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
Agenda
Summaries of the cases
Appeals inscribed ‐ Session beginning
Notices to the Profession and Press Release
Deadlines: Motions before the Court
Deadlines: Appeals
Judgments reported in S.C.R. |
2241 - 2242
2243 - 2250
-
-
2251 - 2255
-
2256 - 2261
2262
-
-
2263 - 2269
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2270
2271
- |
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
Calendrier
Résumés des affaires
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 |
Ken Cunningham, et al.
Ken Cunningham
v. (28682)
728920 Ontario Ltd., et al. (Ont.)
Lawrence GoldApple
Schwartz & Schwartz
FILING DATE 18.5.2001
Hershey Canada Inc.
Willaim J. Hayter
Heenan Blaikie
v. (28892)
Glenn Rathwell on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members and former members of the Retail Wholesale/Canada Canadian Services Sector Division of the United Steel Workers of America, Local 416, Unit 1 (Ont.)
Judith L. Allen
Raven, Allen, Cameron & Ballantyne
FILING DATE 6.11.2001
Brian S. Heron
Brian Heron
v. (28808)
Charles A. Smith (N.S.)
John E. MacDonnell
Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales
FILING DATE 21.11.2001
Daniel Asante-Mensah
Michael W. Lacy
Kelly, Jennings & Lacy
v. (28867)
Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
Scott Hutchison
A.G. for Ontario
FILING DATE 30.11.2001
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Nova Scotia as represented by Dr. Patricia Ripley, Deputy Minister of the Priorities and Planning Secretariat
Louise Walsh Poirier
A.G. of Nova Scotia
v. (28886)
Daniel O’Connor (N.S.)
Graham Steele
FILING DATE 3.12.2001
Ville de Trois-Rivières
Jean Lamy
c. (28875)
Société en commandite Les Verrières de Francheville Enr. (Qué.)
Roger Pothier
Pothier Delisle
DATE DE PRODUCTION 4.12.2001
Ville de Trois-Rivières
Jean Lamy
c. (28879)
2429-8952 Québec Inc., (Qué.)
Roger Pothier
Pothier Delisle
DATE DE PRODUCTION 4.12.2001
Le procureur général du Québec
Daniel Grégoire
Ministère de la Justice du Québec
c. (28923)
R.C. (Qué.)
Pierre Gagnon
Fradette, Gagnon, Têtu, Le Bel, Ste-Marie
DATE DE PRODUCTION 25.10.2001
Richard Guérard
Richard Guérard
c. (28868)
Hôpital Louis-H. Lafontaine (Qué.)
Élizabeth Camiré
Heenan Blaikie
DATE DE PRODUCTION 26.10.2001
Dr. David R. Puentes
James A. Hodgson
Hodgson Tough Shields DesBrisay O’Donnell
v. (28934)
Louis McNichol, deceased by his Estate Trustee, Barbara McNichol, et al. (Ont.)
David B. Williams
Harrison, Pensa
FILING DATE 20.11.2001
Toronto Catholic District School Board
Martin Sclisizzi
Borden Ladner Gervais
v. (28935)
Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (Toronto Elementary Unit) (Ont.)
Bernard A. Hanson
Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton McIntyre & Cornish
FILING DATE 20.11.2001
Lameque Quality Group Ltd.
John P. Barry, Q.C.
Barry Spalding Richard
v. (28929)
A/S Nyborg Plast (N.B.)
David T. Hashey, Q.C.
Cox Hanson O’Reilly Matheson
FILING DATE 23.11.2001
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE
|
|
DEMANDES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
DECEMBER 10, 2001 / LE 10 DÉCEMBRE 2001
CORAM: Chief Justice McLachlin and Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ. /
Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Bastarache
Glenda Doucet‐Boudreau, Alice Boudreau, Jocelyn Bourbeau, Bernadette Cormier‐Marchand, Yolande Levert and Cyrille Leblanc, in their name and in the name of all Nova Scotia parents who are entitled to the right, under Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to have their children educated in the language of the minority, namely the French language, in publicly funded French language school facilities and La fédération des parents Acadiens de la Nouvelle‐Écosse Inc.
v. (28807)
Attorney General of Nova Scotia (N.S.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Procedural law - Jurisdiction - Functus officio - Judge ordering a series of mandatory injunctions pursuant to s. 24(1) requiring school board and Ministry to use “best efforts” to complete five homogenous French schools by September 2000 in order to prevent further assimilation of French speaking children - Order further requiring parties to appear before same judge periodically to report on progress of construction and to ensure compliance with the order - Whether judge lost jurisdiction to adopt supervisory function - Scope of remedial power under s. 24(1) of the Charter
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 15, 2000
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
(Leblanc J.)
Remedies for breach of Applicants’ s. 24(1) rights ordered; Order that judge would maintain jurisdiction to ensure compliance by Respondent
June 26, 2001
Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
(Freeman [dissenting], Chipman and Flinn JJ.A.)
Appeal allowed of the order retaining the jurisdiction of the trial judge
September 17, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Maryse Dupéré
c. (28676)
La Procureure générale du Canada
ET ENTRE :
France Bélanger
c.
La Procureure générale du Canada (C.F.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Procédure — Tribunaux — Révision judiciaire — Demandes de prestations de congé de maternité — Période de base du calcul du taux de prestations, Loi sur l’assurance emploi, L.C. 1996, ch. 23, art. 14 et Règlement sur l’assurance-emploi, DORS/96-332, par. 14(7) — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en retenant une interprétation du par. 14(7) du Règlement qui est contraire à l’interprétation de la Commission de l’assurance-emploi du Canada? — L’interprétation stricte de la Cour d’appel contrevient-elle aux règles d’interprétation larges et libérales de nombreuses fois réitérées en matière d’interprétation de la Loi sur l’assurance chômage? — Dans le cadre de l’exercice de son pouvoir de contrôle judiciaire, la Cour d’appel peut-elle soulever de son propre chef une nouvelle interprétation des règles de droit en litige contraire à l’interprétation des parties quant aux exigences du par. 14(7) du Règlement afin d’appuyer la position de la défenderesse quant à l’interprétation de la notion de dernier arrêt de rémunération au sens de l’art. 14 de la Loi aux fins du calcul des prestations?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 22 mars 2001 Cour d’appel fédérale (Décary, Létourneau et Noël, jj.c.a.) |
|
Requête de la demanderesse Maryse Dupéré en révision judiciaire de la décision du juge-arbitre accueillie ; décision du juge-arbitre annulée |
|
|
|
Le 23 mars 2001 Cour d’appel fédérale (Décary, Létourneau et Noël, jj.c.a.) |
|
Requête de la demanderesse France Bélanger en révision judiciaire de la décision du juge-arbitre accueillie ; décision du juge-arbitre annulée |
|
|
|
Le 28 juin 2001 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demandes d’autorisation d’appel et de prorogation de délai déposées |
|
|
|
James Blair Down, Trevor Graham Street and Fraser Barkley Barnes including those listed in Schedule A
v. (28496)
Interclaim Holdings Limited and The Co‐Petitioners listed in Schedule B (B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Torts - Procedural law - Bankruptcy - Champerty - Applicants’ lottery ticket scheme resulting in many non-resident victims - Victims assigning Respondent firm the right to conduct action against Applicants for a portion of the funds collected - Whether rule against champerty applies - If so, does rule apply: (a) only if the claims fall outside the historical concept of “common counts in debt” or (b) if agreements amount to assignment of a bare cause of action; Whether rule contravened by agreements in this case - Appropriate response to emergence of sophisticated entrepreneurial litigation companies - Whether acceptable for quasi-criminal statute like the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to be used as a legal platform for such business - Whether non-residents have sufficient connection to jurisdiction.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 4, 1999 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Brenner C.J.) |
|
Applicants’ application to have petition dismissed granted |
|
|
|
September 17, 1999 British Columbia Court of Appeal Newbury J.A. (In Chambers) |
|
Arguable appeal demonstrated and ex parte orders restored |
|
|
|
July 28, 2000
British Columbia Supreme Court
Brenner C.J.
Interim ex parte receiving order and all orders derivative of it set aside
August 11, 2000
British Columbia Court of Appeal
(Newbury, Low and Proudfoot JJ.A.)
Stay imposed by McEachern C.J. terminated
November 17, 2000
British Columbia Court of Appeal
(Southin, Braidwood and Saunders JJ.A.)
Appeal from dismissal of petition in August 1999 and of order of July 2000 setting aside ex parte orders; appeal of July 2000 order dismissed; decision on issue of Champerty reserved
January 31, 2001
Court of Appeal for British Columbia
(Southin, Braidwood and Saunders JJ.A.)
Appeal of decision to dismiss petition allowed; matter remitted to lower court
March 3, 2001
British Columbia Court of Appeal
(Supplementary Reasons)
(Southin, Braidwood and Saunders JJ.A.)
Application to re-open appeal dismissed
April 2, 2001
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Arbour and LeBel JJ. /
Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Arbour et LeBel
Clinton Junior Gayle
v. (28699)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter - Criminal - Criminal law - Jury selection - Challenge for cause - Racial bias - Procedure - Jurisdiction - Peremptory challenges - Whether the trial judge was justified in restricting the proposed questions for challenge for cause - Whether the trial judge was empowered by s. 640(4) of the Criminal Code to excuse a potential juror after the triers had failed to agree on his impartiality - Whether the rights of the accused under ss. 7, 11(b) and 15 of the Charter were infringed by the Crown’s exercise of peremptory challenges.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 11, 1996
Ontario Court (General Division)
(Watt J.)
Applicant convicted of first degree murder and attempted murder contrary to ss. 231(4)(a) and 239 of the Criminal Code
April 27, 2001 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Osborne A.C.J.O., Doherty and Sharpe JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal against conviction dismissed |
|
|
|
July 26, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Denis Bienvenue
c. (28768)
Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit criminel - Législation - Interprétation - Pouvoir de main-forte - Le pouvoir d’immobiliser un moyen de transport, conféré uniquement aux agents désignés en vertu de l’al.99(1)(f) de la Loi sur les douanes, fait-il implicitement partie du pouvoir de main-forte prévu à l’art.104 malgré l’omission du législateur d’en faire expressément mention? - Présumant de l’existence au Canada d’une règle de droit permettant la détention provisoire d’une personne pour fin d’enquête criminelle, ce pouvoir peut-il être exercé par tout agent de la paix lors d’une enquête en matière réglementaire? - Dans l’affirmative, quelle est la norme juridique régissant l’exercice d’un tel pouvoir? - Une cour d’appel intermédiaire, jugeant bien fondé le motif de droit pour lequel l’autorisation d’interjeter appel fut accordée en vertu de l’art.839 C.cr., peut-elle néanmoins rejeter le pourvoi lorsque la déclaration de culpabilité rendue au procès lui semble justifiée pour des motifs autres qu’un motif de droit?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 14 septembre 1998
Cour du Québec
(Beauchemin j.c.q.)
Demandeur déclaré coupable d’avoir introduit illégalement des boissons alcoolisées au Canada contrairement à 160a) de la Loi sur les douanes
Le 1 mars 1999 Cour supérieure du Québec (Mireault j.c.s.) |
|
Appel rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 29 mai 2001 Cour d'appel du Québec (Fish, Robert et Thibault jj.c.a.) |
|
Appel rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 28 août 2001 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée
|
|
|
|
Mario Guerriero and Salvatore Guerriero
v. (28560)
Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec (Que.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law - Judicial review - Whether the Respondent used its discretion and its power to issue administrative orders for purposes foreign to An Act Respecting the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities (the “Act”) - Whether the Respondent breached its statutory duties under the Act - Whether the Act creates a legal regime analogous to private law trusts in which the Applicants are the beneficiaries and the Respondent Commission is the trustee - Whether the proper administration of justice and the Applicants’ proprietary rights have suffered harm through the Respondent’s breach of trust - Whether the words and conduct of Durand J. unjustifiably infringed the Applicants’ constitutional rights under ss. 15(1) and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and s. 23 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms - Whether, having complied with the order of Durand J., and demolished the building as ordered on May 31, 2001, the Applicants are now entitled to a remedy in equity.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 27, 2000
Superior Court of Quebec
(Laberge J.)
Applicants’ motion to dismiss Respondent’s action dismissed; Applicants’ motion for judicial review dismissed
January 25, 2001 Superior Court of Quebec (Durand J.) |
|
Respondent’s motion for order of demolition granted |
|
|
|
April 23, 2001 Court of Appeal of Quebec (Baudouin, Rousseau‐Houle and Robert JJ.A.) |
|
Respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal granted |
|
|
|
May 24, 2001
Supreme Court of Canada
(Major J.)
Application for stay of proceedings dismissed
June 22, 2001
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
CORAM: Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ. /
Les juges Gonthier, Major et Binnie
Her Majesty the Queen
v. (28669)
Terry Robert Shepherd (Crim.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal Law (non Charter) - Jury Charge - Defence - Evidence - Charge of causing death of infant by violent shaking - Crown introduces evidence of previous incident of shaking - Court of Appeal orders new trial based on finding that trial judge failed to adequately direct jury on the relevance of evidence to the issue of intent - Whether trial judge failed to properly relate evidence of previous incident of shaking to issue of intent - Whether trial judge was required to raise exculpatory theory not relied upon by defence - Whether Court of Appeal has imposed requirement to present all possible exculpatory theories in jury charges.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 26, 1996
Ontario Court (General Division)
(Glithero J.)
Conviction by jury of first degree murder
April 23, 2001 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Rosenberg, Moldaver JJ.A. and Simmons J.[ad hoc]) |
|
Appeal against conviction allowed; new trial ordered |
|
|
|
June 21, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Hassan Barnieh, Barnieh Investments Ltd., DLN Holdings Ltd., Delina Holdings Ltd., 276171 Alberta Ltd., 285917 Alberta Ltd., 306766 Alberta Ltd. and 319071 Alberta Ltd.
v. (28759)
Northland Bank and Deloitte & Touche Inc. as Liquidator of Northland Bank (Alta.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Property law - Commercial law - Trusts and trustees - Banks/banking operations - Fraud - Constructive trust - Whether a party can be fixed with the obligations of a constructive trust in circumstances where, at the time of dealing, the existence of a breach of a trust has not been established - Whether a party who deals with a chartered bank and acquired assets at favourable values be deemed to have knowledge that the Bank was insolvent and that any assets acquired were trust assets - When the Bank is represented by independent legal counsel in connection with the sale of assets is the purchaser obliged to inquire into the financial conditions of the bank, even if the asset transactions seem favourable to the purchaser.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 31, 1999 Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Wilkins J.) |
|
Applicants found to be constructive trustees; Applicants ordered to restore property to the Defendants |
|
|
|
May 17, 2001 Court of Appeal of Alberta (Fraser C.J.A., Hunt and Costigan JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed; Cross-appeal allowed in part |
|
|
|
August 30, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Charlie Pinteric
v. (28504)
People's Bar and Eatery Limited, Ermioni Chialtas also known as Mary Chialtas and Jim Chialtas also known as Jimmy Chialtas (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial Law - Contracts - Partnership - Judgment at trial that there had been a breach of an agreement to form a partnership - Judgment on appeal that one of the respondents was not liable for that breach - Whether respondent liable.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 19, 1999 Superior Court of Ontario (Dunnet J.) |
|
Applicant awarded damages |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
February 9, 2001 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Catzman, Doherty and Simmons JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal by Mary Chialtis allowed; Appeals by other respondents dismissed |
|
|
|
April 10, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
JUDGMENTS ON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE |
|
JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION |
DECEMBER 13, 2001 / LE 13 DÉCEMBRE 2001
28705 First National Properties Ltd. ‐ v. ‐ Robert McMinn ‐ and between ‐ First National Properties Ltd. ‐ v. ‐ The Corporation of the District of Highlands and Bruce Woodbury (B.C.) (Civil)
CORAM: L'Heureux‐Dubé, Arbour and LeBel JJ.
The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Torts - Abuse of public office - District council - Mayor and other municipal officials - Whether unlawful conduct on the part of public officials can be rendered lawful by virtue of being motivated by a strongly held “political belief”.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
October 1, 1999 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Quijano J.) |
|
Respondents liable for abuse of office; McMinn liable for punitive damages; remainder of action dismissed |
|
|
|
April 25, 2001 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Newbury, Levine and Proudfoot JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed; actions dismissed |
|
|
|
July 31, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
28606 Adessky Poulin, Marcel Bergeron, Luciano Bertacchi, Mario Bertacchi, Mario Caruso, Elena Caruso, Antony Carriero, Martina Maria Fryml, Nellie Contenta, Joseph D'Amico, Michelina D'Amico Pertrolito, Anne‐Marie Fitzpatrick, Raymond Gingras, Sheldon Grekin, Marie Hebert, Louis Kaminsky, Philipp Battaglia, Deborah Perras Battaglia, Vincenzo Battaglia, Agapito Sapochetti, Gina Battaglia, Anthony Liistro, Rosario Ortaona, Concettina Ortona, Gianna Ortena, Tonino Ortona, Carmela Masone, Carol Timmons, Harry Grekin, Pearl Grekin, Raymond Fortin, Rejeanne Fortin, Maryse Fortin, Caroline Fortin, Les immeubles Banco Inc., Robert Ghetti, Mauro Perotto, Maria P.T. Perotto, Louisette Perrier, Anthony Petrolito, Henriette Sevigny, Gerald Suter, Jean Tremblay, Peter Wainberg, Sharyn Gore, Janice Wood, Murray Grekin, Dane Roger, Lucia D'Adamo, Roger Desmarais, Steve Kourakis, Marziale Lentini, Loren Goldig, Jean‐Pierre Hubert, Paul Ponton, Jean Mealin, Ghyslain Pilote, Monique Gauthier and 2630‐1382 Quebec Inc. ‐ v. ‐ Lévesque Beaubien Geoffrion Inc., Pacific International Securities Inc., John Cox, Marc Tremblay, Charles Villeneuve, Paul Neeld, Swainson Hawke, Hawke Technologies Inc., Henry Jung, Dino Manicucchi and Sylvie Munroe ‐ and ‐ The Registrar for the Registration Division of Montreal (Que.) (Civil)
CORAM: L'Heureux‐Dubé, Arbour and LeBel JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents Lévesque Beaubien Geoffrion Inc. and Pacific International Securities Inc.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimées Lévesque Beaubien Geoffrion Inc. et Pacific International Securities Inc.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural Law – Civil procedure – Motion to declare a law firm ineligible to act as solicitors of record – Right to non-disclosure of confidential information – Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q, c. C-12, s. 9 – Conflict of interest – Code of Ethics of Advocates, R.R.Q., 1981, c. B-1, r. 1, ss. 3.06.01, 3.06.04, 3.06.06, 3.06.07, 3.06.08, 3.06.09 and 3.06.10 – What weight is to be given by the Courts to the element of prejudice suffered by a client who is suddenly stopped from having access to his lawyer after a thirteen-year ongoing close working relationship on his file? – What are the appropriate steps to be taken when a lawyer ceases to act for one party, rents space from another firm and takes no further role in the litigation? – What is the legal test to remove a law firm of record for alleged conflict of interest where a demonstrable “Chinese wall” has been set up?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 1, 2000 Superior Court of Quebec (Bishop J.) |
|
Motions by the Respondents, Lévesque Beaubien Geoffrion Inc. and Pacific International Securities Inc., to have Adessky Poulin removed as counsel for the Applicants granted |
|
|
|
March 16, 2001 Court of Appeal of Quebec (Rothman, Proulx and Pidgeon JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
May 15, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
28648 Reubens Henderson ‐ v. ‐ Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal)
CORAM: Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ.
The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - Criminal procedure - Jury trials - Application for trial by judge alone - Application for a change of venue - Jury instructions - Reasonable doubt - Sections 7, 11(d) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Section 473 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Applicant had failed to demonstrate that he could not receive a fair trial with an impartial jury? - Whether the charge to the jury erred in guiding the jury to take a two-step approach to their assessment of the evidence and the application of the burden of proof? - Whether charge to the jury contained an erroneous definition of reasonable doubt? - Whether the charge to the jury failed to provide an adequate limiting instruction with respect to the use of evidence of other discreditable conduct? - Whether the jury was effectively denied a read back of evidence by the manner in which the trial judge answered a request for a read back?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 2, 1996
Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)
(Chilcott J.)
Applicant’s application for charge of venue or trial before judge alone on charge of second degree murder dismissed
February 14, 1996
Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)
(Chilcott J.)
Applicant convicted by judge and jury of second degree murder
April 12, 2001 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Charron, Sharpe and Simmons JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal against conviction dismissed |
|
|
|
July 9, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
28737 Government of the Northwest Territories ‐ v. ‐ Public Service Alliance of Canada and Canadian Human Rights Commission (FC) (Civil)
CORAM: Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law - Administrative Tribunals - Institutional independence - Reasonable apprehension of bias - Circumstances which deprive administrative tribunal of appearance of institutional independence - Whether binding guidelines issued under s. 27(2) of the Canadian Human Rights Act compromise the independence and impartiality of the tribunal hearing the human rights complaint - Whether power to issue guidelines is compatible with the standards of institutional independence and freedom from institutional bias required by the Constitution Act 1867, the Bill of Rights and common law - Whether Tribunal forms part the federal executive
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 4, 1998
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
(Groarke, Théberge and Hadjis, Members)
Applicant’s motion for ruling that Respondent Canadian Human Rights Commission is incapable of providing a fair hearing dismissed
December 15, 1999 Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (Dubé J.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Applicant’s application for judicial review dismissed; Respondent CHRC’s application for order denying Applicant’s standing in judicial review proceedings allowedMay 24, 2001 Federal Court of Appeal (Stone, Létourneau and Rothstein JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed; order set aside; application for judicial review dismissed |
|
|
|
August 20, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
28743 Bell Canada ‐ v. ‐ Canadian Telephone Employees Association, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Femmes Action and Canadian Human Rights Commission (FC) (Civil)
CORAM: Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law - Judicial review - Administrative tribunals - Institutional independence - Reasonable apprehension of bias - Circumstances which deprive administrative tribunal of appearance of institutional independence - Whether Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has the requisite institutional independence and freedom from institutional bias despite being bound to interpret the Canadian Human Rights Act in accordance with guidelines issued by the Canadian Human Rights Commission - Whether Tribunal members have security of tenure necessary to ensure an independent and impartial tribunal - Whether Tribunal forms part of federal executive
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 26, 1999
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
(Sinclair, Chair)
Decision by Tribunal that it is institutionally impartial and independent; Respondents’ complaints against Applicant should proceed
November 2, 2000 Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (Tremblay‐Lamer J.) |
|
Applicant’s application for judicial review granted: Tribunal decision quashed |
|
|
|
May 24, 2001 Federal Court of Appeal (Stone, Létourneau and Rothstein JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed: application for judicial review dismissed |
|
|
|
August 20, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
28482 John Susin ‐ v. ‐ Bono General Construction Limited, Carmelo Bono, Anne Bono and Salvatore (Sam) Bono (Ont.) (Civil)
CORAM: Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ.
The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed without costs.
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée sans dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural law - Rules of Civil Procedure - Security for costs - Appellate court confirming lower court decisions granting the dismissal of the Applicant’s actions and dismissing a counterclaim and striking a statement of defence of the Applicant in another action for failure to pay security for costs - Alleged impecuneousity - Whether stays issued pursuant to a judge’s order, and under Rules 11.01 and 63.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, are effective to prevent the commencement and continuation of collateral proceedings against plaintiff litigants - Whether the motions judge had lacked jurisdiction to enforce the payment of costs in these circumstances.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
March 2, 2000 Superior Court of Justice (Crane J.) |
|
Motion to dismiss Applicant’s actions and counterclaim against Respondents and striking Applicant’s Statement of Defence, granted |
|
|
|
March 16, 2000 Superior Court of Justice (Reilly J.) |
|
Applicant’s motion to set aside Order of Crane J. and for extension of time to pay costs, dismissed |
|
|
|
October 31, 2000 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Catzman, Abella and Sharpe JJ.A.) |
|
Applicant’s appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
January 25, 2001 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Catzman, Abella and Sharpe JJ.A.) |
|
Applicant’s motion for an order setting aside or varying the Court of Appeal decision dismissed; Applicant’s motion for an order allowing the filing of fresh evidence dismissed |
|
|
|
March 27, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal and for an extension of time filed |
|
|
|
MOTIONS |
|
REQUÊTES
|
3.12.2001
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Miscellaneous motion
Michael Aristocrat
v. (28906)
Rima Aristocrat, et al. (Ont.)
Autre requête
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE The motion on behalf of Gowling Lafleur Henderson for an order removing them as solicitor of record for the respondents is granted.
3.12.2001
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondents' response
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
v. (28849)
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, et al. (Ont.)
Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la réponse des intimés
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to November 23, 2001.
4.12.2001
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the appellant’s book of authorities
Sa Majesté la Reine
c. (28198)
Daniel Larivière (Crim.)(Qué.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’appelante
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Délai prorogé au 15 novembre 2001.
4.12.2001
Before / Devant: LEBEL J.
Motion to vary the judgment
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia
v. (27721)
Leanne Rumley, et al. (B.C.)
Requête en rectification du dispositif de jugement
REFERRED / RÉFÉRÉE
UPON APPLICATION by the appellant for an order pursuant to Rule 50, to vary the judgment of this Court delivered on the 18th day of October 2001;
AND HAVING READ the material filed ;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The appellant is directed to make a motion pursuant to Rule 51.
4.12.2001
Before / Devant: THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Motion to adjourn the hearing of the appeals
Hughes Communications Inc.
v. (28070)
Spar Aerospace Limited
and between
Satellite Transmissions Systems Inc.
v.
Spar Aerospace Limited
and between
Requête pour ajourner l'audition des appels
Motient Corporation (formerly “American Mobile Satellite Corporation”)
v.
Spar Aerospace Limited
and between
Viacom Inc. (formerly “Westinghouse Electric Corporation”)
v.
Spar Aerospace Limited (Que.)
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
UPON APPLICATION by the appellant Hughes Communications Inc., for an Order adjourning the hearing of these appeals to the Spring 2002 session;
AND HAVING READ the material filed ;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The motion on behalf of the appellant Hughes Communications Inc., for an order adjourning the hearing of these appeals to the Spring 2002 session is granted.
5.12.2001
Before / Devant: LEBEL J.
Motion for leave to intervene
BY/PAR: Federation of Law Societies of Canada
IN/DANS: Law Society of New Brunswick
v. (28639)
Michael A.A. Ryan (N.B.)
Requête en autorisation d'intervention
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
UPON APPLICATION by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada for leave to intervene in the above appeal;
AND HAVING READ the material filed ;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Federation of Law Societies of Canada is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.
The request to present oral argument is deferred to a date following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the interveners.
The intervener shall not be entitled to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties.
Pursuant to Rule 18(6) the intervener shall pay to the appellant and respondent any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondent by the intervention.
6.12.2001
Before / Devant: LEBEL J.
Miscellaneous motion
Michael Burko, et al.
v. (28872)
Credit Valley Conservation Authority (Ont.)
Autre requête
DISMISSED / REJETÉE
On October 26, 2001, the applicants Michael and Kathleen Burko purported to file a document styled “notice of appeal”. In this document, the applicants state their intention to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, rendered on October 9, 2001, quashing their appeal from an interlocutory judgment rendered by Justice Somers on April 23, 2001. The Registrar refused to accept this document as a notice of appeal as of right and suggested to the applicants that it be dealt with as if it were a notice of motion for leave to appeal.
The applicants challenged this decision, as they seem to think that the filing of their documents created what would amount to an appeal as of right. They have now filed a motion asking a judge of this Court to reverse the decision of the Registrar. Pursuant to s. 40 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, ch. S-26, all appeals in civil matters require prior leave by this Court. No appeal as of right exists in such matters. The applicants must go through the leave process. The Registrar had no option but to refuse that their document be filed as a notice of appeal.
For these reasons, the motion is dismissed. Costs were not requested on the motion.
6.12.2001
Before / Devant: LEBEL J.
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the application for leave
Gordon D. MacDonald
v. (28918)
Eagle Resources Ltd. (Alta.)
Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la demande d'autorisation
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to sixty (60) days after the decision of the Court of Appeal for Alberta on reconsideration.
7.12.2001
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the book of authorities of the intervener John Howard Society of Canada
Richard Sauvé, et al.
v. (27677)
Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, et al. (F.C.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’intervenante John Howard Society of Canada
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to November 18, 2001, nunc pro tunc.
7.12.2001
Before / Devant: LEBEL J.
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the application for leave
Hanna Greenbaum Engel, et al.
v. (28931)
David Friedman, et al. (Que.)
Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la demande d'autorisation
GRANTED IN PART / ACCORDÉE EN PARTIE Time extended to Thursday, December 20, 2001.
10.12.2001
Before /Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the response of the respondent Erber Enrico Ferretti
Her Majesty the Queen
v. (28881)
Jose Fernando Castro, et al. (Crim.)(B.C.)
Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la réponse de l'intimé Erber Enrico Ferretti
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to January 9, 2002.
NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
|
AVIS D’APPEL DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
5.12.2001
La Caisse populaire Desjardins de Val-Brillant
c. (28483)
Métivier & Associés Inc. (Qué.)
7.12.2001
Les Éditions Chouette (1987) Inc. et autre
c. (28660)
Hélène Desputeaux (Qué.)
3.12.2001
Robert Rahn
v. (28933)
Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
(As of Right)
APPEALS HEARD SINCE LAST ISSUE AND DISPOSITION |
|
APPELS ENTENDUS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION ET RÉSULTAT
|
5.12.2001
CORAM: Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.
Paul D’Aoust Construction Ltd., et al.
v. (27438)
Markel Insurance Company of Canada, et al.
(Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)
K. Scott McLean for the appellants.
Ronald W. Price for the respondent Markel Insurance Company.
Kenneth Radnoff, Q.C. for the respondent Kenneth Daku.
DISMISSED WITH COSTS / REJETÉ AVEC DÉPENS
GONTHIER J (orally):
We are all of the view that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons of the Court of Appeal of Ontario, with costs.
LE JUGE GONTHIER (oralement):
Nous sommes tous d'avis qu'il y a lieu de rejeter l'appel avec dépens, pour les raisons exposées par la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario.
Nature of the case:
Commercial law - Suretyship - Performance bonds - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the physical delivery of an instrument to the obligee by the principal debtor is a condition precedent to the liability of the party who issued the instrument - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that, where a party contractually agrees to complete a task, it cannot be deemed to act as an agent for all other material parties to the contract.
Nature de la cause:
Droit commercial - Cautionnement - Garanties d’exécution - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que la délivrance matérielle d’un acte par le débiteur principal à l’obligataire constitue une condition préalable à la responsabilité de la partie qui a émis l’acte? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en statuant que, lorsqu’une partie s’engage par contrat à accomplir une tâche, elle ne peut être réputée agir à titre de mandataire pour toutes les autres parties concernées au contrat?
10.12.2001
CORAM: Chief Justice McLachlin, L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.
Richard Sauvé
v. (27677)
Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, et al.
and between
Sheldon McCorrister, et al.
v.
The Attorney General of Canada
(F.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)
Fergus J. O’Connor for the appellant Richard Sauvé.
Arne Peltz for the appellants Sheldon McCorrister, et al.
Allan Manson and Elizabeth Thomas for the interveners Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, et al.
Kent Roach and Brian Eyolfson for the intervener Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto.
Sylvain Lussier pour l’intervenante Association du Barreau canadien.
John W. Conroy, Q.C. for the intervener B.C. Civil Liberties.
David G. Frayer, Q.C. and Gérald L. Chartier for the respondents.
Heather S. Leonoff, Q.C. for the intervener the Attorney General of Manitoba.
Thomas W. Wakeling and Gerald D. Chipeur for the intervener the Attorney General of Alberta.
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Canadian Charter - Civil - Civil Rights - Right to vote - Prisoner voting - Federal Legislation prohibits inmates serving sentences of two years or more from voting in elections - Whether the Federal Legislation is saved by section 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limitation on the right to vote - Whether Federal Legislation meets minimal impairment and proportionality tests mandated by s. 1 of the Charter - Whether there is a rational connection between disenfranchising prisoners and enhancing the criminal sanction or promoting civic responsibility and respect for the rule of law - Whether the Federal Legislation is in breach of s. 15 of the Charter - Canada Elections Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. E-2, s. 51(e) as amended.
Nature de la cause:
Charte canadienne des droits - Matière civile - Droits civils - Droit de vote - Vote des prisonniers - Loi fédérale interdisant aux détenus purgeant une peine de deux ans et plus de voter aux élections - La loi fédérale est-elle validée par l’article premier de la Charte parce qu’elle constitue une limite raisonnable au droit de vote? - La loi fédérale satisfait-elle aux critères de l’atteinte minimale et de la proportionnalité applicables en vertu l’article premier de la Charte? - Existe-t-il un lien rationnel entre l’inhabilité des prisonniers et l’objectif consistant à mettre en relief la sanction pénale ou à rehausser le sens du devoir civique et le respect de la primauté du droit? - La loi fédérale contrevient-elle à l’art. 15 de la Charte? - Loi électorale du Canada, L.R.C. (1985), ch. E‐2, al. 51e), modifié.
11.12.2001
CORAM: Chief Justice McLachlin, L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.
Norman Sterriah, et al.
v. (27762)
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, et al.
(Y.T.) (Civil) (By Leave)
Brian A. Crane, Q.C. and Ritu Gambhir for the appellants.
Leslie J. Pinder for the intervener Coalition of B.C. First Nations.
Brian R. Evernden and Jeffery A. Hutchinson for the respondent The Queen in Right of Canada.
Penelope Gawn and Lesley McCullough for the respondent Government of Yukon.
Richard J.M. Fyfe, Patrick G. Foy, Q.C. and Paul Yearwood for the intervener the Attorney General of British Columbia.
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
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, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-6?
Nature de la cause:
Droit des Autochtones - Réserves - Quelles sont les conditions juridiques de la création d’une réserve indienne sous le régime de la Loi sur les Indiens? - L’existence d’un décret constatant la mise de côté de terres par la Couronne constitue-t-elle une condition juridique pour que Sa Majesté les ait mises « de côté à l’usage et au profit d’une bande »? - La Cour d’appel du Yukon a-t-elle commis une erreur de fait et de droit en infirmant la conclusion du juge siégeant en son cabinet selon laquelle le site du village Déna de Ross River constitue une réserve au sens de la Loi sur les Indiens, L.R.C. (1985), ch. I‐6?
11.12.2001
CORAM: Chief Justice McLachlin, L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.
Bank of America Canada
v. (27898)
Clarica Trust Company (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)
Frank J.C. Newbould, Q.C., Benjamin T. Glustein and Aaron A. Blumenfeld for the appellant.
Earl A. Cherniak, Q.C. and Kirk F. Stevens for the respondent.
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Commercial Law - Procedural Law - Interest - Damages - Breach of contract - Statute - Interpretation - Availability of compound interest on damage awards - Whether the trial judge had jurisdiction to award compound interest - Whether the trial judge’s exercise of discretion in awarding compound interest should be upheld.
Nature de la cause:
Droit commercial - Droit procédural - Intérêt - Dommages‐intérêts - Inexécution contractuelle - Lois - Interprétation - Des dommages‐intérêts peuvent‐ils être majorés d'intérêts composés? Le juge de première instance avait‐il compétence pour accorder des intérêts composés? - Sa décision d’accorder des intérêts composés rendue à l’issue de l’exercice de son pouvoir discrétionnaire devrait‐elle être confirmée?
12.12.2001
CORAM: Chief Justice McLachlin, L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.
Brian J. Stewart
v. (27860)
Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)
Richard B. Thomas and Lisa Wong for the appellant.
Richard Gobeil and Donald G. Gibson for the respondent.
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Statutes - Interpretation - Taxation - Whether the Tax Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in applying the “reasonable expectation of profit” test to disallow the deduction of losses of the Appellant arising from investments in real estate, thereby limiting the amount of interest expense that was otherwise deductible pursuant to s. 20(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
Nature de la cause:
Lois - Interprétation - Fiscalité - La Cour canadienne de l’impôt et la Cour d’appel fédérale ont-elles commis une erreur de droit en appliquant le critère de l’« attente raisonnable de profit » pour refuser la déduction des pertes subies par l’appelant à la suite de ses placements dans l’immobilier, limitant ainsi le montant des frais d’intérêts autrement déductibles par application de l’al. 20(1)c) de la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu.
12.12.2001
CORAM: Chief Justice McLachlin, L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.
Her Majesty the Queen
v. (27724)
Jack Walls, et al. (F.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)
Brent Paris and Richard Gobeil for the appellant.
Craig C. Sturrock and Thomas M. Boddez for the respondents.
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Statutes - Interpretation - Taxation - Whether the trial judge misapplied the reasonable expectation of profit test laid down in Moldowan v. The Queen, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 480, for determining the source of income under the Act - Whether, in the absence of any overriding error by the trial judge, there was any basis for allowing the limited partners in the Partnership to deduct the losses as a business loss in computing their income from other sources under the Act.
Nature de la cause:
Lois - Interprétation - Fiscalité - Le juge de première instance a-t-il mal interprété le critère de l’expectative raisonnable de profit établi dans l’arrêt Moldowan c. La Reine, [1978] 1 R.C.S. 480, pour déterminer la source d’un revenu en vertu de la Loi? - En l’absence d’erreur dirimante de la part du juge de première, existait-il un fondement sur lequel autoriser les commanditaires de la société de personnes à déduire les pertes comme pertes d’entreprise dans le calcul de leur revenu d’autres provenances en vertu de la Loi?
13.12.2001
CORAM: Chief Justice McLachlin, L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.
Her Majesty the Queen
v. (27852)
Lavallee, Rackel and Heintz Barristers and Solicitors, et al. (Alta.) (Criminal) (By Leave)
- and between -
Her Majesty the Queen
v. (28385)
Jeffrey Fink (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave)
-and between -
White, Ottenheimer & Baker
v. (28144)
Attorney General of Canada
(Nfld.) (Criminal) (By Leave)
Robert J. Frater, Peter DeFreitas and David Schermbrucker for the appellant (in Lavallee) and for the respondent/appellant on cross-appeal (in White).
Michal Fairburn and Philip Downes for the appellant (in Fink).
Robert J. Frater, Peter DeFreitas and David Schembrucker for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada (written submission only).
Michal Fairburn and Philip Downes for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario (written submission only).
Benoît Lauzon et Gilles Laporte pour l’intervenant le procureur général du Québec.
Eric Tolppanen for the intervener the Attorney General of Alberta.
D. Mark Pike and Geoffrey L. Spencer for the appellant/ respondent on cross-appeal (in White).
David G. Butcher and Michael J. Hewitt for the respondents (in Lavallee).
Richard Macklin and Aaron Harnet for the respondent (in Fink).
Anne S. Derrick, Q.C., Joel Pink, Q.C. and Shane Parker for the intervener Federation of Law Societies of Canada.
Lindsay MacDonald, Q.C.for the intervener The Law Society of Alberta.
James L. Lebo, Q.C. for the intervener Canadian Bar Association.
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
27852
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Search and seizure - Criminal law - Solicitor and client privilege - Section 488.1 of Criminal Code providing procedure for securing privilege in documents seized from law office - Documents seized from law office - Whether s. 488.1 of the Criminal Code infringes s. 7 and/or s. 8 of the Charter - If so, is the infringement justified under s. 1 of the Charter?
Nature de la cause:
27852
Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - Perquisitions et saisies - Droit criminel - Secret professionnel de l’avocat - L’art. 488.1 du Code criminel établit une procédure garantissant le respect du privilège protégeant les documents saisis dans un cabinet d’avocats - Documents saisis dans un cabinet d’avocats - L’art. 488.1 du Code criminel porte-t-il atteinte à l’art. 7 ou à l’art. 8 de la Charte? - Le cas échéant, cette atteinte est-elle justifiée par l’art. premier de la Charte?
28385
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - Unreasonable search and seizure - Solicitor and client privilege - Section 488.1 of Criminal Code providing procedure for securing privilege in documents seized from law office - Documents seized from law office - Whether s. 488.1 unconstitutional in that it allows or permits an unreasonable search and seizure contrary to s. 8 of the Charter.
28385
Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - Droit criminel - Fouilles, perquisitions et saisies abusives - Privilège des communications entre client et avocat - L’art. 488.1 du Code criminel prévoit la procédure applicable pour assurer le respect du privilège des communications entre client et avocat en cas de saisie de documents dans un cabinet d’avocat - Documents saisis dans un cabinet d’avocat - L’art. 488.1 est‐il inconstitutionnel parce qu’il permet des fouilles, perquisitions et saisies abusives contrairement à l’art. 8 de la Charte?
28144
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - Search and seizure - Solicitor and client privilege - Section 488.1 of Criminal Code providing procedure for securing privilege in documents seized from law office - Documents seized from law office - Constitutionality of s. 488.1 - Whether constitutional validity of s. 488.1 of the Criminal Code can be upheld by severing offending portions and reading in replacement words.
28144
Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - Droit criminel - Perquisitions et saisies - Secret professionnel de l’avocat - L’art. 488.1 du Code criminel établit une procédure garantissant le respect du privilège protégeant les documents saisis dans un cabinet d’avocats - Documents saisis dans un cabinet d’avocats - Constitutionnalité de l’art. 488.1 - La validité constitutionnelle de l’art. 488.1 du Code criminel peut-elle être préservée en séparant les dispositions attentatoires et en remplaçant implicitement certains termes.
DEADLINES: MOTIONS
|
|
DÉLAIS: REQUÊTES
|
BEFORE THE COURT:
Pursuant to Rule 23.1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, the following deadlines must be met before a motion before the Court can be heard: |
|
DEVANT LA COUR:
Conformément à l'article 23.1 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada, les délais suivants doivent être respectés pour qu'une requête soit entendue par la Cour :
|
Motion day : January 14, 2002
Service : December 24, 2001 Filing : December 28, 2001 Respondent : January 4, 2002 |
|
Audience du : 14 janvier 2002
Signification : 24 décembre 2001 Dépôt : 28 décembre 2001 Intimé : 4 janvier 2002 |
Motion day : February 11, 2002
Service : January 21, 2002 Filing : January 25, 2002 Respondent : February 1, 2002
|
|
Audience du : 11 février 2002
Signification : 21 janvier 2002 Dépôt : 25 janvier 2002 Intimé : 1 février 2002 |
Motion day : March 11, 2002
Service : February 18, 2002 Filing : February 22, 2002 Respondent : March 1, 2002 |
|
Audience du : 11 mars 2002
Signification : 18 février 2002 Dépôt : 22 février 2002 Intimé : 1 mars 2002 |
DEADLINES: APPEALS
|
|
DÉLAIS: APPELS |
The Winter Session of the Supreme Court of Canada will commence January 14, 2002.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court Act and Rules, the following requirements for filing must be complied with before an appeal can be inscribed for hearing:
Appellant’s record; appellant’s factum; and appellant’s book(s) of authorities must be filed within four months of the filing of the notice of appeal.
Respondent’s record (if any); respondent’s factum; and respondent’s book(s) of authorities must be filed within eight weeks of the date of service of the appellant's factum.
Intervener's factum and intervener’s book(s) of authorities, if any, must be filed within four weeks of the date of service of the respondent's factum, unless otherwise ordered.
Parties’ condensed book, if required, must be filed on or before the day of hearing of the appeal.
Please consult the Notice to the Profession of October 1997 for further information.
The Registrar shall inscribe the appeal for hearing upon the filing of the respondent's factum or after the expiry of the time for filing the respondent's factum.
|
|
La session d’hiver de la Cour suprême du Canada commencera le 14 janvier 2002.
Conformément à la Loi sur la Cour suprême et aux Règles, il faut se conformer aux exigences suivantes avant qu'un appel puisse être inscrit pour audition:
Le dossier de l’appelant, son mémoire et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine doivent être déposés dans les quatre mois du dépôt de l’avis d’appel.
Le dossier de l’intimé (le cas échéant), son mémoire et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine doivent être déposés dans les huit semaines suivant la signification du mémoire de l’appelant.
Le mémoire de l'intervenant et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine, le cas échéant, doivent être déposés dans les quatre semaines suivant la signification du mémoire de l'intimé, sauf ordonnance contraire.
Le recueil condensé des parties, le cas échéant, doivent être déposés au plus tard le jour de l’audition de l’appel.
Veuillez consulter l’avis aux avocats du mois d’octobre 1997 pour plus de renseignements.
Le registraire inscrit l'appel pour audition après le dépôt du mémoire de l'intimé ou à l'expiration du délai pour le dépôt du mémoire de l'intimé. |
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE
CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME
- 2001 -
OCTOBER - OCTOBRE |
|
NOVEMBER - NOVEMBRE |
|
DECEMBER - DECEMBRE |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
M 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
7 |
H 8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
|
4 |
M 5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
2 |
M 3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
|
11 |
H 12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
|
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
|
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
|
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
23 |
24 |
H 25 |
H 26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
- 2002 -
JANUARY - JANVIER |
|
FEBRUARY - FÉVRIER |
|
MARCH - MARS |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
|
H 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
|
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
13 |
M 14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
|
10 |
M 11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
|
10 |
M 11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
|
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
|
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
|
|
|
24 31 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
H 29 |
30 |
APRIL - AVRIL |
|
MAY - MAI |
|
JUNE - JUIN |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
H 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
|
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
|
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
14 |
M 15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
|
12 |
M 13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
|
9 |
M 10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
|
19 |
H 20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
|
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
23 30 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
Sittings of the court: Séances de la cour: |
|
18 sitting weeks / semaines séances de la cour 79 sitting days / journées séances de la cour 9 motion and conference days / journées requêtes, conférences 2 holidays during sitting days / jours fériés durant les sessions |
|
Motions: Requêtes: |
M |
||
Holidays: Jours fériés: |
H |
||
|
|
|