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.


 

 

 


 

 

June 23, 2000  1156 - 1221 (INDEX)                                                      le 23 juin 2000


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.

 

1156 - 1159

 

 

1160 - 1171

 

 

-

 

-

 

 

1172 - 1188

 

 

-

 

1189 - 1193

 

-

 

 

-

 

 

-

 

 

1194 - 1199

 

 

-

 

 

-

 

-

 

1200

 

-

 

1201 - 1217

 

1218 - 1219

 

-

 

 

-

 

 

1220

 

1221

 

-

 

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


                                                                                                                                                                                                                  


Brian Warsh et al.

David M. McNevin

Wilson, Walker, Hochberg, Slopen, LLP

 

v. (27949)

 

International Freehold Financial Services Ltd. (Ont.)

Inga Andriessen

Andriessen & Associates

 

FILING DATE 1.6.2000

 

 

Ville de Chambly

Daniel Longtin

Lacoste Langevin

 

c. (27924)

 

Line Dicaire et al. (Qué.)

Pierre Sylvestre

Sylvestre Charbonneau Fafard & Associés

 

DATE DE PRODUCTION 19.5.2000

 

 

Nedeljko Stojanovic

Milena Protich

Giffen Lee

 

v. (27929)

 

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.)

Negar Hashemi

A.G. of Canada

 

FILING DATE 23.5.2000

 

 

A.H.

A.H.

 

 

c. (27937)

 

Me Claude Melançon, et al.  (Qué.)

Patricia Timmons

Faribault & Associés

 

DATE DE PRODUCTION 23.5.2000

 

 

Compagnie d’assurance-vie Transamerica du Canada

René Vallerand

Pepin, Letourneau, s.e.n.c.

 

c. (27939)

 

Danielle Goulet (Qué.)

Jean Blaquière

Petit Blaquière Dagenais

 

DATE DE PRODUCTION 26.5.2000

 

 

Huguette Doiron

Huguette Doiron

 

 

c. (27940)

 

Olivier Lipp et al. (Qué.)

Michel Laplante

McCarthy Tétrault

 

DATE DE PRODUCTION 24.5.2000

 

 


B. Frégeau & Fils Inc.

Serge Champoux

Boisvert Champoux, s.e.n.c.

 

c. (27942)

 

Société québécoise d’assainissement des eaux (Qué.)

Sébastien Grammond

Byers Casgrain, s.e.n.c.

 

DATE DE PRODUCTION 31.5.2000

 

 

Monopro Limited

Suzanne Côté

Stikeman Elliott

 

c. (27953)

 

Montreal Trust (Qué.)

Olivier Prat.c.r.

de Grandpré, Chait

 

DATE DE PRODUCTION 2.6.2000

 

 

Benoît Guindon

Benoît Slythe

 

 

c. (27954)

 

Lortie et Martin Limitée, et al. (Qué.)

Alfred Bélisle

Bélisle, Bertrand, Dubé, St-Jean

 

DATE DE PRODUCTION 5.6.2000

 

 

The Minister of Environment Canada

David Sgayias, Q.C.

A.G. of Canada

 

v. (27956)

 

The Information Commissioner of Canada et al. (F.C.A.)

Daniel Brunet

Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

 

FILING DATE 5.6.2000

 

 

Bruce Holdbrook, operating as Best Print

R. Malcolm MacLeod, Q.C.

Patterson Palmer Hunt Murphy

 

v. (27957)

 

David Emeneau, et al. (N.S.)

Michael R. Brooker

Burchell MacDougall

 

FILING DATE 2.6.2000

 

 


Vancouver College Limited

George K. MacIntosh, Q.C.

Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy

 

v. (27958)

 

The Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada (In Liquidation), et al. (Ont.)

David K. Wingfield

Weir & Foulds

 

FILING DATE 7.6.2000

 

      and

 

St. Thomas More Collegiate Ltd. et al.

Richard R. Sugden, Q.C.

Sugden, McFee & Roos

 

v. (27958)

 

The Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada (In Liquidation) et al. (Ont.)

David K. Wingfield

Weir & Foulds

 

FILING DATE 8.6.2000

 

     and

 

Representative Counsel for the Charitable Objects of the Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada

Neil Finkelstein

Davies Ward & Beck

 

v. (27958)

 

The Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada (In Liquidation), et al. (Ont.)

David K. Wingfield

Weir & Foulds

 

FILING DATE 9.6.2000

 

 

KPMG

J.L. McDougall, Q.C.

Fraser Milner Casgrain

 

v. (27959)

 

Montreal Trust Company of Canada, in its capacity as trustee for the senior debentureholders of Bramalea Inc. and in its capacity as assignee of all choses in action of Bramalea Inc. (Ont.)

W.A. Kelly, Q.C.

Kelly Affleck Greene

 

FILING DATE 8.6.2000

 

 

Dara Wilder

Dara Wilder

 

 

v. (27960)

 

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Cory Stolte

A.G. of Canada

 

FILING DATE 8.6.2000

 

 

The Gazette, une division de Southam Inc.

Mark Bantey

Lafleur Brown

 

c. (27961)

 

Conseil du référendun et al. (Qué.)

 

 

 

DATE DE PRODUCTION 9.6.2000

 

 


Cape Breton - Victoria Regional School Board

Eric Durnford, Q.C.

McInnes Cooper

 

v. (27962)

 

Graham Menzies (N.S.)

Michael S. Ryan

Cox Hanson O’Reilly Matheson

 

FILING DATE 9.6.2000

 

 

CIBC Mortgage Corporation

Michel Deschamps

McCarthy Tétrault

 

c. (27963)

 

Marcella Vasquez et al. (Qué.)

Marie-Pierre Charland

Barette & Tremblay

 

DATE DE PRODUCTION 9.6.2000

 

 

Rodrigue Girard

Rodrigue Girard

 

 

c. (27964)

 

Marius Moisan et al. (Qué.)

Philippe Leboeuf

Beaumont Provençal

 

DATE DE PRODUCTION 13.6.2000

 

 

Valérie Tremblay

Suzanne Côté

Stikeman Elliott

 

c. (27965)

 

Le Syndicat des employées et employés professionnels-les et de bureau, section locale 57 SIEPB, CTC-FTQ et al. (Qué.)

Pierre Gingras

 

 

DATE DE PRODUCTION 12.6.2000

 

 

McKenzie Forest Products Inc.

Nigel Campbell

Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

 

v. (27967)

 

Adam Tilberg, et al. (Ont.)

Gerald Rayner

Johns & Rayner

 

FILING DATE 14.6.2000

 

 

Mario Cortese, et al.

Gary J. Bigg

Lirenman Peterson

 

v. (27968)

 

Nowsco Well Service Ltd. et al. (Alta.)

Grant Stapon

Bennett Jones

 

FILING DATE 12.6.2000

 

 

 


 



APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE 

SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE

 

 

DEMANDES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION


JUNE 19, 2000 / LE 19 JUIN 2000

 

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Major

 

C.V.M.

 

v. (27779)

 

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

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Criminal law - Whether the Court of Appeal misapplied R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168 - Whether the application of Yebes to the facts of this case amounts to a miscarriage of justice - Whether the trial judge misapprehended and misapplied the evidence at trial on issues central to his finding resulting in a miscarriage of justice - Whether Yebes requires the Court of Appeal to uphold a finding of guilt in the circumstances of this case.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


September 25, 1998

Provincial Court of Alberta

(Gaede J.)

 

Applicant convicted of sexual interference and sexual assault pursuant to ss. 271  and 151  of the Criminal Code 

 

 

 

February 4, 2000

Court of Appeal of Alberta

(Côté, Sulatycky and Langston JJ.A.)

 

Appeal dismissed

 

 

 

February 24, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

 

Lawpost, a division of Legal Research Consultants Inc., S. Bryant Smith

 

v. (27683)

 

Province of New Brunswick, The Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick and its members, as

represented by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, The Court of Appeal of

New Brunswick, as represented by the Chief Justice of New Brunswick, The Court of Queen's Bench of

New Brunswick, as represented by the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick,

and The Provincial Court of New Brunswick, as represented by the Chief Judge of the Provincial

Court of New Brunswick (N.B.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 


Canadian Charter   - Civil - Civil rights - Procedural law - Courts - Parties to action - Property law - Copyright - Freedom of the press and life, liberty and security of the person - Crown copyright - Judgments, statutes and other “legislative products” - Statement of claim against Legislative Assembly and Courts struck and treated as judgment under Rules of Court - Whether Legislative Assembly and Courts are proper parties to an action to challenge the constitutionality of Crown copyright - Whether Legislative Assembly and Courts are subject to action for violations of the constitution - Whether Applicants are entitled to costs on a constitutional basis - Whether applicable decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada considered.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


April 20, 1999

Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick

(Russell J.)

 

Action against Respondents Legislative Assembly, Court of Appeal of New Brunswick, Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick and Provincial court of New Brunswick dismissed

 

 

 


November 9, 1999

Court of Appeal of New Brunswick

(Ryan, Drapeau and Larlee JJ.A.)

 

Appeal dismissed

 

 

 

January 4, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

 

Michael Taylor

 

v. (27889)

 

Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Constitutional Law - Judicial Immunity - Does a superior court judge enjoy absolute immunity from human rights legislation while acting as a judge - If not, what are the exceptions to common law judicial immunity, having regard to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Charter  - Does judicial immunity extinguish the right of a courtroom spectator to freedom from religious discrimination by the presiding judge?

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


December 15, 1997

Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division

(Dubé J.)

 

Application for judicial review dismissed

 

 

 


March 6, 2000

Federal Court of Appeal

(Robertson, Sexton and Evans JJ.A.)

 

Appeal dismissed

 

 

 


May 4, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada                            


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 


Chief Councillor Mathew Hill, also known as Tha‑Iathatk,

on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the

Kitkatla Band and Kitkatla Band

 

v. (27801)

 

The Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture,

The Attorney General for the Province of British Columbia

and International Forest Product Limited (B.C.)

 

AND BETWEEN:

 

Chief Councillor Mathew Hill, also known as Tha‑Iathatk,

on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the

Kitkatla Band and Kitkatla Band

 

v. (27801)

 

The Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture,

The Attorney General for the Province of British Columbia

and International Forest Product Limited (B.C.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Native Law - Constitutional Law - Division of powers - Whether the impugned sections of the Heritage Conservation Act, dealing with aboriginal heritage objects and sites, are intra vires the legislature of the Province of British Columbia - Whether the Province can authorize the destruction (extinguishment) of aboriginal heritage - Whether the impugned sections of the Heritage Conservation Act either apply of their own force as provincial legislation or through referential incorporation as federal law pursuant to s. 88 of the Indian Act.

 

Native Law - Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Jurisdiction - Whether the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture has jurisdiction to consider or determine asserted aboriginal rights in relation to aboriginal heritage objects and sites when authorizing, by permit issued under the Heritage Conservation Act, the alteration of such aboriginal heritage - Whether the inclusion of words in the Heritage Conservation Act that nothing in the Act “abrogates or derogates from aboriginal treaty rights” relieves the Minister from an obligation to consider aboriginal rights, and that only judicial proceedings are available to remedy an infringement of aboriginal rights authorized by a permit issued under the Heritage Conservation Act - Whether  the lack of legislative structuring of the exercise of the Minister’s discretion to consider aboriginal rights in the Heritage Conservation Act is evidence of the lack of legislative intention to confer a discretion to consider aboriginal rights.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


November 12, 1998

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Wilson J.)

 

Application for a declaration that subsections 12(2)(a) and 13(2)(c) and (d) of the Heritage Conservation Act are ultra vires dismissed

 

 

 


December 15, 1998

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Wilson J.)

 

 

 

 

 

Application for prohibition against Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture from granting a site alteration permit dismissedJanuary 19, 2000

Court of Appeal of British Columbia

(Prowse, Braidwood and Hall JJ.A.)

 

Appeal from both decisions dismissed

 

 

 

March 16, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Applications for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

 

The Corporation of the City of Brampton

 

v. (27742)

 

Maria Bisoukis, Christos Bisoukis and Sophia Bisoukis (Ont.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Procedural law - Limitation of actions - Statement of claim filed three months after expiry of limitation period - Torts - Motor Vehicles - Liability of municipality for non-repair of highway pursuant to s. 284(1) of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.9 - Applicant injured after losing control of vehicle on black ice - Applicant suffering severe reactive depression as a result of the accident - Whether Applicant of was of  “unsound mind” in accordance with s. 47 of the Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.L.15 so that claim not statute-barred - Whether municipality liable for injuries suffered as a result of non-repair of highway in the circumstances.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


July 30, 1997

Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)

(Langdon J.)

 

Action by Respondents dismissed

 

 

 

December 7, 1999

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Doherty, Goudge and Borins JJ.A.)

 

Appeal allowed: judgement of trial court set aside and judgment granted in favour of the Respondents

 

 

 

February 4, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

 

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache et LeBel

 

Pamela Khan

 

v. (27737)

 

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Procedural law - Appeal struck out.


PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


September 2, 1999

Ontario Superior Court of Justice  (Low J.)

 

Application for leave to institute or continue a proceeding dismissed

 

 

 

December 16, 1999

Court of Appeal for Ontario (Deputy Registrar)

 

Appeal struck out for delay

 

 

 

January 14, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

Premier Horticulture Ltée

 

c. (27654)

 

Denis Lévesque (Qué.)

 

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

 

Droits des biens - Baux - Clause de renouvellement - En absence d’erreur déraisonnable ou manifeste du juge de première instance, la Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en s’immisçant dans l’appréciation des faits du juge de première instance?

 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

 


Le 10 septembre 1996

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

 

Requête pour jugement déclaratoire rejetée

 

 

 

Le 20 octobre 1999

Cour d'appel du Québec

(Mailhot, Rousseau‑Houle et Biron [ad hoc] jj.c.a.)

 

Appel accueilli

 

 

 

Le 15 décembre 1999

Cour suprême du Canada

 

Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée

 

 

 


 

Elwyn Patterson, The Marginalized Workers Action League

 

v. (27757)

 

Attorney General of British Columbia, Ministry of Human Resources and Mervin W.C. Harrower (B.C.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Civil rights - Statutes - Interpretation - Regulations - - Right to privacy - Security of the person - Interpretation of the consent portion of the B.C. Benefits (Income Assistance) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 27 application form - B.C. Regulation 123/98 - Whether it is contrary to ss. 7  and 8  of the Charter , and not justifiable under s.  1 , to compel persons who rely on welfare to waive privacy rights over a range of biographical information as a condition of receiving welfare - Whether the impugned regulation is ultra vires the Minister's statutory power in that it takes away, by regulation, a right extended under the Act.


PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


July 20, 1998

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Williamson J.)

 

Application for declaration that consent portion of application for income assistance ultra vires  the B.C. Benefits (Income Assistance) Act and violated ss. 7  and 8  of  Charter  dismissed

 

 

 

November 10, 1999

Court of Appeal of British Columbia

(Southin, Hollinrake and Ryan [dissenting] JJ.A.)

 

Appeal dismissed

 

 

 

February 11, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

Norman Sterriah, on behalf of all members of the Ross River Dena Council Band and Ross River Dena Development Corporation

 

v. (27762)

 

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada and The Government of Yukon (Y.T.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Native Law - Reserves - What are the legal requirements for the creation of an Indian reserve under the Indian Act - Whether it is a legal requirement that there be an Order-in-Council to evidence the setting apart of lands by the Crown, in order for lands to be “set apart by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of a band” - Whether the Yukon Court of Appeal erred in fact and law in reversing the finding of the Chambers Judge that the Ross River Dena Village Site was a reserve under the Indian Act - Indian Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-6 .

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


June 8, 1998

Supreme Court of the Yukon Territory (Maddison J.)

 

Declaration that certain lands are an Indian Reserve, within the meaning of the Indian Act

 

 

 

December 15, 1999

Court of Appeal of the Yukon Territory

(Richard, Finch [dissenting] and Hudson JJ.A.)

 

Appeal allowed

 

 

 

February 14, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

 

Alissa Westergard‑Thorpe, Annette Muttray,

Jamie Doucette, Mark Brooks, Denis Porter,

Deke Samchok and Craig Elton Jones

 

v. (27778)

 

The Attorney General of Canada


and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (F.C.A.) (B.C.)

 

AND BETWEEN:

 

Craig Elton Jones, Jonathan Oppenheim, Jamie Doucette,

Deke Samchok, Denis Porter and Annette Muttray

 

v. (27778)

 

Her Majesty the Queen, The Minister of Justice

and The Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.) (B.C.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Constitutional law - Procedural law - Evidence - Disclosure of government information - Objection relating to confidence of Queen’s Privy Council - Applicants filing complaints with RCMP Public Complaints Commission alleging various forms of misconduct by RCMP personnel - Commission counsel requesting that Government of Canada disclose to panel all government records relevant to hearing - Clerks of Privy Council filing certificates under s. 39  of Canada Evidence Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5 , certifying that information contained in certain documents constituted confidences of Queen's Privy Council for Canada - Action by Applicants challenging constitutionality of s. 39 dismissed - Whether federal Parliament may enact an evidentiary provision that has the effect of shielding the federal executive from constitutional scrutiny, or whether unwritten constitutional principles bar it from so doing - Whether, if Parliament does have the power to provide a general privilege, such a provision must be “read down” here.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


June 25, 1999

Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division

(McKeown J.)

 

Application by Applicants challenging the constitutionality of s. 39  of the Canada Evidence Act  dismissed

 

 

 

January 14, 2000

Federal Court of Appeal

(Strayer, Robertson and McDonald JJ.A.)

 

Appeal dismissed

 

 

 

February 22, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 

March 6, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

(Bastarache J.)

 

Motion by Applicants for an order expediting the application for leave to appeal dismissed

 

 

 


 

 

CORAM:   Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Binnie et Arbour

 

Vincenzo Commisso

 

v. (27787)

 

The United States of America (Crim.)(Ont.)


 

AND BETWEEN:

 

Cosimo D'Agostino

 

v. (27787)

 

The United States of America  (Crim.)(Ont.)

 

AND BETWEEN:

 

Rocco Commisso

 

v. (27787)

 

The United States of America  (Crim.)(Ont.)

 

AND BETWEEN:

 

Matthew Szabo

 

v. (27787)

 

United States of America  (Crim.)(Ont.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Criminal law - Extradition - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in law in holding that extradition could take place despite the absence of a prima facie case of the offence alleged - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in holding that the conduct based standard for committal was satisfied when the facts underlying the foreign allegation revealed “some connection to or is some evidence of” those allegations - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in law in holding that the extradition judge erred in his assessment of the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the specific charges upon which the extradition of the Applicant was sought - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in law by committing the Applicants for surrender in relation to the counts of conspiracy to import and distribute narcotics when there was no evidence that the importation or distribution of narcotics into the United States was an object of the conspiracy alleged - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in law in failing to hold that the 28 month delay  in the appellate process, attributable exclusively to Canadian state actors, had not resulted in prejudice to the Applicants despite the uncontroverted evidence of personal prejudice elicited in the Court of Appeal.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


June 5, 1997

Ontario Court of Justice, General Division

(Matlow J.)

 

Applicants discharged; Respondent did not satisfy the preconditions for the Applicants’ committal for surrender for extradition

 

 

 


February 22, 2000

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Labrosse, Laskin, and O’Connor JJ.A)

 

 

 

 

 

Application for stay of extradition proceedings dismissed; appeal allowed; warrant of committal issued for each Applicant with respect to both charges for which extradition soughtApril 25, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed for Applicant Vincenzo Commisso

 

 

 

April 25, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed for Applicant Rocco Commisso

 

 

 

April 25, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed for Applicant Cosimo D’Agostino

 

 

 

May 3, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed for Applicant Matthew Szabo

 

 

 


 

 

Marcel Joly

 

v. (27715)

 

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

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Criminal law - Evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the trial judge was entitled to offer his opinion on the viability of the “other suspect” evidence - Whether there is any valid justification for the common law  rule which permits trial judges to offer their opinion on the facts of a particular case - Whether the rule is consistent with the Charter .

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


December 5, 1994

Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)

(Soubliere J.)

 

Conviction: Second degree murder. Applicant sentenced to life imprisonment, with parole ineligibility for 20 years 

 

 

 

April 26, 1999

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Morden, Doherty and Abella JJ.A.)

 

Appeal against conviction dismissed;  appeal against sentence allowed

 

 

 

January 24, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

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

 

 

 


 

 

Commission des droits de la personne

et des droits de la jeunesse

 

c. (27639)

 

Centre d'hébergement et de soins de longue durée

Champlain‑Manoir de Verdun (Qué.)

 


NATURE DE LA CAUSE

 

Droit du travail - Congédiement - Grief déposé - Plainte à la Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse - Entente intervenue entre le syndicat et l’employeur -  Dans quelle mesure la Cour d’appel pouvait-elle supprimer le droit d’un organisme qui agit dans l’intérêt public de porter en appel un jugement qui réduit sa compétence d’enquête alors que c’est l’intimé qui, dans un premier temps, avait contesté la compétence d’enquête de la Commission, et qui a ensuite présenté une requête en rejet d’appel sur la base d’une transaction qu’il a lui-même négociée? - Les questions soulevées par le jugement de la première instance étaient-elles devenues théoriques en raison d’une transaction intervenue entre le salarié et l’intimé? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en décidant qu’autoriser la continuation de l’appel dans les circonstances remettrait en cause toute la transaction intervenue et pourrait, à la limite, en entraîner la nullité? - La Cour d’appel, en accueillant la requête en rejet d’appel, a-t-elle erré en droit en maintenant indirectement la conclusion du juge de première instance à l’effet que l’exercice d’un recours en grief constituait l’exercice du recours prévu à l’article 49 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., ch. C-12? - La Cour d’appel, en accueillant la requête pour rejet d’appel, a-t-elle erré en droit en maintenant indirectement la conclusion du juge de première instance à l’effet que la Commission devait cesser d’agir en faveur du mis en cause en vertu de l’article 77, al. 1, 20  de la Charte?

 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

 


Le 3 novembre 1998

Cour supérieure du Québec

(Rochon j.c.s.)

 

Requête de l’intimé accueillie: la demanderesse est tenue de cesser d’agir en faveur du mis en cause Pierre Sauvé

 

 

 

Le 20 septembre 1999

Cour d'appel du Québec

(Delisle, Otis et Pidgeon jj.c.a.)

 

Requête en rejet d’appel de l’intimé accueillie: appel de la demanderesse rejeté

 

 

 

Le 13 décembre 1999

Cour suprême du Canada

 

Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée

 

 

 


 

 

Robert Martin Friedland

 

v. (27773)

 

United States of America (Ont.)

 

AND BETWEEN:

 

Robert Martin Friedland

 

v. (27773)

 

United States of America, David L. Dain, Peter R. Mounsey and Nancy A. Mangone (Ont.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

International - Statutes - Interpretation - Mareva injunction vacated - Counterclaim - State immunity - Whether the Respondents explicitly submitted to the court’s jurisdiction under s. 4(2)(a) of the State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1982 c. S-18 (hereinafter “S.I.A.”) - Whether the Respondents submitted to a counterclaim under s. 4(4) of the S.I.A. - Whether there is a loss of immunity for death, injury, damage or loss in Canada under s. 6 of the S.I.A.


PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


June 22, 1998

Superior Court of Justice

(Lederman J.)

 

Applicant and Respondent’s motions for orders dismissing Counterclaim based on State Immunity Act dismissed.

 

 

 

December 23, 1999

Ontario Court of Appeal

(Osborne, Brooke, and Catzman JJ.A.)

 

Order of Lederman J. set aside, order dismissing Applicant’s counterclaim issued

 

 

 

February 21, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

 

Jean Boudreault

 

c. (27660)

 

Procureur général du Canada (C.F.A.) (Ont.)

 

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

 

Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Plainte de discrimination contrairement à l’art. 14 de la   Loi canadienne sur les droits de la personne - Est-ce que la Commission est obligée d’enquêter les plaintes en vertu de la Loi d’une manière neutre, impartiale et selon l’équité procédurale et quelle est la norme de révision de ses décisions?

 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

 


Le 29 octobre 1996

Commission canadienne des droits de la personne

 

Plainte de discrimination du demandeur rejetée

 

 

 

Le 23 décembre 1997

Cour fédérale du Canada, Section de première instance

(Nadon j.)

 

Demande de contrôle judiciaire de la décision de la Commission canadienne des droits de la personne  rejetée

 

 

 

Le 14 octobre 1999

Cour d'appel fédérale

(Décary, Létourneau et Noël jj.c.a.)

 

Appel rejeté

 

 

 

Le 16 décembre 1999

Cour suprême du Canada

 

Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée

 

 

 


 

 


JUNE 21, 2000 / LE 21 JUIN 2000

 

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Iacobucci et Binnie

 

Performance Industries Ltd. and Terrance O’Connor

 

v. (27934)

 

Sylvan Lake Golf & Tennis Club Ltd. (Alta.)

 

AND BETWEEN:

 

Sylvan Lake Golf & Tennis Club Ltd.

 

v. (27934)

 

Performance Industries Ltd. and Terrance O’Connor (Alta.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Commercial law - Contracts - Test that must be satisfied in order to rectify a contract - Standard of review for an award at trial of punitive damages - Appropriate principles on which punitive damages should be awarded, including disgorgement of profits made by a wrongdoer.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


June 14, 1999

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta

(Wilkins J.)

 

Applicants ordered to pay damages of $847,810 and punitive damages of $200,000 to Respondent plus costs and interest

 

 

 

April 17, 2000

Court of Appeal of Alberta

(O’Leary, Berger and Sulatycky JJ.A.)

 

Appeal on punitive damages allowed; other grounds of appeal dismissed

 

 

 

May 25, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

 



JUDGMENTS ON APPLICATIONS

FOR LEAVE

 

JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION


 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

 

JUNE 22, 2000 / LE 22 JUIN 2000

 

27758                    C.A.L. (a young offender) v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (N.S.) (Crim.)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

 

The motion for an extension of time is granted.  The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

 

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée.  La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Criminal Law - Young offenders - Sexual assault - Credibility of witnesses - Whether a trial judge should be under a legal duty to articulate reasons for preferring evidence of one witness over the evidence of another witness  in cases of sexual assault - Whether the decision in R. v. Burns, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656 should be revisited  - Whether the deference accorded to trial judges by appellate courts on matters of credibility is a sufficient legal safeguard for accused persons charged with stigma offences, such as sexual assault

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


October 21, 1998

Provincial Youth Court

(Ryan J.)


Conviction: sexual assault

 

 


December 13, 1999

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

(Freeman, Pugsley and Bateman JJ.A.)


Appeal dismissed


February 11, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

27731                    K.M.C. (a young offender) v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Nfld.) (Crim.)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

 

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

 

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Criminal law - Young offenders - Transfer to ordinary court - Section 16  of the Young Offenders Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. Y-1  - Review by court of appeal - Expert evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to give due deference to the findings of fact and evaluation of the expert psychiatric evidence heard on a transfer application?

 


PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


February 11, 1999

Youth Court of Newfoundland

(Hyslop Y.C.J.)

 

Respondent's application for an order transferring the case to ordinary court dismissed

 

 

 

November 30, 1999

Newfoundland Supreme Court - Court of Appeal

(Wells C.J.N., Steele and Cameron JJ.A.)

 

Appeal allowed; proceedings transferred to ordinary court

 

 

 

January 28, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

 

27749                    RICHARD OFFEI-TWUMASI v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Ont.) (Crim.)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

 

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

 

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Criminal law - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in dismissing the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence?

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


October 29, 1997

Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division)

(Timms J.)


Applicant convicted of theft; sentenced to a $50.00 fine and one year probation


August 10, 1998

Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)

(Shaughnessy J.)

 

Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed

 

 

 

November 22, 1999

Court of Appeal for Ontario

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

 

Application for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed; application for leave to appeal against sentence granted and appeal against sentence allowed; absolute discharge substituted

 

 

 

January 19, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

 


27507                    BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY v. TENNECO CANADA INC., DOING BUSINESS AS ALBRIGHT & WILSON AMERICAS (B.C.)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

 

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

 

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

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Commercial law - Contracts - Interpretation - Whether the ordinary rules of contract construction and interpretation apply to a filed rate tariff - Whether the “filed-rate doctrine” exists in Canada -Whether the term “strike,” in a force majeure clause or similar provision includes strikes by employees of neither party and not directly related to the operations of either party.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


March 27, 1998

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Tysoe J.)

 

Respondent’s action dismissed

 

 

 

June 28, 1999

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Goldie, Rowles and Newbury JJ.A.)

 

Respondent’s appeal allowed

 

 

 

September 24, 1999

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

 

27588                    EMILE MARGUERITA MARCUS MENNES v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, REPRESENTING THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL (F.C.A.)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

 

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

 

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 


Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Civil - Contempt of court - Federal Court practice - Whether a practice direction made by the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Canada, which is particular to the Applicant, is subject to judicial review - Whether a practice direction prohibiting the filing of remarks that are insulting to the Court or to its Judges or remarks that are abusive or slanderous of other parties to the proceedings amounts to an indirect finding of contempt of court, and if so, whether this finding, made without the process outlined by the Federal Court Rules, contravenes s. 7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Whether a requirement that any document submitted for filing by the Applicant must be first submitted to a prothonotary for examination restricts the Applicant’s access to the court and, if so, whether this restriction contravenes ss. 7, 15(2) and/or 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


May 7, 1992

Federal Court of Canada

(Isaac C.J.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Direction that the Applicant will not be permitted to put on the files in the proceedings remarks that are insulting to the Court or to its Judges or remarks that are abusive or slanderous of other parties to the proceedings and that any document submitted for filing by the Applicant must be first submitted to a prothonotary for examination

 

 

 

February 16, 1998

Federal Court of Canada

(Isaac C.J.)

 

Confirmation that Direction of May 7, 1992 remains in force and applies to all material filed by Applicant

 

 

 

May 28, 1999

Federal Court - Trial Division

(Richard A.C.J.)

 

Motion to strike Applicant’s application for judicial review of the Direction granted

 

 

 

September 22, 1999

Federal Court of Appeal

(Décary, MacKay and McDonald JJ.A.)

 

Appeal dismissed

 

 

 

November 12, 1999

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

 

27553                    LEONARDO G. GALUEGO v. THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (F.C.A.)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

 

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

 

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Civil rights - Did lower courts err in disposition of case.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 



July 11, 1997

Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division

(Jerome, A.C.J.)

 

 

 

 

 

Application for judicial review of decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to dismiss Applicant`s complaint dismissedAugust 19, 1999

Federal Court of Appeal

(Linden, Robertson and MacDonald JJ.A.)

 

Motion for reconsideration dismissed

 

 

 

October 18, 1999

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal and motion to extend time filed

 

 

 


 

27722                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF FINANCE v. IAN P. MACKIN and between HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF FINANCE v. DOUGLAS E. RICE (N.B.)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

 

The application for leave to appeal is granted with costs.

 

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

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Constitutional Law - Judicial Independence - Right to elect supernumerary status - Legislative amendment eliminated a Provincial Court judge’s right to elect supernumerary status - Whether amendment should be struck as being unconstitutional - Whether an award of damages is appropriate in conjunction with a declaration of constitutional invalidity -Whether solicitor and client costs are appropriate - An Act to Amend the Provincial Court Act, S.N.B. 1995, c. 6, s. 2

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


July 6, 1998

Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick

(Deschênes J.)

 

Repeal of the right of Provincial Court judges to elect supernumerary status under s.2 of An Act to Amend the Provincial Court Act declared unconstitutional; Declaration of invalidity suspended; Pension scheme found to be  constitutional; Damages denied; party and party costs awarded

 

 

 

November 26, 1999                                                              

Court of Appeal of New Brunswick

(Daigle C.J. [dissenting], Ryan and Drapeau JJ.A.)

 

Respondents’ Appeal allowed; Applicant’s cross-appeal dismissed

 

 

 

January 24, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

27861                    NU-PHARM INC. v. MERCK & CO., INC., MERCK FROSST CANADA & CO. AND THE MINISTER OF HEALTH (F.C.A.)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

 

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.


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

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Property law - Patents - Statutes - Interpretation - Whether s. 5(1) of the  Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/98-1066 is engaged when an abbreviated new drug submission is filed if the Canadian reference product named is not the subject of a patent list, but the notice of compliance for the Canadian reference product was obtained by comparison to a drug that is the subject of a patent list - Whether the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations ought to be strictly construed - Whether this decision conflicts with Bayer Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (1999), 84 C.P.R. (3d) 129 (F.C.A.).

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


November 23, 1999

Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (McGillis J.)

 

Decision to issue a notice of compliance quashed

 

 

 

March 13, 2000

Federal Court of Appeal

(Robertson, Rothstein and Sharlow JJ.A.)

 

Appeal dismissed

 

 

 

April 18, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

27607                    DAVID ASKEY v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF HEALTH AND EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICES COMMISSION (B.C.)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

 

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

 

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

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Procedural laws - Whether decision of Court of Appeal was correct.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


November 8, 1999

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Southin, Donald and Saunders JJ.A.)

 

Applicant's appeal from decision of British Columbia Labour Relations Board quashed for want of jurisdiction

 

 

 

November 24, 1999

Supreme Court of Canada                  

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

 


27685                    DR. WILLIAM N. CAMPBELL v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (F.C.A.)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

 

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

 

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

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Procedural law - Judgments and orders - Pre-trial procedure - Federal Court of Appeal - Delay in filing a Memorandum of Fact and Law - Whether the Court erred by not granting a further extension of delay in these circumstances.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


December 23, 1997

Tax Court of Canada (Bell J.T.C.C.)

 

Appeal allowed in part:  proceeds of disposition  of “12th Avenue” agreed to be  $1,248,000 

 

 

 

November 3, 1999

Federal Court of Appeal

(Strayer, Robertson and Noël JJ.A.)

 

Motion for extension of time and appeal dismissed

 

 

 

December 16, 1999

Federal Court of Appeal

(Strayer,  Robertson and Noël JJ.A.)

 

Motion for reconsideration dismissed

 

 

 

January 4, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

 

27687                    DR. WILLIAM N. CAMPBELL PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (F.C.A.)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

 

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

 

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

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Procedural law - Judgments and orders - Pre-trial procedure - Federal Court of Appeal - Delay in filing a Memorandum of Fact and Law - Whether the Court erred by not granting a further extension of delay in these circumstances.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 



December 23, 1997

Tax Court of Canada

(Bell J.T.C.C.)

 

 

 

 

 

Appeal dismissedNovember 3, 1999

Federal Court of Appeal

(Strayer, Robertson and Noël JJ.A.)

 

Motion for extension of time and appeal dismissed

 

 

 

December 16, 1999

Federal Court of Appeal

(Strayer, Robertson and Noël JJ.A.)

 

Motion for reconsideration dismissed

 

 

 

January 4, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

 

27688                    ALLAN N. RAUW v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (F.C.A.)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

 

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

 

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

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Procedural law - Judgments and orders - Pre-trial procedure - Federal Court of Appeal - Delay in filing a Memorandum of Fact and Law - Whether the Court erred by not granting a further extension of delay in these circumstances.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


December 23, 1997

Tax Court of Canada (Bell J.T.C.C.)

 

Appeal dismissed

 

 

 

November 3, 1999

Federal Court of Appeal

(Strayer, Robertson and Noël JJ.A.)

 

Motion for extension of time and appeal dismissed

 

 

 

December 16, 1999

Federal Court of Appeal

(Strayer, Robertson and  Noël JJ.A.)

 

Motion for reconsideration dismissed

 

 

 

January 4, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

27686                    DR. GERALD E. GAVELIN v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (F.C.A.)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

 

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

 

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


NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Procedural law - Judgments and orders - Pre-trial procedure - Federal Court of Appeal - Delay in filing a Memorandum of Fact and Law - Whether the Court erred by not granting a further extension of delay in these circumstances.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


December 23, 1997

Tax Court of Canada (Bell J.T.C.T.)

 

Appeal dismissed

 

 

 

 

November 3, 1999

Federal Court of Appeal

(Strayer, Robertson and Noël JJ.A.)

 

Motion for extension of time and appeal dismissed

 

 

 

December 16, 1999

Federal Court of Appeal

(Strayer, Robertson and Noël JJ.A.)

 

Motion for reconsideration dismissed

 

 

 

January 4, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

 

27621                    MICHELINE MONTREUIL - c. - DIRECTEUR DE L’ÉTAT CIVIL (Qué.)

 

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

 

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.  Le juge L’Heureux-Dubé est dissidente.

 

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, L’Heureux-Dubé J. dissenting.

 

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

 

Charte canadienne  - civil - Code civil - Changement de nom - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en imposant un délai minimal de cinq ans sans fixer de délai maximal pour autoriser une demande de changement de nom en invoquant le caractère d’ordre public rattaché aux dispositions législatives concernant le changement de nom? - L’article 58 du Code civil du Québec ainsi que l’interprétation faite par la Cour d’appel constituent-ils une discrimination basée sur le sexe ou l’origine nationale ou ethnique contrevenant ainsi à l’article 15 (1)  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  et à l’article 10 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne du Québec? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en transformant un droit garanti par l’article 58 du Code civil du Québec en simple privilège soumis à la discrétion du directeur de l’état civil?

 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

 



Le 27 octobre 1998

Cour supérieure du Québec

(Rioux j.c.s.)

 

 

 

 

 

Requête en révision judiciaire d'une décision du directeur de l'état civil ayant refusé à la demanderesse de sexe masculin l'autorisation d'ajouter un prénom féminin à ses prénoms masculins rejetée

 

 


Le 1 novembre 1999

Cour d'appel du Québec

(Beaudouin, Rousseau‑Houle et Thibault jj.c.a.)

 

Appel rejeté

 

 

 

Le 30 novembre 1999

Cour suprême du Canada

 

Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée

 

 

 


 

 

27557                    2849-6180 QUÉBEC INC. - c. - 3099-2325 QUÉBEC INC.  (Qué.)

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

 

Procédures - Preuve - Jugements et ordonnances - Requête en jugement déclaratoire - Interprétation des clauses d’un bail - Contradiction des termes d’un écrit par témoignage - L’interprétation des clauses du bail par la Cour d’appel est-elle erronée? - La Cour d’appel peut-elle aller au-delà des conclusions demandées en première instance et ainsi condamner une partie à payer une somme d’argent dans le cadre d’une requête pour jugement déclaratoire?

 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

 


Le 28 juin 1994

Cour supérieure

(Forget j.c.s.)

 

Jugement déclaratoire: la lettre de crédit au montant de 30,000.00$ couvre tout défaut de l’intimée aux termes du bail

 

 

 

Le 10 août 1999

Cour d'appel du Québec

(Vallerand [dissident], Nuss et Zerbisias jj.c.a.)

 

Appel accueilli; Murphy Savoie déclaré responsable seulement des obligations résultant de l’article 28.4 du contrat de bail; demanderesse condamnée à payer à l’intimée la somme de 30,000.00$ avec intérêts et l’indemnité additionnelle depuis l’assignation

 

 

 

Le 15 novembre 1999

Cour suprême du Canada

 

Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée

 

 

 


 

 

27614                    INSURANCE CORPORATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA - v. - PAULO BEVACQUA (B.C.)

 

CORAM:               L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache and LeBel 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 law - Evidence - Burden of proof - Vandalism - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that, when denying coverage under a policy of insurance that covers loss due to vandalism, the insurer bears the legal burden of proving that the insured caused or procured the alleged loss.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


April 29, 1998

Supreme Court of British Columbia (Spencer J.)

 

Respondent’s claim dismissed: he has the burden of proof to persuade the court of his account of vandalism

 

 

 

October 1, 1999

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Hinds, Rowles, and Finch JJ.A.)

 

Appeal allowed: trial judge’s dismissal of the Applicant’s claim set aside and new trial ordered

 

 

 

November 29, 1999

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

27647                    GURJIT SINGH SEKHON - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN  - and between - SARBDEEP KAUR SEKHON - v . - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - and between - JASBIR SINGH GILL - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - and between - SUKHWINDER KAUR GILL - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - and between - JUBRAJ BHINDER - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - and between - TARSEM KAUR BHINDER - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - and between - SURINERJIT JHAJJ - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (B.C.)

 

CORAM:               L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache and LeBel 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

 

Municipal law - Municipal by-laws - Residential property - Truck parking - Applicants acquitted of illegally parking overweight trucks on residential properties after applicable zoning by-law found to be unenforceable owing to ambiguity - Acquittals of Applicants set aside on appeal and convictions entered - Whether Court of Appeal erred in affirming appeal judge’s decision.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


January 5, 1998

Provincial Court of British Colombia

(Judge Stewart)


Charges against the Applicants Bhinder, Sekhon and Gill dismissed; Applicant Jhajj ordered to remove second truck and to pay a fine of $100


June 11, 1998

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Smith J.)


Acquittals of Applicants Bhinder, Sekhon and Gill set aside and convictions entered;  conviction of Applicant Jhajj affirmed;  amounts of fines and date for removal of trucks remitted to trial court for determination



October 15, 1999

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Donald, Newbury and  Mackenzie JJ.A.)


Appeals of all Applicants dismissed;  issue of sentencing remitted to trial court for determination


December 14, 1999

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed


 

 

27595                    EASTERN POWER LIMITED - v. - AZIENDA COMUNALE ENERGIA & AMBIENTE (Ont.)

 

CORAM:               L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache and LeBel 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 - Conflict of Laws - Proper law of the Contract - Forum non conveniens - Procedural law - Civil Procedure - Pre-trial Procedure - Whether there are conflicting authorities - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the test of forum non conveniens to uphold the order staying the action - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in affirming the decision to set aside service of the statement of claim on the basis that the claim did not meet the test required by Rule 17.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure of Ontario.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


February 9, 1999

Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)

(Juriansz J.)

 

Order setting aside the service ex juris of the statement of claim and staying the proceeding on the ground of forum non conveniens granted with fixed costs

 

 

 

September 14, 1999

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Abella, Laskin, and MacPherson JJ.A.)

 

Appeal dismissed with costs

 

 

 

November 15, 1999

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

 

27573                    YVETTE SCOTT and JESSE SCOTT BY HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN SHIRLEY LEGROS - v. - THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA (Ont.)

 

CORAM:               L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache and LeBel 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 -  Reasonable expectation of coverage under a standard form contract - Whether an insurer has a duty in tort or contract to notify policyholders when legislative change compromises previous coverage based on its participation with government in production of standard form contracts - Does an insurer owe a duty to advise of removals of pre-existing coverage.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


June 27, 1998

Ontario Court (General Division)

(Wright J.)

 

Damages awarded under O.E.F. 44 Family Protection Endorsement

 

 

 

September 7, 1999

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Abella, O'Connor and Sharpe JJ.A.)

 

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal granted, action dismissed

 

 

 

November 3, 1999

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

 

27623                    THÉRÈSE PRÉVOST-MASSON, EN SA QUALITÉ DE REPRÉSENTANT LÉGAL DE FEU HENRI MASSON - c. - ALBAN PERRAS (Qué.)

 

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

 

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

 

The application for leave to appeal is granted with costs.

 

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

 

Code civil - Droit commercial - Contrats - Dommages-intérêts - Intérêts - Effet relatif des contrats - Obligations - Obligation indivisible - Obligation in solidum - Obligation solidaire - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en condamnant Feu Henri Masson au solde du prix de vente en l’absence de toute preuve de l’insolvabilité des débiteurs contractuels? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en déclarant que la dette de 2639-1565 Québec inc., Les Immeubles Les Castels de Greenfield Park inc., Alfred Céré et André Pelletier ainsi que la dette de Feu Henri Masson, étaient des obligations indivisibles au sens de l’article 1124 C.c.B.-C.? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en faisant porter à la condamnation de Feu Henri Masson le taux d’intérêt prévu par une convention à laquelle il était étranger?

 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

 


Le 28 janvier 1994

Cour supérieure du Québec

(Hurtubise j.c.s.)

 

Action de l'intimé accueillie; demanderesse condamnée à payer la somme de 206 743, 79$ à l'intimé

 

 

 


Le 4 octobre 1999

Cour d'appel du Québec

(Gendreau, Rousseau‑Houle et Denis [ad hoc] jj.c.a.)

 

 

 

 

 

Appel de l'intimé accueilli en partie; jugement de première instance modifiéLe 3 décembre 1999

Cour suprême du Canada

 

Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée

 

 

 


 

 

27775                    HAL RANDALL DOBSON  ‑ v. ‑  HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(N.B.)

 

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

 

The application for leave to appeal and the ancillary motions are dismissed, namely:  motion that counsel be appointed to act on behalf of the applicant, motion for an order for an extension of time, motion for an order to present fresh evidence and motion for an order that the applicant’s defence counsel be examined under oath.

 

La demande d’autorisation d’appel et les requêtes accessoires sont rejetées, soit:  requête pour qu’un avocat soit nommé pour représenter le demandeur, requête en prorogation de délai, requête pour déposer des preuves nouvelles et requête pour interroger sous serment l’avocat du demandeur.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Pleas - Sections 7 , 10( b ) , 11( c ) , 11( d )  and 15(1)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Whether Applicant’s guilty plea invalidated by threat of an immediate return to jail - Whether Applicant received competent legal representation at trial - Whether Applicant’s guilty plea invalidated by psychological state at time plea was made - Whether trial judge erred in accepting Applicant’s guilty plea despite fact that it was inconsistent with defence counsel’s argument on sentencing that Applicant lacked intent to abduct his son - Whether Court of appeal erred in denying Applicant’s request for an extension of time to file his Notice of Appeal?

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


July 23, 1999

Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick

(Strange P.C.J.)

 

Applicant convicted of one count of abduction under s. 282(1) (a) of the Criminal Code  and one count of breach of an undertaking under s. 145(3) (b) of the Criminal Code 

 

 

 

December 22, 1999

Court of Appeal of New Brunswick (Ryan J.A.)

 

Motion for an extension of time to appeal conviction and sentence dismissed

 

 

 

February 21, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

 

27592                    LORRAINE GAUTHIER  - c. ‑  CLAUDE GAUTHIER et COLOMBE BOUCHARD (Qué.)

 

CORAM:               Les juges Gonthier, Binnie et Arbour

 

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée, la demande d’autorisation d’appel  et les requêtes accessoires sont rejetées, soit:  requête pour déposer des preuves nouvelles et requête en sursis d’exécution.

 

The application for extension of time is granted, the application for leave to appeal and the ancillary motions are dismissed, namely:  motion for an order to present fresh evidence and motion for a stay of execution.

 


NATURE DE LA CAUSE

 

Droit des biens - Testaments - Capacité de tester - Captation - Les tribunaux inférieurs ont-ils erré?

 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

 


Le 27 mai 1994

Cour supérieure du Québec

(LaRue j.c.s.)

 

Action de la demanderesse et demande reconventionnelle des intimés rejetées

 

 

 

Le 27 janvier 1999

Cour d'appel du Québec

(Rousseau‑Houle, Pidgeon et Denis [ad hoc] jj.c.a.)

 

Appel de la demanderesse rejetée

 

 

 

Le 10 novembre 1999

Cour suprême du Canada

 

Demande d'autorisation d'appel, requête en prorogation de délai, requête en sursis d’exécution de jugement et requête pour déposer l’argumentation et les preuves de première instance refusées en appel déposées

 

 

 


 

 

27531                    VALERIE MORROW  ‑ v. ‑  ACADEMY MECHANICAL SERVICES LTD. (Alta.)

 

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour 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  - Constitution Act, 1867  - Administration of Justice - Fundamental justice -  Commercial law - Contracts - Right of deaf to assistance of interpreter in any proceedings - Dispute as to whether contract to correct deficiencies in gas piping and venting including having gas company turn on gas - Allegation of fraud made against Respondent - Constitutionality of Provincial Court of Alberta (Civil Division) raised but not argued - Denial of Charter right to fundamental justice (s.7) alleged but not argued.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


February 8, 1999

Provincial Court of Alberta (Maher Prov. Ct. J.)

 

Claim by Respondent allowed in the amount of $538.74

 

 

 

June 24, 1999

Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Kent J.)

 

Appeal by Applicant dismissed

 

 

 

September 20, 1999

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

 


27590                    BRITISH AVIATION INSURANCE GROUP (CANADA) LIMITED  ‑ v. ‑  WEST CENTRAL AIR LTD. and LLOYD GOOD (Sask.)

 

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour 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 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the finding of the Chambers judge that the facts pleaded in a related action involving the Respondents and Bangwyn Farms Ltd. (“Bangwyn”) could result in a judgment for amounts which the Respondents would be “legally obligated to pay” Bangwyn, as that phrase is used in the policy - Whether the  Court of Appeal erred in upholding the finding of the Chambers judge that the facts pleaded in the Bangwyn action disclosed a claim “arising out of the use, ownership or maintenance” of the aircraft - Whether the  Court of Appeal erred in upholding the finding of the Chambers judge that the facts pleaded in the Bangwyn action do not fall within the exclusion for “liability assumed under a contract or agreement” as that phrase is used in the policy - Whether the  Court of Appeal erred in upholding the finding of the Chambers judge that the facts pleaded in the Bangwyn action do not fall within the exclusion for “failure to provide transportation services” as that phrase is used in the policy - Whether the  Court of Appeal erred in upholding the finding of the Chambers judge that the facts pleaded in the Bangwyn action do not fall outside the scope of liability insurance generally as being part of the business risk retained by Respondent West Central Air Ltd. and not transferred to the Applicant by the policy.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


June 6, 1997

Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan

(Hunter J.)

 

Application by Applicant for two declaratory judgments dismissed

 

 

 

September 7, 1999

Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

(Bayda C.J., Vancise and Gerwing JJ.A.)

 

Appeal dismissed

 

 

 

November 12, 1999

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 

November 25, 1999

Supreme Court of Canada

(Gonthier J.)

 

Motion for an extension of time granted

 

 

 


 

 

27551                    JOEL STARKMAN, SHARON STARKMAN and RHONA FELDMAN  ‑ v. ‑  THE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK (Ont.)

 

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

 

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

 


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

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Commercial law - Creditor and debtor - Property law - Personal property - Personal Property Security Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.10 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the funds were identifiable and traceable - What is the definition of identifiable and traceable - Whether a breach of duty of confidentiality by a bank deprives it of equitable relief - Whether there are conflicting authorities.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


February 10, 1998

Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)

(Macdonald J.)

 

Respondent’s application for declaratory relief pursuant to section 67 of the Personal Property Security Act granted with costs

 

 

 

August 17, 1999

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Carthy, Abella and Goudge JJ.A.)

 

Appeal dismissed

 

 

 

October 18, 1999

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

 

27550                    OLYMPIA INTERIORS LTD. and MARY DAVID  ‑ v. ‑  HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (F.C.A.)

 

CORAM:               Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

 

The application for reconsideration is dismissed with costs.

 

La demande de réexamen est rejetée avec dépens.

 

 



MOTIONS

 

REQUÊTES

 


 

12.6.2000

 

Before / Devant:   CHIEF JUSTICE McLACHLIN

 


Motion to state a constitutional question

 

Dwayne W. Hynes

 

     v. (27443)

 

Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.)

 

Requête pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle

 

 

 

 

 


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Notices of intervention are to be filed no later than August 21, 2000.

 

 

UPON APPLICATION by Counsel on behalf of the Appellant for an order stating constitutional question; and

 

UPON CONSIDERING the materials filed by the parties in respect thereof,

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

 

The motion to state constitutional question is granted, the question formulated being:

 

(1)           Is a judge or justice presiding at a preliminary inquiry a court of competent  jurisdiction for the purpose of an application under section 24(1)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  to exclude evidence under section 24(2)  of the Charter?

 

(1)           Le juge ou juge de paix présidant une enquête préliminaire est-il un tribunal compétent au sens du paragraphe 24(1)  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  pour statuer sur une demande visant l'exclusion d'éléments de preuve en vertu du paragraphe 24(2)  de la Charte?

 

 

14.6.2000

 

Before / Devant:   LE REGISTRAIRE

 


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

 

Ka Lam Law, et al.

 

    c. (27870)

 

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(N.-B.)


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

 

 


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Délai prorogé au 5 juin 2000.

 

 


14.6.2000

 

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

 


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

 

Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd.

 

     v. (27060)

 

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union Local 558, et al. (Sask.)


Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire des intimés

 

 


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to July 1, 2000.

 

 

14.6.2000

 

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

 


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

 

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario

 

    v. (27084)

 

974649 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Dunedin Construction (1992), et al. (Ont.)


Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire des intimés

 

 


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to August 1, 2000.

 

 

14.6.2000

 

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

 


Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the appellant’s factum to October 1, 2000

 

Ian Vincent Golden

 

    v. (27547)

 

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


Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire de l’appelant le 1er octobre 2000

 

 


ALLOWED IN PART / ACCORDÉE EN PARTIE    Time extended to September 18, 2000.

 

 


14.6.2000

 

Before / Devant:   LE JUGE BASTARACHE

 


Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer une demande d’autorisation

 

Ville de Beaupré

 

    c. (27938)

 

Station Mont Sainte-Anne Inc. (9007-8635 Québec Inc.) (Que.)


Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file  an application for leave

 

 


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Délai prorogé au 30 juin 2000.

 

 

15.6.2000

 

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

 


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

 

Mary Danyluk

 

     v. (27118)

 

Ainsworth Technologies Inc., et al. (Ont.)


Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire des intimés

 

 


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to July 4, 2000.

 

 

16.6.2000

 

Before / Devant:   CHIEF JUSTICE McLACHLIN

 


Motion to state a constitutional question

 

Ian Vincent Golden

 

    v. (27547)

 

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


Requête pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle

 

 


DISMISSED / REJETÉE The application is dismissed on the ground that this case does not raise constitutional questions within the terms of Rule 32 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada.

 

 


16.6.2000

 

Before / Devant:   LE REGISTRAIRE

 


Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la réponse de l’intimée Héli-Forex Inc.

 

Air Wemindji Inc.

 

    c. (27859)

 

Héli-Forex Inc., et al. (Qué.)


Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the response of the respondent Héli-Forex Inc.

 

 


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Délai prorogé au 26 mai 2000.

 

 

16.6.2000

 

Before / Devant:   LE REGISTRAIRE

 


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

 

Benoît Proulx

 

    c. (27235)

 

Le procureur général du Québec (Qué.)


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

 

 


GRANTED/ ACCORDÉE   Délai prorogé au 30 juin 2000.

 

 

16.6.2000

 

Before / Devant:   CHIEF JUSTICE McLACHLIN

 


Miscellaneous motions

 

Glen Sebastian Burns, et al.

 

     v. (26211)

 

United States of America (Crim.)(B.C.)


Autres requêtes

 

 


UPON APPLICATION by counsel on behalf of the Applicants for an order for directions concerning a motion to re-open the application for leave to appeal regarding their committal for extradition and for orders under s. 85 of the Supreme Court Act to have the B.C. Law Society and Mr. Sheldon Goldberg produce all documents with respect to Mr. Patrick Beirne’s status and competence to practice.

 

UPON CONSIDERING the materials filed by the parties in respect thereof:


IT IS ORDERED that:

 

1.             The request for orders under s. 85 of the Supreme Court Act is denied;

 

2.             The Applicants’ facta on the motion for reconsideration of their leave application relating to their committal for extradition shall be filed no later than July 17, 2000 and the Respondent’s factum shall be filed no later than July 31, 2000;

 

3.             The decision whether to hear oral argument on the motion is reserved.

 

 

19.6.2000

 

Before / Devant:   BINNIE J.

 


Motion for a stay of proceedings

 

Bettyann L. Elliott

 

    v. (27289)

 

City of Toronto, et al. (Ont.)

 

    and

 

Veronica Lynn Elliott, et al.

 

    v. (27888)

 

Wanda Liczyk, et al. (Ont.)


Requête en suspension des procédures


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

 

UPON APPLICATION by the applicants for a stay of proceedings;

 

AND UPON REVIEWING THE MATERIAL in question;

 

AND HAVING REGARD TO the terms of s. 65.1 of the Supreme Court Act and Rule 27 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada;

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that execution of the orders for costs against the applicants in favour of the respondent Lone Star Realty Ltd. be stayed pending the disposition of the applications for leave to appeal herein.

 

 



APPEALS HEARD SINCE LAST ISSUE AND DISPOSITION

 

APPELS ENTENDUS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION ET RÉSULTAT

 


 

14.6.2000

 

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

 


Robert William Latimer

 

     v. (26980)

 

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


Edward L. Greenspan, Q.C., Mark Brayford, Q.C. and Marie Henein, for the appellant.

 

Kent Roach, for the intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

 

R. Douglas Elliott and Patricia A. LeFebour, for the intervener Canadian Aids Society.

 

Kenneth W. MacKay, Q.C. and Graeme G. Mitchell, Q.C., for the respondent.

 

Robert J. Frater and Bradley Allison, for the intervener the A.G. of Canada.

 

Michael Bernstein, for the intervener the A.G. for Ontario.

 

Robert G. Richards, Q.C. and Heather D. Heavin, for the interveners Council of Canadians with Disabilities, et al.

 

William J. Sammon, for the intervener Catholic Group for Health, Justice and Life.

 

David M. Brown and Janet Epp Buckingham, for the interveners Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, et al.


 

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

 

 


Nature of the case:

 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal - Defence - Necessity - Sentence - Constitutional exemption - Should the defence of necessity have been left with the jury - Did the Court of Appeal err in deciding that there was no obligation on a trial judge to rule on whether a defence has met the air of reality test and would be left to the jury prior to the address of counsel -  Whether the trial judge provided a misleading answer to jurors that had the effect of undermining why the jury might exercise their power to nullify - Should the trial judge have charged the jury that they could find that the Appellant had the legal right to decide to commit suicide for his daughter as her surrogate decision maker - Whether the Charter allows for a constitutional exemption in mandatory minimum sentencing and if so, should an exemption have been granted in these circumstances.


Nature de la cause:

 

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés Droit criminel - Défense - Nécessité - Détermination de la peine - Exemption constitutionnelle - La défense de nécessité aurait-elle due être soumise à l’appréciation du jury? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en décidant que le juge du procès n’avait pas l’obligation de décider si une défense satisfait au critère de la vraisemblance et devrait être soumise à l’appréciation du jury avant l’exposé des avocats? - Le juge du procès a-t-il fourni une réponse trompeuse aux jurés qui aurait eu pour effet de miner la raison pour laquelle le jury pouvait exercer son pouvoir d’annuler? - Le juge du procès aurait-il dû donner des directives au jury selon lesquelles il pouvait décider que l’appelant avait le droit de décider de mettre fin à la vie de sa fille en tant que personne subrogée dans son droit de prendre des décisions? - La Charte permet-elle l’octroi d’une exemption constitutionnelle dans le cas d’une peine minimale obligatoire et le cas échéant, une exemption constitutionnelle aurait‑elle dû être octroyée dans ces circonstances?


 

15.6.2000

 

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

 


Adele Rosemary Breese (nee Gruenke)

 

    v. (27207)

 

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

 

Neutral citation: 2000 SCC 32 /

Référence neutre: 2000 CSC 32


Terence C. Semenuk, Q.C., for the appellant.

 

 

 

Richard A. Saull, for the respondent.


 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE (orally):

 

It will not be necessary to hear from you Mr. Saull, despite the able submissions of Mr. Semenuk on behalf of his client.   The Court is prepared to render judgment now.

 

We are all of the view that the appeal should be dismissed.  We are of the view that the Court of Appeal correctly concluded that none of the information obtained by the Self Defence Review Committee would be admissible as fresh evidence.  Under the terms of Reference the Admissibility of the information before the Committee as fresh evidence is a precondition to new hearing under s. 690 (b) of the Criminal Code .  The Appellant concedes that if the report of Dr.Shane is not admissible, the appeal must fail.  For the reasons given by the Court of Appeal, Dr. Shane’s new affidavit is not admissible.  Therefore the appeal must fail.

 


 

[Traduction]

 

LE JUGE EN CHEF (oralement):

 

Il ne sera pas nécessaire de vous entendre Me Saull, malgré l’excellente argumentation  présentée par Me Semenuk au nom de sa cliente.  La Cour est maintenant prête à rendre jugement.

 

Nous sommes tous d’avis que le pourvoi doit être rejeté.  Nous estimons que la Cour d’appel a, à juste titre, jugé qu’aucune information obtenue par le comité d’examen de la légitime défense n’était admissible comme élément de preuve nouveau. Aux termes des questions renvoyées, l’admissibilité -- en tant qu’élément de preuve nouveau -- de toute information dont disposait le comité était une condition préalable à la tenue d’une nouvelle audition de la cause en vertu de l’al. 690 b )  du Code criminel . L’appelante concède que, si le rapport du Dr Shane n’est pas admissible, le pourvoi ne saurait être accueilli.   Pour les motifs exposés par la Cour d’appel, le nouvel affidavit du Dr Shane n’est pas admissible. Par conséquent, le pourvoi doit être rejeté.

 

 

15.6.2000

 

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

 


Arthur David Gabriel, et al.

 

     v. (27161)

 

Her Majesty the Queen, et al. (Crim.)(Man.)

 

     and between

 

Robert Joseph Houle, et al.

 

     v. (27161)

 

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

 

Neutral citation:   2000 SCC 33

Référence neutre:   2000 CSC 33


Harvey J. Slobodzian and Paul E. Kammerloch, for the appellants.

 

 

Gregg Lawlor, for the respondent.

 

 


Motion to quash Keith P. Catcheway’s Notice of Appeal filed by the Crown is granted.

Motion adding Keith P. Catcheway as an Appellant under rule 17(7) is granted.

Motion to state a constitutional question filed by Keith P. Catcheway is dismissed.

 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:

 

Mr. Kammerloch and Mr. Slobodzian, it will not be necessary to hear from you. The Court is ready to pronounce judgment.  Mr. Justice Iacobucci will give the judgment for the Court.

 


IACOBUCCI J. (orally):

 

This appeal arises out of a dispute between two political factions on the Waterhen Indian Reserve, near Portage la Prairie, Manitoba.  After losing political control, the faction known as the “quorum” set up a blockade on the provincial highway leading into the reserve in order to keep out supporters of the other faction, led by the band’s Chief.  They were charged with mischief and other crimes, which this appeal raises for review.

 

The appellants submit that the trial judge’s conduct prior to and during the trial gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.  They seek to support this allegation with a motion to file fresh evidence in the form of two affidavits deposed by appellant Arthur David Gabriel.  The first affidavit explains their failure to introduce the evidence in the courts below, and the second sets out the evidence of bias.  Essentially, it reveals that the trial judge’s law firm, in his prior practice as a lawyer, had represented certain groups within the reserve.  In addition, the trial judge personally adjudicated an unjust dismissal hearing for the wife of one of the appellants, represented one of the first people to be charged for participating in the barricade incident at a contested bail hearing (not an appellant before this Court), and consulted the appellants regarding the charges against them.  The appellants also submit that the trial judge’s conduct during the trial, in peremptorily dismissing the unrepresented appellant’s motion to recuse himself, also raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

 

The appellants also argue that the Manitoba Court of Appeal erred in not granting the adjournment requested by them, while they were unrepresented, to seek legal advice concerning the possibility of bringing a motion to admit fresh evidence.  This request was denied without reasons.  The appellants suggest that it is not clear why this motion was denied, assuming it may be owing to the fact that, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal, the evidence to support the conviction of each of the appellants was overwhelming.

 

The Crown essentially concedes that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.  Although it submits that the Court of Appeal did not err in denying the motion to adjourn to seek legal advice, it notes that the material submitted by the appellants “clearly demonstrates that the trial judge had professional dealings with some of the appellants while he was a practising lawyer”.  It also notes that, “of great concern is the fact that the trial judge, while still a practising lawyer, acted for the co-accused (who was not tried before him) on a bail application, and apparently had access to the full police report respecting the accused who would eventually appear before him at trial”.  The Crown also agrees with the appellants that the fresh evidence should be admitted.

 

Accordingly, we are all of the view that in the special circumstances of this case, the fresh evidence should be admitted.  On that new evidence, we find that the trial judge’s prior involvement raised a reasonable apprehension of bias in accordance with the well- established jurisprudence on the issue.  Therefore, we would allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal and the convictions of the appellants, and return the matter to the trial court for a new trial before a different trial judge.

 

_________________

 

 

[TRADUCTION]

 

LE JUGE EN CHEF:

 

M. Kammerloch et M. Slobodzian, il ne sera pas nécessaire de vous entendre. La Cour est prête à rendre jugement. M. le juge Iacobucci prononcera le jugement au nom de la Cour.

 

 


LE JUGE IACOBUCCI (oralement) :

 

Le présent pourvoi découle dun litige opposant deux factions politiques au sein de la réserve indienne de Waterhen, près de Portage la Prairie au Manitoba. Après avoir été incapable de sassurer le pouvoir politique, la faction connue sous le nom de « quorum » a dressé un barrage sur lautoroute provinciale menant à la réserve afin dinterdire laccès de celle-ci aux partisans de lautre faction, dirigée par le chef de la bande. Les appelants ont été accusés de méfait et dautres crimes, qui font lobjet du présent pourvoi.

 

Les appelants prétendent que la conduite du juge du procès, avant et pendant le procès, a fait naître une crainte raisonnable de partialité. Au soutien de cette prétention, ils demandent par voie de requête à déposer des éléments de preuve nouveaux, en loccurrence deux affidavits souscrits par lappelant Arthur David Gabriel. Le premier affidavit explique leur omission de déposer ces éléments de preuve devant les juridictions inférieures, tandis que le deuxième expose la preuve relative à la partialité. Essentiellement, cette preuve  révèle que, lorsque le juge du procès pratiquait le droit, le cabinet dont il faisait partie a représenté certains groupes au sein de la réserve. En outre, en tant quarbitre dans une affaire de congédiement injustifié, il a tranché en faveur de l’épouse de lun des appelants;  lors dune enquête sur cautionnement contestée, il a représenté lune des premières personnes qui a été accusée (mais qui nest pas appelante devant notre Cour) davoir participé aux événements de la barricade; et il a été consulté par les appelants au sujet des accusations portées contre eux.  Les appelants affirment également que la conduite du juge pendant le procès, savoir le rejet péremptoire par celui-ci de la requête en récusation déposée par les appelants non représentés, fait aussi naître une crainte raisonnable de partialité.

 

Les appelants plaident en outre que la Cour dappel du Manitoba a fait erreur en leur  refusant lajournement quils ont demandé, lorsquils n’étaient pas représentés, en vue de pouvoir consulter un avocat relativement à la possibilité de présenter une requête visant à faire admettre des éléments de preuve nouveaux. Leur demande a été rejetée sans motifs. Les appelants affirment que la raison du rejet de cette demande nest pas évidente et ils supposent que le rejet pourrait être imputable au fait que la Cour dappel estimait que la preuve étayant la déclaration de culpabilité de chaque appelant était accablante.

 

Essentiellement, le ministère public concède quil y avait une crainte raisonnable de partialité. Bien quil soutienne que la Cour dappel na commis aucune erreur en rejetant la requête demandant un ajournement en vue de consulter un avocat, le ministère public souligne que les documents déposés par les appelants [traduction] « démontrent clairement que le juge du procès a eu des rapports professionnels avec certains des appelants pendant quil exerçait le droit ». Le ministère public mentionne également quil  [traduction] « est très préoccupant que, lorsquil pratiquait le droit, le juge du procès ait représenté le coaccusé (qui na pas subi son procès devant lui) dans le cadre dune demande de cautionnement, et quil ait apparemment eu accès à lensemble du rapport de police relatif à laccusé qui allait éventuellement comparaître devant lui au procès ». Le ministère public convient également avec les appelants que les éléments de preuve nouveaux devraient être admis.

 

Par conséquent, nous sommes tous davis que, eu égard aux circonstances particulières de la présente affaire, les éléments de preuve nouveaux doivent être admis. À la lumière de ces éléments, nous estimons que les activités antérieures du juge du procès ont fait naître une crainte raisonnable de partialité, conformément à la jurisprudence bien établie en la matière. Nous sommes donc davis daccueillir le pourvoi, dinfirmer larrêt de la Cour dappel du Manitoba, dannuler les déclarations de culpabilité des appelants et de renvoyer laffaire à la cour de première instance pour la tenue dun nouveau procès devant un juge différent.

 

 


16.6.2000

 

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

 


The Minister of National Revenue

 

    v. (27066)

 

Grand Chief Michael Mitchell also known as Kanentakeron (F.C.A.)


Graham Garton, Q.C., and Sandra Phillips, for the appellant.

 

René Morin, pour l’intervenante la procureure générale du Québec.

 

Gabriel Bourgeois, pour l’intervenant le procureur général du Nouveau-Brunswick.

 

Kenneth J. Tyler and Robert J.C. Deane, for the intervener the A.G. of Manitoba.

 

Timothy P. Leadem and Kathryn Kickbush, for the intervener the A.G. of British Columbia.

 

Peter W. Hutchins, Anjali Choksi, Micha J. Menczer and Paul Williams, for the respondent.

 

Murray Marshall and François Dandonneau, for the intervener Mohawk Council of Kahnawake.

 

Jack R. London, Q.C., and Martin S. Minuk, for the intervener Assembly of First Nations.

 

Henry J. Bear, for the intervener Union of New Brunswick Indians.


RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

 


Nature of the case:

 

Native Law - Aboriginal rights - Right to bring goods into Canada for personal or community use, or for non-commercial scale trade with First Nation Communities in Ontario or Quebec, without paying any duty or taxes on the goods to the Government of Canada - Whether such an aboriginal right  was reconcilable with the sovereignty of the Crown - Whether such an aboriginal right had not been extinguished by the Customs Act - Whether an aboriginal right to an exemption or immunity from any duty or tax had been extinguished by section 49 of An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act and the Income War Tax Act, S.C. 1949, chap. 25.


Nature de la cause:

 

Droit des autochtones - Droits ancestraux - Droit d’apporter des marchandises au Canada pour utilisation personnelle ou communautaire, ou pour le commerce sur une échelle non commerciale avec des communautés des premières nations en Ontario ou au Québec, sans payer de droits ou taxes sur ces marchandises au gouvernement du Canada - Pareil droit ancestral a-t-il été éteint par la Loi sur les douanes? - Le droit ancestral à une exemption de tous droits ou taxes a-t-il été éteint par l’article 49 de la Loi modifiant la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu et la Loi de l’impôt de guerre sur le revenu, S.C. 1949, ch. 25?



 


WEEKLY AGENDA

 

ORDRE DU JOUR DE LA

SEMAINE

 


 

 

The next session of the Supreme Court of Canada commences on October 2, 2000.

La prochaine session de la Cour suprême du Canada débute le 2 octobre 2000.

 

The next bulletin of proceedings will be published July 21,  2000.

Le prochain bulletin des procédures sera publié le 21 juillet 2000.


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 2000 and all the applications for leave to appeal filed or heard in 2000 up to now.

 

Cet index comprend les requêtes en autorisation de pourvoi en délibéré au début de 2000 et toutes celles produites ou entendues en 2000 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

*06            Others/Autres


 

*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                                                                                      

 

 

1858-0894 Québec Inc. c. Compagnie d’assurance Standard Life (Qué.), 27302, 

   *02 27.1.00                                                                                                                                 1752(99)                           157(00)

2849-6180 Québec Inc. c. 3099-2325 Québec Inc. (Qué.), 27557, *02 22.6.00                 993(00)                             1181(00)

2858-0702 Québec Inc. c. Lac D’Amiante du Québec Ltée (Qué.), 27324, *03

   27.1.00                                                                                                                                         15(00)                               162(00)

2859-8803 Québec Inc. c. Jean Fortin & Associés Inc. (Qué.), 27368, *02 2.3.00           206(00)                             395(00)

2953-6778 Québec Inc c. Gallagher (Qué.), 27908, *A                                                       943(00)

156036 Canada Inc. c. Les Pétroles Therrien Inc. (Qué.), 27158, *02 27.1.00                  16(00)                               163(00)

248524 Alberta Ltd. v. 155569 Canada Ltd. (Alta.), 27828, *A                                        656(00)

539938 Ontario Ltd. v. Derksen (Ont.), 27524, *03 25.5.00                                                  785(00)                             956(00)

610990 Ontario Inc. v. Business Development Bank of Canada (Ont.), 27479, *01

   3.2.00                                                                                                                                           19(00)                               214(00)

656203 Ontario Inc. v. Soloway, Wright (Ont.), 27525, *B                                                 1126(00)

702535 Ontario Inc. v. Tinmouth (Ont.), 27932, *A                                                             1116(00)

1238157 Ontario Inc. v. Corporation of the City of Brampton (Ont.), 27933, *A          1117(00)

A.H. c. Melançon (Qué.), 27937, *A                                                               1156(00)

A.H. c. Institut Philippe Pinel (Qué.), 27854, *A                                              783(00)

A.K. v. The Queen (Ont.), 27697, *01 11.5.00                                                                           662(00)                             888(00)

A.-L. T. v. W.B.  (Que.), 27814, *02 25.5.00                                                                                855(00)                             965(00)

A.L.R. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 27659, *B                                                                         1119(00)

Abbott Laboratories, Ltd. v. Nu-Pharm Inc. (F.C.A.), 27051, *B                                        787(99)

Abi Biotechnology Inc. v. Apotex Inc. (Man.), 27795, *A                                                    538(00)

AGB Halifax Enterprises Inc. v. Wood Street Developments Inc. (Ont.), 27668, *B        1077(00)

Agricore Cooperative Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27347, *02 13.4.00                               450(00)                             675(00)

Ahani v. Minister of Citizenship & Immigration (F.C.A.), 27792, *05 25.5.00                  905(00)                             972(00)

Ahluwalia v. College of Physician and Surgeons of Manitoba (Man.), 27382,

   *02 6.4.00                                                                                                                                   491(00)                             613(00)

Aiken v. Aitken (B.C.), 27728, *02 11.5.00                                                                                724(00)                             870(00)

Air Wemindji Inc. v. Héli-Forex Inc. (Qué.), 27859, *A                                                         784(00)

Albert v. Albert (Ont.), 27637, *B                                                                                              1076(00)


Ali c. Compagnie d’Assurance Guardian du Canada (Qué.), 27458, *01 8.6.00              857(00)                             1091(00)

Alpha Laboratories Inc. v. The Queen in Right of Ontario (Ont.), 27419, *02

    20.4.00                                                                                                                                        585(00)                             740(00)

Antkiw v. Verscheure (Ont.), 27806, *A                                                                                  581(00)

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. (F.C.A.), 27764, *A                                                                    370(00)

Arcand c. Denharco Inc. (Qué.), 27372, *02 13.4.00                                                              544(00)                             667(00)

Arcuri v. The Queen (Ont.), 27797, *03 15.6.00                                                                       1002(00)                           1137(00)

Arthur c. Procureur général du Canada (C.A.F.), 27772, *A                                             371(00)

Ashmore v. Van Mol (B.C.), 27171, *01 20.1.00                                                                       2013(99)                           98(00)

Askey v The Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia (B.C.), 27607, *02

   22.6.00                                                                                                                                         1003(009)                         1177(00)

Association des policiers provinciaux du Québec c. Lauzon (Qué.), 27619, *01

   11.5.00                                                                                                                                         662(00)                             873(00)

Association des radiologistes du Québec c. Rochon (Qué.), 27313, *02 20.1.00              1968(99)                           101(00)

Atlas Industries v. Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (Sask.), 27402, *02

   20.4.00                                                                                                                                         584(00)                             738(00)

Atomic Energy Control Board v. Danilow (Ont.), 27632, *B                                              1126(00)

Attorney General of Canada v. Matthews (F.C.A.), 27456, *02 20.4.00                             381(00)                             742(00)

Attorney General of Canada v. Pleau (N.S.), 27770, *A                                                      371(00)

Augustine v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.B.), 27695, *02 25.5.00                                                     853(00)                             963(00)

Austie v. Aksnowicz (Alta.), 27248, *02 17.2.00                                                                      136(00)                             304(00)

Autobus Thomas Inc. c. La Reine (C.A.F.), 27804, *A                                                          581(00)

Azco Mining Inc. c. Sam Lévy & Associés Inc. (Qué.), 27876, *B                                       1124(00)

Aziz v. United Used Auto & Truck Parts Ltd. (B.C.), 27824, *A                                          656(00)

B. G. Schickedanz Investments Ltd. v. Szasz (Ont.), 27557, *A                                           1718(99)

Baas v. Jellema (B.C.), 27812, *A                                                                                             581(00)

Backman v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27561, *04 8.6.00                                                                903(00)                             1087(00)

Bacon v. Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation (Sask.), 27469, *01 1.6.00           859(00)                             1015(00)

Bagola v. Ovadya (Ont.), 27691, *A                                                                                        91(00)

Bailey c. The Queen in Right of Canada (F.C.A.), 27427, *04 25.5.00                                591(00)                             968(00)

Banca Commerciale Italiana of Canada c. Soeurs du Bon Pasteur de Québec

   (Qué.), 27627, *B                                                                                                                       1125(00)

Bank of America Canada v. Clarica Trust Co. (Ont.), 27898,*A                                       902(00)

Bank of Montreal v. Enchant Resources Ltd. (Alta.), 27766, *A                                        719(00)

Banque nationale du Canada v. Sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec (Qué.),

   26988, *B                                                                                                                                    1153(99)

Bareau v. Governors of the University of Alberta (Alta.), 27330, *02 27.1.00                   2015(99)                           167(00)

Barreau de Montréal c. Association professionnelle des sténographes officiels du

   Québec (Qué.), 27472, *05 13.5.00                                                                                          726(00)                             924(00)

Bayer Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.), 27436, *01 15.6.00                             865(00)                             1135(00)

B.C. Shhickedanz Investments Ltd. v. Szasz (Ont.), 27558, *01 15.6.00                              867(00)                             1135(00)

B. Frégeau & Fils Inc. c. Société québecoise d’assainissement des eaux (Qué.),

   27942, *A                                                                                                                                   1157(00)

BDO Dunwoody Ltd. v. Superintendant of Bankruptcy (Man.), 27501, *02 25.5.00        785(00)                             957(00)

Beach v. United States of America (Man.), 27916, *A                                                          986(00)

Beamish v. The Queen (Crim.)(P.E.I.), 27545, *01 8.6.00                                                        856(00)                             1090(00)

Beaver Lumber Co. v. Epoch (Ont.), 27193, *01 20.1.00                                                        1912(99)                           104(00)

Béliard c. Husbands (Qué.), 27241, *01 17.2.00                                                                      139(00)                             307(00)

Belships (Far East) Shipping (Pte.) Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Forest Products Ltd

   (F.C.A.), 27471, *02 25.5.00                                                                                                     731(00)                             970(00)


Benard v. The Queen (Man.), 27175, *01 13.4.00                                                                    386(00)                             668(00)

Ben-Hafsia c. City of Vancouver (B.C.), 27337, *02 27.1.00                                                  18(00)                               153(00)

Berendsen v. The Queen in right of Ontario (Ont.), 27312, *04 25.5.00                             452(00)                             967(00)

Bernardo v. The Queen (Ont.), 27925, *A                                                                               1116(00)

Bernier c. Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec (Qué.), 27416, *01 27.4.00    594(00)                             763(00)

Bertrix Corp. c. Valeurs mobilières Desjardins Inc. (Qué.), 27401, *02 20.4.00               588(00)                             751(00)

Bérubé c. La Reine (Qué.), 27530, *01 20.1.00                                                                        1966(99)                           99(00)

Beyo v. The Queen (Ont.), 27917, *A                                                                                       986(00)

Bhandar v. Bains (B.C.), 27199, *02 24.2.00                                                                            13(00)                               355(00)

Bhinder v. The Queen (B.C.), 27647, *02 22.6.00                                                                    1007(00)                           1182(00)

Biderman v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27841, *A                                                                           721(00)

Biron c. Arthur Anderson Inc. (Qué.), 27426, *02 18.5.00                                                     730(00)                             907(00)

Black (David) v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27798, *B                                                            1066(00)

Black (Frederick) v. The Queen (N.S.), 27837, *A                                                                720(00)

Blerot v. The Queen (Sask.), 27819, *A                                                                                   655(00)

Bloom v. Meditrust Healthcare Inc. (Ont.), 27571, *02 6.4.00                                              485(00)                             608(00)

Bonamy v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27631, *01 25.5.00                                                         3(00)                                 954(00)

Boston v. Boston (Ont.), 27682, *03 16.3.00                                                                             298(00)                      502(00)

Boudreault c. Procureur général du Canada (C.A.F.), 27660, *B                       1170(00)

Bourbeau c. La Reine (Qué.), 27906, *A                                                        942(00)

Braintech Inc. v. Kostiuk (B.C.), 27296, *02 9.3.00                                         297(00)                    453(00)

Brault & Bisaillon (1986) Inc. c. Éditions Le Canada Français Ltée (Qué.),

   27409,  *02 13.4.00                                                                                   388(00)                    671(00)

Brertton v. The Queen (Alta.), 26669, *01 30.3.00                                           441(00)                    600(00)

Brett v. Halifax Regional Municipality (N.S.), 27640, *B                                    1067(00)

Bri-Mel Developments Ltd. v. McLaren (Ont.), 27411, *02 11.5.00                     495(00)                    879(00)

British Aviation Insurance Group (Canada) Ltd. v. West Central Air Ltd. (Sask.),

   27590, *02 22.6.00                                                                                    952(00)                    1187(00)

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority v. Tenneco Canada Inc. (B.C.),

   27507, *02 22.6.00                                                                                    989(99)                    1174(00)

Bromstein v. Khanna (Ont.), 27933, *A                                                          987(00)

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. Litke (Man.), 27622, *B       1013(00)

Brown v. Synchronics Inc. (F.C.A.), 27405, *01 16.3.00                                   347(00)                    499(00)

Bruce Agra Foods Inc. v. Trilwood Investments Ltd (Ont.), 27260, *02 23.3.00  207(00)                    557(00)

Bryan v. The Queen (Man.), 27222, *01 3.2.00                                               94(00)                      211(00)

Buck Consultants Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27707, *A                                270(00)

Buhlers v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles for the Province of British Columbia

   (B.C.), 27268, *01 24.2.00                                                                         203(00)                    352(00)

Bull v. The Queen (Alta.), 26669, *01 30.3.00                                                 441(00)                    600(00)

Butcher v. Government of St. Lucia (Ont.), 27375, *02 11.5.00                        497(00)                    881(00)

C.A.L. v. The Queen (N.S.), 27758, *01 22.6.00                                             988(00)                    1172(00)

C.L.L. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27564, *01 23.3.00                                    373(00)                    548(00)

C.M.V. v. The Queen (Alta.), 27779, *B                                                         1160(00)

Cadillac Fairview Corp. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 27214, *02 3.2.00            92(00)                      209(00)

Cadillac Fairview Corp. v. Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (Sask.),

   27537, *01 30.3.00                                                                                    445(00)                    604(00)

Comeau c. Comeau, (Qué.), 27692, *A                                                                                    91(00)

Cameron v. Attorney-General of Nova Scotia (N.S.), 27584, *B                        1073(00)

Campbell (Dwaine) v. The Queen (Ont.), 27606, *05 23.12.99                          40(00)                      40(00)

Campbell v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27685, *02 22.6.00                                      1004(00)                   1178(00)


Carrie v. The Queen (B.C.), 27684, *01 11.5.00                                              589(00)                    884(000

Canada Life Assurance Co. v. Ryan (Nfld.), 27603, *B                                     1000(00)

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. v. Corporation of the District of North

   Vancouver (B.C.), 27874, *A                                                                      899(00)

Canada Post Corp. v. Canadian Postmasters and Assistants Association (F.C.A.),

   27377, *02 6.4.00                                                                                     492(00)                    614(00)

Canadian Media Guild, Local 30213 of the Newspaper Guild v. Canadian

   Broadcasting Corp. (Nfld.), 27378, *02 6.4.00                                              540(00)                    611(00)

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 882 v. City of Prince Albert (Sask.),

   27816, *A                                                                                                 655(00)

Can-Dive Services Ltd. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co. (B.C.), 27845, *A                   721(00)

Cannella v. Toronto Transit Commission (Ont.), 27705, *A                              270(00)

Cape Breton -Vitoria Regional Shool Board v. Menzies (N.S.), 27962, *A          1159(00)

Cardinal v. The Queen (Alta.), 26669, *01 30.3.00                                           441(00)                    600(00)

Carmichael v. The Queen (Ont.), 27634, *01 23.3.00                                       373(00)                    548(00)

Carrie v.  The Queen (B.C.), 27684, *A                                                          90(00)

Caswell v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27538, *01 2.3.00                                    272(00)                    392(00)

Cavan v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27582, *01 30.3.00                                    440(00)                    599(00)

Centra Gas Manitoba v. Bohemier (Man.), 27197, *02 20.1.00                         1967(99)                   100(00)

Challenge Team v. Revenue Canada (F.C.A.), 27946, *A                                 1117(00)

Chan v. Chiasson (Ont.), 27498, *02 18.5.00                                                  731(00)                    909(00)

Chaoulli c. Ministre de la santé et des services sociaux (Qué.), 27910, *A         985(00)

Chase Manhattan Bank of Canada v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27740, *A               294(00)

Chaudhary v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27672, *01 25.5.00                              89(00)                      955(00)

Chung v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 27508, *01 27.1.00                                   2014(99)                   165(00)

CIBC Mortgage Corp. c. Vasquez (Qué.), 27963, *A                                        1159(00)

Claveau c. Durand (Qué.), 27349, *02 2.3.00                                                  274(00)                    397(00)

CLR Construction Labour Relations Associations of Saskatchewan v. PCL Indus-

   trial Constructors Inc. (Sask.), 27833, *A                                                    719(00)

Club Juridique c. Lafrenière (Qué.), 27633, *B                                                1074(00)

Cobb v. United States of America (Crim.)(Ont.), 27610, *03 17.2.00                 142(00)                    310(00)

Coca-Cola Ltd. v. Pardhan (F.C.A.), 27392, *02 3.5.00                                    542(00)                    794(00)

Collymore v. The Queen (Ont.), 27526, *A                                                      719(00)

Committee for the Equal Treatment of Asbestos Minority Shareholders v. La Reine

   (Ont.), 27252, *03 27.1.00                                                                         1964(99)                   155(00)

Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail c. Société canadienne des

   postes (Qué.), 27311, *02 6.4.00                                                                350(00)                    616(00)

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse c. Centre

   dhébergement et de soins de longue durée Champlain-Manoir de

   Verdun (Qué.), 27639, *B                                                                           1168(00)

Commission des lésions professionnelles c. Société canadienne des postes (Qué.),

   27311, *02 6.4.00                                                                                     350(00)                    616(00)

Commission scolaire dIberville c. Syndicat de lenseignement du Haut-Richelieu

   (Qué.), 27369, *02 30.3.00                                                                         446(00)                    606(00)

Commisso v. United States of America (Ont.), 27787, *B                                1167(00)

Commisso v. United States of America (Ont.), 27787, *B                                1167(00)

Compagnie dassurance-vie Transamerica du Canada c. Goulet (Qué.), 27939, *A                           1156(00)

Conex Services Inc. v. Bogner Developments Ltd.  (B.C.), 27671, *A               89(00)

Conrad v. Imperial Oil Ltd. (N.S.), 27270, *02 2.3.00                                       274(00)                    396(00)

Conroy v. Friesen (B.C.), 27200, *01 27.1.00                                                  11(00)                      151(00)


Conseil scolaire de l’Île de Montréal c. Ville de l’Île Bizard (Qué.), 27651, *A     6(00)

Conway v. The Queen in Right of Ontario (Ont.), 27519, *02 8.6.00                  945(00)                    1083(00)

Continentale Compagnie dAssurance du Canada c. Club de Golf Oka Inc (Qué.),

   27379, *02 20.4.00                                                                                    544(00)                    748(00)

Cooper v. Hobart (B.C.), 27880, *A                                                                900(00)

Corporation of the City of Brampton v. Bisoukis (Ont.), 27742, *B                    1163(00)

Corporation of the City of Kelowna v. Labour Relations Board of British Columbia

   (B.C.), 27315, *01 23.3.00                                                                         299(00)                    561(00)

Corporation of the City of Mississauga v. Slough Estates Canada Ltd. (Ont.),

   27951, *A                                                                                                 1117(00)

Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay v. 1037618 Ontario Inc. (Ont.), 27549,

   *02 8.6.00                                                                                                945(00)                    1082(00)

Corporation of the City of Toronto v. Toronto Terminals Railways Co. (Ont.),

   27626, *A                                                                                                 2(00)

Corsano v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27319, *02 20.4.00                                        451(00)                    753(00)

Cortese v. Nowsco Well Service Ltd. (Alta.), 27968, *A                                   1159(00)

Côté c. La Reine (Qué.), 27656, *A                                                                88(00)

Côté (Fernand) c. Taillefer (Qué.), 27882, *A                                                  900(00)

Coulombe c. Office municipal dhabitation de Pointe-Claire (Qué.), 27536, *B   1122(00)

Couture (François) c. Ferme La Champignière Inc. (Qué.), 27301, *02 18.5.00   730(00)                    908(00)

Couture (Paul) c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.) 27530, *B                                         1966(99)                  

Crawford v. The Queen (Sask.), 27195, *01 30.3.00                                        440(00)                    600(00)

Crestwood Lake Ltd. v. Pizzey (Ont.), 27462, *02 11.5.00                               597(00)                    887(00)

Dagostino v. United States of America (Ont.), 27787, *B                                1167(00)

Dagher v. McDonnell-Ronald Limousine Service Ltd. (Ont.), 27829, *A              656(00)

Daisley v. City of Lethbridge (Alta.), 27890, *A                                               901(00)

Dawes v. Jajcaj (B.C.), 27403, *02 6.4.00                                                      492(00)                    613(00)

Dawson v. Attorney General of Alberta (Alta.), 27629, *01 13.4.00                    385(00)                    667(00)

De-Jai Holdings Inc. v. Corporation of the City of Guelph (Ont.), 27364,

   *02 3.2.00                                                                                                94(00)                      210(00)

Deane v. The Queen (Ont.), 27776, *05 22.2.00                                              461(00)

Del Grande v. Toronto Dominion Bank (Ont.), 27522, *02 30.3.00                    447(00)                    607(00)

Derksen v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 27642, *01 30.3.00                               444(00)                    603(00)

Devgan v. The Queen in Right of Ontario (Ont.), 27567, *01 23.3.00                 374(00)                    549(00)

Devgan v. The Queen in Right of Ontario (Ont.), 27567, *01 20.4.00                 583(00)                    737(00)

Devinat c. Commission de lImmigration et du Statut de réfugié (C.A.F.),

   27727, *A                                                                                                 293(00)

Devji v. Corporation of the District of Burnaby (B.C.), 27667, *B                       1120(00)

Dick v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27641, *B                                                          1070(00)

Directeur général, Région du Québec c. Collin (C.A.F.), 27451, *02 20.4.00       383(00)                    745(00)

Directeur général, Région du Québec c. Couture (C.A.F.), 27447, *02 20.4.00    380(00)                    741(00)

Directeur général, Région du Québec c. Cyr (C.A.F.), 27446, *02 20.4.00          380(00)                    742(00)

Directeur général, Région du Québec c. Duguay (C.A.F.), 27448, *02 20.4.00    382(00)                    744(00)

Directeur général, Région du Québec c. Duguay (C.A.F.), 27449, *02 20.4.00    384(00)                    745(00)

Directeur général, Région du Québec c. Duguay (C.A.F.), 27452, *02 20.4.00    384(00)                    746(00)

Directeur général, Région du Québec c. Leblanc (C.A.F.), 27450, *02 20.4.00   382(00)                    743(00)

Do c. La Reine (Qué.) 27805, *A                                                                   657(00)

Dobie v. Boushey (Ont.), 27468, *01 23.12.99                                                1817(99)                   21(00)

Dobson v. The Queen (N.B.), 27775, *01 22.6.00                                           950(00)                    1185(00)

Dofasco v. NBD Bank (Ont.), 27754, *02 13.4.00                                           486(00)                    675(00)


Doiron c. Lipp (Qué.), 27940, *A                                                                    1156(00)

Dominion Bridge Inc. v. The Queen (Sask.), 27355, *01 30.3.00                      445(00)                    605(00)

Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. v. Marchand (Ont.), 27244, *02

   17.2.00                                                                                                                                   141(00) 309(00)

Doody v. Professional Training Committee of the Barreau du Québec (Qué.),

   27334, *02 27.1.00                                                                                    8(00)                        160(00)

Doyle v. The Queen (Crim.)(P.E.I.), 27702, *01 25.5.00                                   271(00)                    954(00)

Dr. William N. Campbell Professional Corporation v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27687,

   *02 22.6.00                                                                                              1004(00)                   1178(00)

Drummie v. Society of Lloyds (N.B.), 27815, *A                                             655(00)

Duca Community Credit Union Ltd. v. Sugarman (Ont.), 27417, *02 11.5.00      545(00)                    883(00)

Duchesne c. Picard (Qué.), 27625, *B                                                           1013(00)

Dunmore v. Attorney General for Ontario (Ont.), 27216, *03 24.2.00                 140(00)                    353(00)

Durand v. Bastien (Alta.), 27818, *A                                                              655(00)

Dwomoh v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Ont.), 27534, *01 11.5.00  495(00)                    879(00)

E.S. Fox Ltd. v. Hagt (Ont.), 27834, *A                                                          720(00)

E.T.H. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 27709, *01 25.5.00                                   854(00)                    965(00)

Eamor v. Air Canada Ltd. (B.C.), 27661, *B                                                    1078(00)

Eastern Power Ltd. v. Azienda Comunale Energia & Ambiente (Ont), 27595, *02

   22.6.00                                                                                                                                   1008(00)           1183(00)

Eholor v. The Queen (Ont.), 27504, *02 6.1.00                                               1963(99)                   22(00)

Elder v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27219, *05 26.1.00                                      752(99)                    181(00)

Elliott (Bettyann) v. City of Toronto (Ont.), 27289, *A                                       985(00)

Elliott (Veronica) v. Liczyk (Ont.), 27888, *A                                                  985(00)

Ellis-Don Ltd. v. Naylor Group Inc. (Ont.), 27321, *03 20.4.00                          376(00)                    733(00)

Emballage Graham du Canada Ltée c. Commission des droits de la personne et

   des droits de la jeunesse (Qué.), 27336, *02 17.2.00                                    138(00)                    307(00)

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

   05 19.1.00                                                                                                113(00)                    113(00)

Entreprises Ludco Ltée v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27320, *03 20.4.00                  487(00)                    734(00)

Epstein v. Salvation Army Scarborough Grace General Hospital (Ont.), 27608,

   *05 18.2.00                                                                                              2010(99)                   362(00)

Ernst & Young v. Webster (B.C.), 27946, *A                                                  1117(00)

Estate of Yuan Vercingetorix Woo v. Privacy Commissioner of Canada (F.C.A.)

   27497, *01 13.4.00                                                                                    490(00)                    665(00)

Éthier c. Entreprises P. F. St-Laurent (Qué.), 27413, *02 2.3.00                       275(00)                    398(00)

F.C.B. v. The Queen (N.S.), 27868, *A                                                          898(00)

Farhadi v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.), 27955, *A              1065(00)

Favreau c. Productions Avanti Cinévidéo Inc. (Qué.), 27527, *01 25.5.00          789(00)                    962(00)

Flamand c. La Reine (Qué.), 27589, *01 30.3.00                                             444(00)                    604(00)

Feuerweker c. La Reine (Ont.), 27664, *01 11.5.00                                         590(00)                    885(00)

Firm of Kirkland, Murpphy & Ain v. Wernikowski (Ont.), 27763, *A                   483(00)

Filmaier v. O.K.W. Ltd. (Ont.) 27700, *B                                                        1067(00)

Flexi-Coil Ltd. v. Bourgault Industries Ltd. (F.C.A.)(Sask.), 27273, *02 23.3.00  377(00)                    551(00)

Fortin c. Fonds dassurance responsabilité professionnelle de la chambre des

   notaires du Québec (Qué.), 27400, *02 11.5.00                                            546(00)                    884(00)

Fournier v. The Queen (B.C.), 27881, *A                                                        900(00)

Franks v. Attorney General of British Columbia (B.C.), 27414, *01 2.3.00         272(00)                    392(00)

Francis v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Ont.), 27615, *04 1.6.00      137(00)                    1018(00)

Fraternité des préposés à lentretien des voies c. Canadien Pacifique Ltée (Qué.),


   27434, *02 27.4.00                                                                                    595(00)                    763(00)

Friedland v. United States of America (Ont.), 27773, *B                                  1169(00)

Friends of the West Country Association v. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

   (F.C.A.), 27644, *A                                                                                   5(00)

Frito Lay Canada Ltd. v. Heynen (Ont.), 27628, *B                                          1121(00)

G.P. c. S.B. (Qué.), 27593, *02 3.2.00                                                           95(00)                      211(00)

Gajic v. Wolverton Securities Ltd. (B.C.), 27679, *A                                        269(00)

Gajic (Dragisa) v. The Queen (B.C.), 27750, *A                                              482(00)

Galerie Dart Yves Laroche Inc. c. Théberge (Qué.), 27872, *A                        899(00)

Galuego v. Canadian Human Rights Commission (F.C.A.), 27553, *01 22.6.00  991(99)                    1175(00)

Gauthier c. Gauthier (Qué.), 27592, *01 22.6.00                                              951(00)                    1185(00)

Gavelin v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27686, *02 22.6.00                                         1005(00)                   1179(00)

Gazette c. Conseil du référendum (Qué.), 27961, *A                                        1158(00)

General Manager, Liquor Control v. Ocean Port Hotel Ltd. (B.C.), 27371, *03

   16.3.00                                                                                                                                   377(00) 501(00)

Gérard Robitaille & Associés Ltée c. La Reine (Qué.), 27799, *A                      580(00)

Gill (Ajmer) v. Gill (B.C.), 27025, *02 11.5.00                                                  496(00)                    880(00)

Gill (Jasbir) v. The Queen (B.C.), 27647, *02 22.6.00                                      1007(00)                   1182(00)

Girard c. Moisan (Qué.), 27964, *A                                                                1159(00)

Gindis v. Ritchie Scott Brisbourne (B.C.), 28827, *A                                       656(00)

Glaxo Group Ltd. v. Novopharm Ltd. (F.C.A.), 27457, *02 20.4.00                    584(00)                    738(00)

Glengarry Bingo Association v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Alta.), 27166, *02 27.4.00  593(00)                    762(00)

Godbout c. Municipalité de la paroisse de St-Pie (Qué.), 27428, *01 11.5.00     591(00)                    885(00)

Golden v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27547, *03 23.3.00                                   143(00)                    553(00)

Goohsen v. The Queen (Sask.), 27926, *A                                                     1116(00)

Gorenko v. The Queen (Qué.), 27266, *03 27.1.00                                          1965(99)                   155(00)

Gordon v. Winnipeg Canoe Club (Man.), 27358, *02 30.3.00                            442(00)                    601(00)

Gosselin c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.), 27418, *04 1.6.00                 729(00)                    1020(00)

Gramaglia v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.), 27729, *A                          294(00)

Grant v. The Queen (Ont.), 27243, *B                                                            1151(99)

Great Lakes Power Ltd. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 31

   (Ont.), 27532, *02 8.6.00                                                                           790(00)                    1088(00)

Greater Europe Mission (Canada) v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27696, *A                 269(00)

Greenwood v. Hickson (Sask.), 27807, *A                                                      580(00)

Groleau-Roberge c. Paradis (Qué.), 27591, *B                                                866(00)

Grossman v. United States of America (Crim.)(Ont.), 27610, *03 17.2.00          142(00)                    310(00)

Guindon c. Lortie et Martin Ltée (Qué.), 27954, *A                                           1157(00)

Guignard c. Ville de Saint-Hyacinthe (Qué.), 27704, *A                                    269(00)

Guilbault v. Investors Group Trust Co. (Ont.), 27613, *B                                 1077(00)

Guyot c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 27739, *01 8.6.00                                         947(00)                    1085(00)

H.K. c. La Direction de la protection de la  jeunesse (Qué.), 27745, *01 13.4.00                               543(00) 666(00)

Halteren v. Wilhelm (B.C.), 27786, *A                                                            484(00)

Hammell v. Friesen (B.C.), 27200, *01 27.1.00                                               11(00)                      151(00)

Hanmore v. Hanmore (Alta.), 27858, *A                                                         784(00)

Harel c. Montambault (Qué.), 27517, *02 8.6.00                                              787(00)                    1083(00)

Hart v. The Queen (N.S.), 27784, *A                                                              538(00)

Harvey v. The Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia (B.C.), 27849,*A                          722(00)

Hayat v. Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto (Ont.), 27698, *A                269(00)

Hettema Inc. v. Claude & Conrad Toner Ltd. (N.B.), 27755, *A                         369(00)

Highland Park Financial Inc. v. Chalmers (Man.), 27920, *A                            1065(00)


Hill v. Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture (B.C.), 27801, *B         1162(00)

Hnatiw v. Scamstad (Sask.), 27601, *A                                                         579(00)

Hogan v. Attorney General of Newfoundland (Nfld.), 27865, *A                         897(00)

Holdbrook v. Emeneau (N.S.), 27957, *A                                                       1157(00)

Hollick v. City of Toronto (Ont.), 27699, *A                                                     293(00)

Hongkong Bank of Canada v. Micron Construction Ltd. (B.C.), 27867, *A         898(00)

Hospital Employees Union v. Children and Womens Health Centre (B.C.), 27873,

   *A                                                                                                           899(00)

Housen v. Rural Municipality of Shellbrook No. 493 (Sask.), 27826, *A             656(00)

Huard c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 27530, *B                                                    1966(99)

Hurst v. The Queen (B.C.), 27919, *A                                                            987(00)

Hydro-Québec c. Ville de Hampstead (Qué.), 27883, *A                                  900(00)

Hynes v. The Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.), 27443, *03 27.1.00                                    1816(99)                   149(00)

Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Lloyd (Alta.), 27744, *A                                                     296(00)

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v. Bevacqua (B.C.), 27614, *02 22.6.00                           1006(00)           1181(00)

Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Guardian Insurance Company of

   Canada (Ont.), 27431, *02 11.5.00                                                             724(00)                    870(00)

Isert v. Santos (B.C.), 27190,*02 17.2.00                                                       93(00)                      300(00)

J.H. v. The Queen (Ont.), 27670, *01 25.5.00                                                 596(00)                    969(00)

Jabarianha v. The Queen (B.C.)(Crim.), 27725, *03 8.6.00                               944(00)                    1081(00)

Jagna Limited c. Techno Bloc Inc.  (C.A.F.), 27657, *A                                  88(00)

Jazairi v. Ontario Human Rights Commission (Ont.), 27500, *02 3.5.00            658(00)                    795(00)

Jhajj v. The Queen (B.C.), 27647, *02 22.6.00                                                1007(00)                   1182(00)

Joly v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27715, *B                                                    1168(00)

Johnston v. Johnston (Ont.), 27911, *A                                                         985(00)

Jones v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 27778, *B                                               1166(00)

Jordan v. Salgado de Leon (Sask.), 27404, *02 17.2.00                                   134(00)                    302(00)

Jorgensen c. Crédit M.P. Ltée (Qué.), 27560, *02 8.6.00                                  949(00)                    1086(00)

Jumelle c. Soloway (Man.), 27701, *02 13.4.00                                               450(00)                    673(00)

K.M.C. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.), 27731, *01 22.6.00                                   988(00)                    1172(00)

Kadziolka v. Royal Bank of Canada (Sask.), 27220, *02 17.2.00                      747(99)                    303(00)

Kajat v. The Ship Arctic Taglu (F.C.A.), 27857, *A                                      784(00)

Kakfwi v. The Queen (F.C.A.) (B.C.), 27577, *02 8.6.00                                  944(00)                    1081(00)

Kalashnikoff v. The Queen (B.C.), 27803, *A                                                 581(00)

Karamouzos v. John and Jane Doe (B.C.), 27780, *01 20.4.00                        658(00)                    752(00)

Katriuk v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.), 27741 , *02 11.5.00                               723(00) 869(00)

Kebe c. Agbor (Qué.), 27612, *B                                                                   998(00)

Kelemen v. El-Homeira (Ont.), 27693, *A                                                       293(00)

Ken Toby Ltd. v. British Columbia Buildings Corp. (B.C.), 27326, *02 17.2.00   133(00)                    304(00)

Kerr v. The Queen (B.C.), 27943, *A                                                              1117(00)

Khan v. The Queen (Ont.), 27737, *B                                                            1163(00)

Kiloh v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27511, *02 23.3.00                                            375(00)                    550(00)

Kieling v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool (Sask.), 27322, *01 27.1.00                    17(00)                      153(00)

Kilkanis v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada (Ont.), 27309, *02 13.4.00   388(00)                    670(00)

Kimberly-Clark Nova Scotia v. Nova Scotia Woodlot Owners and Operators

   Association (N.S.), 27832, *A                                                                    719(00)

Kinkartz v. Kinkartz (Ont.), 27689, *02 13.4.00                                              390(00)                    673(00)

Kleven v. The Queen (B.C.), 27586, *A                                                          897(00)

Kloepfer v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 27453, *B                                              1075(00)

Kosikar v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27604, *01 13.4.00                                  386(00)                    668(00)


Kovacevic v. The Queen (B.C.), 27886, *A                                                     1116(00)

KPMG v. Montreal Trust Co. (Ont.), 27959, *A                                                1158(00)

Ku v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27466, *01 27.4.00                                         592(00)                    761(00)

Lackowiak v. Maple Engineering & Construction Canada (Ont.), 27562, *02 8.6.00                           749(00) 1086(00)

Lafrentz v. Michel (Alta.), 27234, *02 24.2.00                                                 202(00)                    352(00)

Lamerton & Associates Professional Surveyors v. Quinn (Y.T.), 27746, *A       295(00)

Lamy c. Société canadienne des postes (Qué.), 27311, *02 6.4.00                   350(00)                    616(00)

Lansdowne v. Pensa & Associates (Ont.), 27842, *A                                      721(00)

Langlois c. La Reine (Qué.), 27430, *02 15.6.00                                             996(00)                    1133(00)

Lanteigne c. La Reine (Crim.)(N.-B.), 27528, *01 27.1.00                                 15(00)                      162(00)

Laplante v. Fortin (Ont.), 27885, *A                                                               901(00)

Lapointe v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26578, *06 The case is remanded to the Court

    of Appeal of Alberta to be reconsidered in accordance with the decision of this

   Court in Her Majesty the Queen v. Thomas Andrew Bunn (Crim.)(Man.)(26339),

   Her Majesty the Queen v. Jeromie Keith D. Proulx (Crim.)(Man.)(26376), Her

   Majesty the Queen v. R.A.R. (Crim.)(Man.)(26377), Her Majesty the Queen v.

   R.N.S. (Crim.)(B.C.)(26462), Her Majesty the Queen v. L.F.W. (Crim.)(Nfld.)

   (26329)./Laffaire est renvoyée à la Cour dAppel de lAlberta pour réexamen

   conformément à larrêt de notre Cour dans Sa Majesté la Reine c. Thomas Andrew

   Bunn (Crim.)(Man.)(26339), Sa Majesté la Reine c. Jeromie Keith D. Proulx

   (Crim.)(Man.)(26376), Sa Majesté la Reine c. R.A.R. (Crim.)(Man.)(26377), Sa

   Majesté la Reine c. R.N.S. (Crim.)(B.C.)(26462), Sa Majesté la Reine c. L.F.W.

   (Crim.)(T.-N.)(26329) 3.2.00.                                                                      1134(98)                   209(00)

Laufer v. Bucklaschuk (Man.), 27761, *A                                                       370(00)

Laurendeau c. La Reine (Qué.), 27563, *02 20.1.00                                         2011(99)                   102(00)

Lavoie v. The Queen in Right of Canada (F.C.A.), 27427, *04 25.5.00               591(00)                    968(00)

Law v. La Reine (N.-B.), 27870, *A                                                                898(00)

Lawpost, a division of Legal Research Consultants Inc. v. New Brunswick (N.B.),

   27683, *B                                                                                                 1160(00)

Lazeo v. The Queen (B.C.), 27830, *A                                                           942(00)

Ledoux c. La Reine (Qué.), 27808, *A                                                            580(00)

Lebrun c. La Reine (Qué.), 27618, *A                                                            784(00)

Lenhardt v. The Queen (B.C.), 27396, *02 17.2.00                                          138(00)                    306(00)

Létourneau c. Garantie, Compagnie dassurance de lAmérique du Nord (Qué.),

   27877, *A                                                                                                 899(00)

Lévesque c. Commission des lésions professionnelles (Qué.), 27535, *02 1.6.00                              862(00) 1021(00)

Lévesque Automobile Ltée c. Denis (Qué.), 27730, *A                                     294(00)

Lewis Energy Management Inc. v. MacKinnon (Ont.), 27294, *02 2.3.00            204(00)                    393(00)

LHeureux c. Fortin (Qué), 27350, *02 20.4.00                                                493(00)                    747(00)

Liao v. Ontario Human Rights Commission (Ont.), 27840, *A                           720(00)

Lim v. Lim (B.C.), 27635, *B                                                                         1068(00)

Locke c. City of Calgary (Alta.), 27385, *02 23.3.00                                        208(00)                    559(00)

Longley v. The Queen (B.C.), 27927, *A                                                         1116(00)

Long Lake 58 First Nation v. The Queen in right of Ontario (Ont.), 27950, *A    1117(00)

Lord v. Maritime Life Assurance Co. (Ont.), 27630, *02 23.3.00                        146(00)                    556(00)

Lortie c. Commission dappel en matière de lésions professionnelles (Qué.), 27331,

   *02 2.3.00                                                                                                204(00)                    394(00)

Lowe v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. (N.S.), 27533, *02 11.5.00                                664(00)                    889(00)

Luscar Ltd. v. Smoky River Coal Ltd. (Alta.), 27432, *05 12.1.00                      1317(99)                   113(00)

M.E.P. c. K.R.O. (Qué.), 27602, *02 27.1.00                                                  8(00)                        160(00)


Mach v. The Queen (Ont.), 27674, *01 20.4.00                                               586(00)                    749(00)

MacInnes v. The Queen (Ont.), 27899,*A                                                       902(00)

MacPherson (Kenneth) v. The Queen (Ont.), 27616, *A                                   783(00)

MacPherson (Paul) v. Adga Systems International Inc. (Ont.), 27184, *02 6.4.00                              485(00) 608(00)

Madsen v. The Queen (F.C.A.) 27473, *02 11.5.00                                         598(00)                    887(00)

Magda v. St. Catharines Standard, a division of Southam Inc. (Ont.), 27420, *02

   20.4.00                                                                                                                                   585(00) 739(00)

Mankwe c. La Reine (Qué.), 27791, *A                                                           538(00)

Marcoux v. Bouchard (Qué.), 27554, *04 15.6.00                                             948(00)                    1130(00)

Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. v. Union of Nova Scotia

   Indians (F.C.A.), 27262, *01 17.2.00                                                           135(00)                    302(00)

Markel Insurance Co. of Canada v. Azevedo (Alta.), 27663, *B                        1069(00)

Martel c. La Reine (Qué.), 27907, *A                                                              943(00)

Martelli c. Commission des affaires sociales (Qué.), 27811, *A                        580(00)

Martens v. Gulfstream Resources Canada Ltd. (Alta.), 27638, *B                     1072(00)

Market News Publishing Inc. v. Southam Inc (B.C.), 27853, *A                        783(00)

Martin v. Municipalité de la paroisse de St-Hubert (Qué.), 27568, *B                 1009(00)

Masmarti c. Cohen (Qué.), 27712, *02 25.5.00                                                855(00)                    966(00)

Mathers c. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (B.C.), 27387, *02 16.3.00                               349(00) 504(00)

Mattel Canada Inc. v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27174, *03 16.3.00                        10(00)                      500(00)

Mayer Diamond c. Surintendant des faillites (Qué.), 27460, *02 25.5.00            728(00)                    960(00)

McCormack v. The Queen (B.C.), 27793, *A                                                  538(00)

McCorrister v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.), 27677, *B                        1079(00)

McDonald v. Lesage (Ont.), 27365, *01 2.3.00                                                205(00)                    395(00)

McKinley v. B.C. Tel (B.C.), 27410, *03 20.4.00                                              488(00)                    735(00)

McKenzie Forest Products Inc. v. Tilberg (Ont.), 27967, *A                             1159(00)

Meidel v. The Queen (B.C.), 27909, *A                                                          943(00)

Melville v. NBD Bank (Ont.), 27754, *02 13.4.00                                             486(00)                    675(00)

Mennes (Emile) v. Attorney-General of Canada (F.C.A.), 27588, *01 22.6.00     990(99)                    1174(00)

Mennes (Emile) v. Attorney-General of Canada (Ont.), 27706, *02 11.5.00        725(00)                    871(00)

Merasty v. The Queen (Sask.), 27756, *A                                                      370(00)

Merck Frosst Canada Inc. v. Minister of National Health and Welfare (F.C.A.),

   27370, *02 17.2.00                                                                                    96(00)                      309(00)

Merz v. The Queen (Ont.), 27918, *A                                                             986(00)

Metzner v. Metzner (B.C.), 27529, *06 (The Court of Appeal having rendered its

   decision on the basis of the impact on custodial arrangements occasioned by the

   application of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, and under s. 17(6.2) of the

   Divorce Act , without the benefit of the judgment of this Court in Francis v. Baker,

   [1999] 3 S.C.R. 250, which provides for support corresponding to the actual

   conditions of the children, the matter is remanded to the Court of Appeal to be

   disposed of in accordance with the decision in Francis v. Baker/Étant donné que

   la Cour dappel a rendu sa décision en fonction de lincidence de lapplication des

   Lignes directrices fédérales sur les pensions alimentaires pour enfants sur les

   modalités de la garde, et du par. 17(6.2)  de la Loi sur le divorce , sans bénéficier

   de larrêt de notre Cour Francis c. Baker, [1999] 3 R.C.S. 250, qui prescrit une

   pension alimentaire correspondant aux conditions de vie réelles des enfants,

   laffaire est renvoyée à la Cour dappel pour que celle-ci la tranche conformément

   à larrêt Francis c. Baker) 27.1.00                                                              1910(99)                   159(00)

Midland Mortgage Corp. v. Jawl & Bundon (B.C.), 27520, *B                            946(00)

Millette (Régent) c. Individual Investment Corp.(Qué.), 27585, *01 15.6.00         994(00)                    1131(00)


Millette (Régent) c. La Reine (C.A.F.), 27605, *B                                            999(00)

Minister of Environment Canada v. Information Commissioner of Canada (F.C.A.),

   27956, *A                                                                                                 1157(00)

Ministère des affaires municipales c. Communauté urbaine de Québec (Qué.),

   27455, *02 25.5.00                                                                                    727(00)                    959(00)

Ministry of Finance v. Higgins (Ont.), 27191, *02 20.1.00                                 1969(99)                   105(00)

Minors v. Toronto Sun Publishing Corp. (Ont.), 27518, *02 25.5.00                   790(00)                    963(00)

Mohammed v. The Queen in right of Canada (F.C.A.), 27690, *A                     91(00)

Mole Construction Inc. c. Compagnie dassurances Canadian Surety (Qué.),

   27643,   *05 20.3.00                                                                                  5(00)                        567(00)

Molson Breweries v. John Labatt Limited (F.C.A.), 27839, *A                           720(00)

Monachino v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. (Ont.), 27902, *A                    942(00)

Monenco Ltd. v. Commonwealth Insurance Co. (B.C.), 27258, *03 16.3.00        273(00)                    502(00)

Monopro Ltd. c. Montréal Trust (Qué.), 27953, *A                                            1157(00)

Montreuil c. Directeur de l’État civil (Qué.), 27621, *02 22.6.00                         992(00)                    1180(00)

Morrill v. Krangle (B.C.), 27891,*A                                                                 901(00)

Morris v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.), 27354, *01 30.3.00                   447(00)                    606(00)

Morrison v. Society of Lloyds (N.B.), 27813, *A                                              582(00)

Morrow (Valerie) v. Constantini (B.C.), 27332, *01 3.2.00                                 12(00)                      212(00)

Morrow (Valerie) v. Acedemy Mechanical Services Ltd. (Alta.), 27531, *02 22.6.00                            951(00) 1186(00)

Morrow (Valerie) v. The Queen (Alta.), 27441,*02 20.1.00                                1911(99)                   103(00)

Mulligan v. The Queen (Alta.), 27726, *A                                                        482(00)

Mullings v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27710, *01 1.6.00                                   858(00)                    1015(00)

Nadeau v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 27478, *01 27.1.00                                  1820(99)                   164(00)

Narvey v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.), 27785, *A               483(00)

Nasser v. Mayer-Nasser (Ont), 27879, *A                                                       900(00)

Nelson (Terrance) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 27594, *01 17.2.00                  92(00)                      300(00)

Nelson (Vena) v. Lodin (Ont.), 27437, *02 1.6.00                                            859(00)                    1016(00)

Nette v. The Queen (B.C.), 27669, *03 25.5.00                                               589(00)                    967(00)

Nguiagain c. Ville de Québec (Qué.), 27809, *A                                              581(00)

Nichols Gravel Ltd. v. Corporation of the Township of Delhi (Ont.), 27720, *A    293(00)

Nikkanen v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27645, *B                                            1071(00)

Nishnawbe-Aski Nation v. The Queen in right of Ontario (Ont.), 27950, *A        1117(00)

Nourcy c. Compagnie dAssurance-vie Transamerica du Canada (Qué.), 27335,

   *02 23.3.00                                                                                              207(00)                    558(00)

Nourhaghighi v. Toronto Hospital (Ont.), 27425, *01 23.3.00                            378(00)                    552(00)

Novak v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (Ont.), 27922, *A                   987(00)

Nu-Pharm Inc. v. Merck & Co. (F.C.A.), 27861, *02 22.6.00                            1001(00)                   1176(00)

Oerlikon Aérospatiale Inc. c. La Reine (C.A.F.), 27352, *02 11.5.00                 545(00)                    882(00)

Offei-Tsumasi v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27749, *01 22.6.00                         989(00)                    1173(00)

Oger c. Boulakia (Ont.), 27681, *02 13.4.00                                                   390(00)                    672(00)

OGrady v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.) 27278, *01 23.12.99                                1816(99)                   21(00)

ONeill c. Sirois (Qué.) 27464, *05 10.2.00                                                     1322(99)                   316(00)

Olszynko v. Larocque (Ont.), 27665, *B                                                         1069(00)

Olympia Interiors Ltd. v. Her Majesty The Queen (F.C.A.), 27550, *02 20.1.00   1969(99)                   105(00)

Ontario Power Generation Inc. v. Minister of Revenue (Ont.), 27435, *02 6.4.00 541(00)                    611(00)

Ordre des chiropraticiens du Québec c. Thomas (Qué.), 27871, *A                  898(00)

Osoyoos Indian Band v. Town of Oliver (B.C.), 27408, *03 20.4.00                   540(00)                    736(00)

Palmer v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 27574, *01 27.4.00                                 593(00)                    761(00)

Pan v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27424, *03 27.1.00                                       2012(99)                   150(00)


Panduit Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Lld. (F.C.A.), 27789, *A                               484(00)

Paradis c. Gendreau (Qué.), 27900,*A                                                           902(00)

Paramount Resources Ltd. v. Metis Settlements Appeal Tribunal Existing Leases

   Land Access Panel (Alta.), 27743, *A                                                         296(00)

Pardee Equipment Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Alta.), 27165, *01 20.1.00          2013(99)                   98(00)

Paquet c. Les Banquets Fine-Gueule Inc. (Qué.), 27569, *02 15.6.00               1787(99)                   1136(00)

Pascal c. Household Trust Co. (Qué.), 27769, *A                                           371(00)

Patterson v. Attorney General of British Columbia (B.C.), 27757, *B                 1164(00)

Paul DAoust Construction Ltd. v. Markel Insurance Company of Canada (Ont.),

   27438, *B                                                                                                 1012(00)

Pawar v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27578, *02 8.6.00                                             948(00)                    1085(00)

Penfold v. The Queen (Alta.), 27794, *A                                                        538(00)

Penty v. The Law Society of British Columbia (B.C.), 27676, *B                       1121(00)

Performance Industries Ltd. v. Sylvan Lake Golf & Tennis Club Ltd. (Alta.), 27934,

    *B                                                                                                          1171(00)

Persaud v. The Queen (Ont.), 27771, *A                                                        371(00)

Pérusse v. Ministère du Revenu national (Qué.), 27835, *A                              720(00)

Pham v. The Queen (B.C.), 27572, *01 6.4.00                                                489(00)                    612(00)

Phillips v. R. D. Realty Ltd. (Ont.), 27566, *02 1.6.00                                      860(00)                    1017(00)

Placements R.I.O. Inc. c. La Reine (Qué.), 27454, *02 25.5.00                        728(00)                    960(00)

Poulin c. Solidarité, Compagnie dassurance sur la vie (Qué.), 27303, *01 27.1.00                            1751(99)           156(00)

Premier Horticulture Ltée c. Lévesque (Qué.), 27654, *B                                  1164(00)

Prévost-Masson c. Perras (Qué.), 27623, *04 22.6.00                                      1010(00)                   1184(00)

Privacy Commissioner v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.),27846, *A         721(00)

Procureur général du Canada c. Thibault (C.A.F.), 27445, *02 20.4.00              379(00)                    740(00)

Procureure générale du Québec c. Le Camp Watchichou Inc. (Qué.), 27463, *02

   La demande dautorisation dappel est rejetée avec dépens sur la requête

   seulement./The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs on the

   leave application only. 8.6.00                                                                     857(00)                    1091(00)

Procureure générale du Québec c. Raymond, Chabot Inc. (Qué.), 27653, *A     7(00)

Procureure générale du Québec c. Ville de l’Île Bizard (Qué.), 27651, *A           6(00)

Provincial Superior v. Health Services Restructuring Commission (Ont.), 27475,

   *02 17.2.00                                                                                              202(00)                    305(00)

Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Attorney General of Canada, (F.C.A.), 27901,

   *A                                                                                                           902(00)

Quinlan v. The Queen in Right of Newfoundland (Nfld.), 27510, *B                    732(00)

R. c. Bolduc (Crim.)(Qué.), 27580, *01 13.4.00                                               387(00)                    669(00)

R. c. Cinous (Qué.), 27788, *A                                                                      483(00)

R. v. Denton (Crim.)(Qué.), 27579, *03 11.5.00                                               448(00)                    875(00)

R. v. Dew (Crim.)(Man.), 27017, *01 27.1.00                                                   202(99)                    148(00)

R. v. Dudney (F.C.A.), 27869, *A                                                                   898(00)

R. v. Fournier (Qué.), 27866, *A                                                                    898(00)

R. v. Groot (Crim.)(Ont.), 26929, 4.3.99 (The application for leave to cross-appeal

   is dismissed/la demande dautorisation dappel incident est rejetée)              393(99)                   

R. v. Hoyles (Crim.)(Nfld.), 27678, *01 15.6.00                                                                         864(00)                      1134(00)

R. c. Kébreau (Crim.)(Qué.), 27114, *01 27.1.00                                             667(99)                    148(00)

R. v. Lavallee (Alta.), 27852, *A                                                                    722(00)

R. v. Mafi (B.C.), 27856, *A                                                                          783(00)

R. c. Maxwell (Crim.)(Qué.), 27759, *B                                                           1071(00)

R. v. McIntosh (Ont.), 27768, *B                                                                   1010(00)


R. v. Mentuck (Crim.)(Man.), 27738, *03 25.5.00                                            439(00)                    958(00)

R. c. Parent (Crim.)(Qué.), 27652, *02 20.4.00                                                542(00)                    747(00)

R. v. Peters (Crim.)(Qué.), 27581, *03 11.5.00                                                449(00)                    877(00)

R. v. Rulli (Crim.)(Ont.), 27338, *01 27.1.00                                                    2015(99)                   166(00)

R. v. Sheppard (Nfld.), 27439, *B                                                                   1011(00)

R. v. Singleton (F.C.A.), 27477, *03 20.4.00                                                   488(00)                    735(00)

R. v. Walls (F.C.A.), 27724, *A                                                                     201(00)

R. v. Ward (Nfld.), 27717, *B                                                                         1123(00)

R. v. Williamson (Ont.), 27921, *A                                                                 987(00)

R. v. Wren (Ont.), 27912, *A                                                                         986(00)

R. in right of Alberta v. Alberta Provincial Judges Association (Alta.), 27516, *02

   8.6.00                                                                                                      791(00)                    1089(00)

R. in right of the Province of British Columbia v. Beadle (B.C.), 27318, *01 11.5.00                          494(00) 878(00)

R. in right of the Province of British Columbia v. Davies (B.C.), 27318, *01 11.5.00                          494(00) 878(00)

R. in right of the Province of British Columbia v. Rumley (B.C.), 27721, *A       201(00)

R. in right of the Province of New Brunswick v. Mackin (N.B.), 27722, *04 22.6.00                            1001(00)           1176(00)

Rahall v. Superintendent of Financial Institutions (Ont.), 27648, *B                  1011(00)

Ramlall v. Ontario International Medical Graduate Program (Ont.), 27444,

   *02 23.3.00                                                                                              145(00)                    555(00)

Rauw v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27688, *02 22.6.00                                            1005(00)                   1179(00)

Razac v. Lehrer (Qué.), 27552, *01 1.6.00                                                      864(00)                    1022(00)

Reardon v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27708, *01 25.5.00                                 854(00)                    964(00)

Reeves v. Arsenault (P.E.I.), 27086, *02 20.4.00                                            588(00)                    751(00)

Representative Counsel for the Charitable Ohjects of the Christian Brothers of

   Ireland in Canada v. Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada (Ont.), 27958, *A                               1158(00)

Rhee v. The Queen (B.C.), 27863, *A                                                            897(00)

Richelieu Métal Inc. v. Éditions Le Canada Français Ltée (Qué.), 27409,

   *02 13.4.00                                                                                              288(00)                    671(00)

Rideout v. The Queen (Nfld.), 27675, *B                                                         997(00)

Ritchie v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (B.C.), 27944, *A                       1065(00)

Roberts v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27641, *B                                                     1070(00)

Robertson v. Ontario Human Rights Commission (Ont.), 27514, *02 11.5.00     596(00)                    886(00)

Rodrigue c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.), 26884, *A                             1657(98)

Roles v. 306972 Saskatchewan Ltd. (Sask.), 27864, *A                                  784(00)

Romkey v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27777, *A                                                     372(00)

Rosati v.Liakus (Ont.), 27719, *A                                                                  201(00)

Rosen v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27903, *A                                                       942(00)

Roy v. The Queen (Ont.), 27650, *05 21.12.99                                                87(00)                      113(00)

Royal Shirt Co. v. Ontario Labour Relations Board (Ont.), 27412, *02 11.5.00    497(00)                    882(00)

Ruggeberg v. Bancomer, S.A. (Ont.), 27344, *02 16.3.00                                347(00)                    499(00)

Russell v. The Queen (Ont.), 27732, *01 25.5.00                                            663(00)                    969(00)

Ruttan v. The Queen (Ont.), 27736, *B                                                          996(00)

Ryan v. T. Eaton Co. (F.C.A.), 27884, *A                                                       901(00)

S. (B.) v. Director of Child, Family and Community Service (B.C.), 27048, *A    779(99)

Sagaz Industries Canada Inc. v. 671122 Ontarion Ltd. (Ont.), 27820, *A           655(00)

Sam Lévy & Associés Inc. c. 2858-4665 Québec Inc. (Qué.), 27327, *02 20.1.00                             2011(99)           102(00)

Sandhu v. College of Physicians & Surgeons of Manitoba (Man.), 27904, *A     942(00)

Sarvanis v. The Queen in right of Canada (F.C.A.), 27796, *A                          539(00)

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27346, *02 13.4.00            450(00)                    674(00)

Saskferco Products Inc. v. Wellington Insurance Co. (Sask.), 27218, *02 17.2.00                            133(00) 301(00)


Sauve v. The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada (F.C.A.), 27677, *B                 1079(00)

Sawyer c. La Reine (Qué.), 27115, *A                                                            329(99)

Schepanow v. The Queen in right of Ontario (F.C.A.), 27733, *A                      294(00)

Schiavone v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Canada (Ont.), 27915, *A                  986(00)

Schwartz (Succession) c. Zerbisias (Qué.), 27855, *A                                    783(00)

Schweneke v. The queen in right of Ontario (Ont.), 27848, *A                          721(00)

Scott (Douglas) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27587, *01 30.3.00                       440(00)                    599(00)

Scott (Yvette) v. Continental Insurance Co. of Canada (Ont.), 27573, *02 22.6.00                             1008(00)           1183(00)

Scottish & York Insurance Co. v. Somersall (Ont.), 27851, *A                         722(00)

Sekhon v. The Queen (B.C.), 27647, *02 22.6.00                                           1006(00)                   1182(00)

Serin Holdings Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27499, *02 18.5.00                        786(00)                    907(00)

Serré c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 27470, *01 27.1.00                                        1964(99)                   154(00)

Seven-up Canada Inc. v. Fasken Campbell Godfrey (Ont.), 27825, *A              656(00)

Seward v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27298, *01 9.3.00                                    297(00)                    453(00)

Shalala v. The Queen (N.B.), 27810,*A                                                          783(00)

Shearing v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27782, *B                    &nbs