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. |
|
|
|
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. 690b) 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 d’un 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 s’assurer le pouvoir politique, la faction connue sous le nom de « quorum » a dressé un barrage sur l’autoroute provinciale menant à la réserve afin d’interdire l’accès de celle-ci aux partisans de l’autre faction, dirigée par le chef de la bande. Les appelants ont été accusés de méfait et d’autres crimes, qui font l’objet 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 l’occurrence deux affidavits souscrits par l’appelant 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 qu’arbitre dans une affaire de congédiement injustifié, il a tranché en faveur de l’épouse de l’un des appelants; lors d’une enquête sur cautionnement contestée, il a représenté l’une des premières personnes qui a été accusée (mais qui n’est pas appelante devant notre Cour) d’avoir 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 d’appel du Manitoba a fait erreur en leur refusant l’ajournement qu’ils ont demandé, lorsqu’ils 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 n’est pas évidente et ils supposent que le rejet pourrait être imputable au fait que la Cour d’appel estimait que la preuve étayant la déclaration de culpabilité de chaque appelant était accablante.
Essentiellement, le ministère public concède qu’il y avait une crainte raisonnable de partialité. Bien qu’il soutienne que la Cour d’appel n’a 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 qu’il exerçait le droit ». Le ministère public mentionne également qu’il [traduction] « est très préoccupant que, lorsqu’il pratiquait le droit, le juge du procès ait représenté le coaccusé (qui n’a pas subi son procès devant lui) dans le cadre d’une demande de cautionnement, et qu’il ait apparemment eu accès à l’ensemble du rapport de police relatif à l’accusé 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 d’avis 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 d’avis d’accueillir le pourvoi, d’infirmer l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Manitoba, d’annuler les déclarations de culpabilité des appelants et de renvoyer l’affaire à la cour de première instance pour la tenue d’un 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
d’hébergement 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 d’Iberville c. Syndicat de l’enseignement 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 d’assurance-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 d’Assurance 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 d’habitation 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)
D’agostino 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 l’Immigration 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 Lloyd’s (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 d’assurance 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 l’entretien 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 D’art 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 Women’s 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)./L’affaire est renvoyée à la Cour d’Appel de l’Alberta pour réexamen
conformément à l’arrêt 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 d’assurance de l’Amérique 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)
L’Heureux 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 d’appel 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 d’appel a rendu sa décision en fonction de l’incidence de l’application 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 l’arrêt 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,
l’affaire est renvoyée à la Cour d’appel pour que celle-ci la tranche conformément
à l’arrêt 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 d’assurances 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 Lloyd’s (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 d’Assurance-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)
O’Grady v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.) 27278, *01 23.12.99 1816(99) 21(00)
O’Neill 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 D’Aoust 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 d’assurance 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 d’autorisation d’appel 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 d’autorisation d’appel 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 1066(00)
Sheppard v. Bank of Montreal (Sask.), 27407, *A 1200(99)
Sherriah v. The Queen in right of Canada (Y.T.), 27762, *B 1165(00)
Shuman v. Ontario New Home Warranty Program (Ont.), 27256, *01 23.3.00 276(00) 559(00)
Sidbec-Dosco (ISPAT) Inc. c. Commission d’appel en matière de lésions profes-
sionnelles (Qué.), 27716, *A 270(00)
Sidbec-Dosco (ISPAT) Inc. c. Commission d’appel en matière de lésions profes-
sionnelles (Qué.), 27718, *A 270(00)
Silbernagel v. The Queen (B.C.), 27952, *A 1065(00)
Simon (Christopher) v. Simon (Ont.), 27723, *02 13.4.00 389(00) 671(00)
Simon (Llewelyn) v. The Queen (Ont.), 27345, *02 16.3.00 348(00) 503(00)
Singh (Davinder) v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.), 27747, *02
1.5.00 760(00) 793(00)
Singh (Davinder) v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.), 27491, *02
1.5.00 546(00) 793(00)
Sloan v. Johnson (Ont.), 27892,*A 901(00)
Smith v. New Brunswick Human Rights Commission (N.B.), 27596, *B 991(99)
Smith (Bernadette) v. Co-operators General Insurance Co. (Ont.), 27875, *A 899(00)
Smith (Deborah) v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.), 27844, *A 721(00)
Smith (Godwin) v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27878, *A 900(00)
Smith (Wilton Anthony) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27802, *B 1125(00)
Smithkline Beecham Animal Health Inc. v. The Queen (F.C.A), 27850, *A 722(00)
Snider v. Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses (Man.), 27783, *A 483(00)
Société en commandite 2858-9893 Québec c. 2420-3242 Québec Inc. (Qué.),
27673, *A 89(00)
Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian
Association of Broadcasters (F.C.A.), 27304, *02 6.4.00 349(00) 615(00)
Sokolov v. Minister of Immigration and Citizenship (F.C.A.)(Que.), 27328, *01
27.1.00 14(00) 167(00)
Sokolovav. Ministry of Employment and Immigration (F.C.A.), 27546, *01 8.6.00 792(00) 1089(00)
Solis v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.), 27947, *A 1065(00)
Solunac c. Ordre des médecins vétérinaires du Québec (Qué.), 27636, *01 25.5.00 727(00) 959(00)
Spire Freezers Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27415, *03 20.4.00 587(00) 749(00)
St-Jean v. Mercier (Qué.), 27515, *04 8.6.00 863(00) 1084(00)
St. Thomas More Collegiate Ltd v. Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada (Ont.),
27958, *A 1158(00)
Stanwick v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 27366, *05 10.3.00 20(00) 567(00)
Starkman v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (Ont.), 27551, *02 22.6.00 953(00) 1187(00)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Vijeyekumar (Ont.), 27484, *02
3.5.00 659(00) 796(00)
Steckmar National Realty & Investment Corp. v. Mirabelle (Qué.), 27760, *A 370(00)
Stenset v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 27465, *01 27.1.00 17(00) 152(00)
Stevenson v. The Queen (Sask.), 27620, *A 985(00)
Stewart v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27860, *A 784(00)
Stojanovic v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A), 27929, *A 1156(00)
Stone v. Wellington County Board of Education (Ont.), 27389, *02 30.3.00 443(00) 602(00)
Stromberg v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27183, *01 27.1.00 10(00) 150(00)
Susin v. Harper Haney and White (Ont.), 27221, *02 20.1.00 1970(99) 106(00)
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v. McIsaac (B.C.), 27373, *02 23.12.99 1909(99) 22(00)
Suresh v. Minister of Citizenship & Immigration (F.C.A.), 27790, *04 25.5.00 904(00) 971(00)
Sylvan Lake Gold & Tennis Club Ltd. v. Performance Industries Ltd. (Alta.), 27934
*B 1171(00)
Syndicat canadien de la Fonction publique, section locale 302 c. Ville de Verdun
(Qué.), 27461 , *B 660(00)
Syndicat des employé(es) du C.E.V. d’Aylmer c. Pavillon du Parc (Qué.), 27680,
*B 1127(00)
Syndicat des fonctionnaires municipaux de Montréal SCFP – Section locale 429
c. Communauté urbaine de Montréal (Qué.), 27600, *02 15.6.00 1961(99) 1132(00)
Syndicat des travailleurs des pavillons jeunesse v. Boivert (Qué.), 27548, *02 1.6.00 863(00) 1022(00)
Syndicat des travailleurs et travailleuses des postes c. Société canadienne des postes
(Qué.), 27539, *B 1073(00)
Syndicat national des employés de l’aluminium d’Alma Inc. c. Fédération des
syndicats du secteur de l’aluminium Inc. (Qué.), 27272, *A 776(99)
Szabo v. United States of America (Ont.), 27787, *B 1167(00)
Szasz v. Standard Trust Co. (Ont.), 27558, *02 Application for leave to appeal
dismissed with costs to Standard Trust Co./Demande d’autorisation d’appel rejetée
avec dépens en faveur de Standard Trust Co. 15.6.00 866(00) 1135(00)
T.V. v. The Queen (Ont.), 27556, *01 23.3.00