. Hershfield, Q.C., Ralph D. Neuman and Christopher M. Paterson, for the appellant.

Roger Taylor and Robert Gosman, for the respondent.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Taxation - Statutes - Interpretation - Tax planning - Dividend income from family holding company paid to Appellant’s wife attributed to Appellant under subs. 56(2) of the Income Tax  Act  - Holding company incorporated for tax purposes only and wife having no involvement in business - Whether pre-conditions for application of subs. 56(2) of the Income Tax Act  were met - In applying s. 56(2)  of the Income Tax Act  to a dividend, must there be a quid pro quo contribution by a shareholder who is in receipt of a dividend? - Whether reference can be made to subsequent legislation in determining the parliamentary intent and scope of subsection 56(2)  of the Income Tax Act .

Nature de la cause:

Droit fiscal - Lois - Interprétation - Planification fiscale - Revenu de dividendes d’une société de portefeuille familiale versé à l’épouse de l’appelant attribué à l’appelant en vertu du par. 56(2) de la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu - Société de portefeuille constituée à des fins exclusivement fiscales, l’épouse n’ayant aucune implication dans l’entreprise - Les conditions préalables à l’application du par. 56(2) de la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu ont-elles été remplies? - Pour que le par. 56(2) de la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu s’applique à un dividende, l’actionnaire qui reçoit le dividende doit-il avoir fourni une contribution en contrepartie? - Peut-on se fonder sur une disposition législative subséquente pour déterminer l’intention du législateur et la portée du par. 56(2) de la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu?

29.1.1998

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

Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd. et al.

    v. (25326)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

Edward L. Greenspan, Q.C. and Marie Henein, for the appellants.

Lori Sterling and Jerry Herlihy, for the respondent.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Administrative law - Environmental law - Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 141 - Collateral attack - Whether an administrative order is immune from collateral attack in the context of proceedings for failure to comply with an administrative order - Whether an administrative order ought to be accorded the same deference as a court order - Whether the administrative principle of adequate alternative remedy as a bar to collateral attack should be applicable where a defendant is charged with failing to obey an administrative order.

Nature de la cause:

Droit administratif — Droit de l’environnement — Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1980, ch. 141 — Attaque indirecte — Une ordonnance administrative est-elle à l’abri d’une attaque indirecte dans le contexte de procédures intentées pour omission de se conformer à une ordonnance administrative? — Une ordonnance administrative devrait-elle bénéficier de la même réserve judiciaire que celle accordée à une ordonnance de la cour? — Le principe administratif du recours subsidiaire adéquat comme fin de non-recevoir contre une attaque indirecte devrait-il s’appliquer lorsque le défendeur est accusé de ne pas s’être conformé à une ordonnance administrative?

29.1.1998

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

Her Majesty The Queen

    v. (25670)

Al Klippert Ltd. (Alta.)

Brian A. Crane, Q.C. and J.H. Gescher, for the appellant.

Gary C. Courtney, for the respondent.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Administrative law - Appeal - Jurisdiction - Statutes - Interpretation - S. 81(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. P-9 - Collateral attack on administrative order - Whether an accused charged with the breach of an administrative order under the Planning Act of Alberta may question the validity of the order in quasi criminal proceedings for breach of the order even though no appeal from such order was taken under the Planning Act.

Nature de la cause:

Droit administratif - Appel - Compétence - Lois - Interprétation - Art. 81(1) de la Planning Act, R.S.A. 1980, ch. P-9 - Contestation indirecte d’une ordonnance administrative - Une personne accusée de violation d’une ordonnance administrative en vertu de la  Planning Act de l’Alberta peut-elle contester la validité de l’ordonnance dans une procédure quasi criminelle pour violation de l’ordonnance, même si aucun appel de cette ordonnance n’a été interjeté en vertu de la Planning Act?

AGENDA for the week beginning February 2, 1998.

ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 2 février 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 -