Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

October 26, 2001  1925 - 1951                                                           le 26 octobre 2001

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

J.J.M.

R. Ian Histed

Downtown Legal Action

v. (28856)

Her Majesty the Queen (Man.)

Rodney Garson

A.G. of Manitoba

FILING DATE 17.10.2001

Communauté urbaine de Montréal

Michel Locas

Dunton Rainville

c. (28854)

Investissements Canpro Ltée (Qué.)

Daniel Chénard

DATE DE PRODUCTION 9.10.2001

Sam Lévy & Associés Inc.

Daniel Des Aulniers

Grondin, Poudrier, Bernier

c. (28857)

La procureure générale du Canada (Qué.)

Robert Monette

Deblois & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION 12.10.2001

Restaurant Marsillo-Deli Inc., et al.

Franco Iezzoni

Pateras & Iezzoni

c. (28858)

2638-7639 Québec Inc. (Qué.)

Danielle Ouaknine

Oiknine & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION 17.10.2001

James MacEachern

Henry S. Brown, Q.C.

Gowling Lafleur Henderson

v. (28861)

Bishop & McKenzie, et al. (Ont.)

Barbara A. McIsaac

McCarthy Tétrault

FILING DATE 17.10.2001

Ian McLachlan, et al.

John B. Laskin

Torys

v. (28851)

Trent University, et al. (Ont.)

John C. Murray

Heenan Blaikie

FILING DATE 10.10.2001

Cory Mitchell King

Loran V. Halyn

Sugimoto & Company

v. (28852)

Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

Joshua Hawkes

A.G. of Alberta

FILING DATE 15.10.2001

Rénald Héroux

Marie Pepin

Sauvé et Roy

c. (28855)

Groupe Forage Major (Qué.)

Jean-Pierre Gervais

Geoffroy, Matte, Kélada et associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION 15.10.2001

OCTOBER 22, 2001 / LE 22 OCTOBRE 2001

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Bastarache

Mark Edward George Wells

v. (28683)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law - Trial - Competence of counsel - Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing  appeal from conviction - Whether conduct of trial counsel reasonably competent or resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Sun Media (Toronto) Corporation

v. (28688)

United States of America and Douglas John M (Crim.)(Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Freedom of the press - Publication ban - Procedure - Whether notice must be provided to the media when an application for a discretionary publication ban is brought before the court - If notice is not provided to the media, what means are available to challenge the ban - Whether a judge presiding over extradition proceedings has the common law jurisdiction to incorporate sections of the Criminal Code  dealing with mandatory publication bans and sealing orders into the extradition proceeding if those sections of the Criminal Code  are not expressly incorporated into the Extradition Act

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

February 9, 2001

Superior Court of Justice

(Whealy J.)

Respondents’ application for an order sealing the Application Record and banning the publication of information that could reveal the identity of the minor complainants granted

May 29, 2001

Superior Court of Justice

(Grossi J.) 

Applicant’s application for an order rescinding the sealing of the Application Record dismissed

July 10, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Motion to expedite filed

July 12, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

July 13, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Response to the motion to expedite filed by the Respondent United States of America

July 16, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Response to the motion to expedite filed by the Respondent Douglas M.

July 26, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

LeBel J.

Motion to expedite dismissed

Darrell Wayne Trociuk

v. (28726)

Attorney General of British Columbia and the Director of Vital Statistics and Reni Ernst (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights - Vital Statistics - Birth registration - Family law - Children born outside marriage - Mother not acknowledging father on birth registration forms - Children taking mother’s surname - Father’s application to be acknowledged on birth registrations and to change children’s surnames denied by Director of Vital Statistics - Whether statutory discretion of a mother not to acknowledge biological father on birth registration forms and not to include surname of father in child’s surname infringes Charter  equality rights on the basis of sex - Vital Statistics Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 479, ss. 3(1), 3(6), 4(1), 29(3), 29(4).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Arbour et LeBel

Pierre Brochu

c. (28621)

Irène Camden‑Bourgault (personnellement et en reprise d'instance) (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Responsabilité civile - Négligence - Faute reconnue d’un médecin - Obligation de divulgation d’information dans le cadre du suivi médical -La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en évaluant la conduite du demandeur suivant une analyse rétrospective de la preuve, pour conclure comme elle l’a fait? - La Cour d’appel impose-t-elle erronément aux médecins une obligation de résultat en exigeant qu’ils avisent leurs patients entrant en période post-opératoire, post-traitement ou post-consultation, non seulement des symptômes relatifs aux complications raisonnablement prévisibles, mais aussi de ceux reliés à toute autre complications, si rare soit-elle, si les conséquences de telles complications sont susceptibles d’être sérieuses pour le patient? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle également erré en omettant de considérer l’obligation d’un patient de suivre les consignes de départ qui lui ont été données par son médecin - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle manifestement erré en faits et en droit dans son appréciation de la question de la causalité puisqu’elle aurait dû conclure à l’inexistence de tout lien entre cette prétendue faute et le dommage subi.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 31 mai 2001

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

Syndicat des chauffeurs de la Société de transport de la Ville de Laval

c. (28475)

Me Gilles Ferland, en sa qualité d'arbitre de griefs (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Code civil — Interprétation — Code civil du Québec, L.Q. 1991, ch. 64, art. 2858 — Admissibilité d’une preuve obtenue en violation du droit à la vie privée — La preuve ainsi obtenue a-t-elle pour effet de déconsidérer l’administration de la justice? — Droit du travail — Congédiement— Grief à l’encontre du congédiement — Enregistrement sur vidéocassette d’un employé qui aurait exercé des activités incompatibles avec son état d’invalidité — Audition du grief par un arbitre — Objection à l’admissibilité de la vidéocassette en preuve — Droit à la vie privé — Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., ch. C-12, art. 5 — Authenticité de la vidéocassette — Droit à une défense pleine et entière — Droit au contre-interrogatoire d’un témoin— Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, art. 35 — La Cour supérieure et la Cour d’appel ont-elles erré refusant d’intervenir afin de réviser judiciairement une décision arbitrale erronée quant à une application de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne et du Code civil du Québec? — Quelles sont les circonstances qui justifient une filature par un employeur d’un de ses salariés? — Quelles sont les conditions d’admissibilité des résultats d’une telle filature en preuve devant un arbitre de grief?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

R.O.P.

c. (28758)

C.A.G. (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit de la famille — Divorce — Partage des biens — Lorsqu’elle révise un dossier, une cour d’appel doit-elle tenir compte que les régimes enregistrés d’épargne-retraite (RÉER) encaissés ont servi à rembourser les dettes familiales du demandeur à la date d’ouverture du partage du patrimoine familial? — Code civil du Québec, L.Q. 1991, ch. 64, art. 415, 416, 417, 421 et 422 — Suite au partage du patrimoine familial, une somme globale peut-elle être accordée par une cour d’appel ou une cour de première instance si le patrimoine du créancier est inférieur à celui de l’intimée? — Comment doit-on déterminer les paramètres d’attribution d’une somme globale, suite à un partage du patrimoine familial? — Loi sur le divorce , L.R.C. 1985, ch. 3 (2 ^e  suppl .), art. 15.2

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

CORAM:   Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Major et Binnie

Ernest Lionel Joseph Blais

v. (28645)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Constitutional law - Native law - Métis - Hunting rights -Métis convicted of hunting on unoccupied Crown land in an area where hunting was prohibited - Whether  Applicant, as a Métis person, falls within the constitutional meaning of the term “Indian” under s. 13 of the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement (NRTA)- Whether s. 26 of Manitoba’s Wildlife Act is inapplicable in respect to the Applicant, and of no force or effect to the extent that it infringes or limits the Applicant’s right to hunt under s. 13 of the NRTA - Whether evidence of the hunting customs and practices of Manitoba Métis before 1930 should be weighed and considered when considering the meaning of the term “Indian” under s. 13 of the NRTA - Whether weight should have been placed lack of evidence of the hunting practices of the Applicant and his direct ancestors - Whether weight should have been placed on geographical location of where the alleged offence took place and on the lack of evidence of Métis hunting in that area of Manitoba.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

August 22, 1996

Provincial Court of Manitoba

(Swain Prov. Ct. J.)

Applicant convicted of unlawfully hunting deer out of season contrary to s. 26 of the Wildlife Act of Manitoba; Métis not included as “Indians” in Natural Resource Transfer Agreement

Subhash Chander Jain

v. (28816)

Veena Jain, Toronto Police Service, John Doe and certain members of the Toronto Police whose identities are unknown at the present time (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Family law - Motions to strike out statement of claim - Finding that action against Police Respondents statute barred - Finding that no reasonable cause of action - Whether the Respondent wife could not be held liable for the alienation of affection of the children of the marriage and be subject to an award of damages for same - Whether the Police Respondents were entitled to summary judgment based on their own obstruction.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

April 6, 2000

Superior Court of Justice

(Epstein J.)

Respondent “Toronto Police Services”’s motion to strike out the Applicant’s statement of claim granted: action dismissed

August 1, 2000

Superior Court of Justice

(Spiegel J.)

Respondent Veena Jain’s motion to strike out the Applicant’s statement of claim granted: action dismissed

September 22, 2000

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Catzman J.A.)

Motion for extension of time to appeal from order of Epstein J. of April 6, 2000 dismissed

June 20, 2001

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Abella, Goudge and Simmons JJ.A.)

Appeal from order of Spiegel J. of August 1, 2000 dismissed

September 18, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION / DEMANDES DE RÉEXAMEN

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Arbour et LeBel

Léonildo Pirès c. André L. Monty, avocat, et al. (Qué.) (28139)

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache et LeBel

Alexander MacBain Cameron, et al. v. The Attorney General of Nova Scotia, representing Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Nova Scotia, et al. (N.S.) (27584)

OCTOBER 25, 2001 / LE 25 OCTOBRE 2001

28672                    George Alexander Hardy ‑ v. ‑ Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.) (Criminal)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Gonthier and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Whether the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees appellate review of convictions for serious crimes accompanied by lengthy terms of imprisonment - Whether an appellant has the right to effective counsel at the appellate review - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that it was irrelevant whether the defence experts were asked whether the Applicant knew that he was doing wrong under s. 16(1)  of the Criminal Code  - Whether the trial judge erred in instructing the jury - Even if no individual error was sufficient to warrant a new trial, did the cumulative effect of the errors mandate that a new trial be directed?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

December 5, 1997

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta

(Brooker J.)

Applicant convicted by jury on 3 counts of trafficking in a narcotic and 1 count of possession for the purpose of trafficking respectively contrary to s. 4(1) and 4(2) of the Narcotic Control Act

28675                    Sadrudin Jessani ‑ v. ‑ The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (FC) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Immigration law - Statutes - Interpretation - Jurisdiction - Immigration and Refugee Board, Appeal Division - Permanent resident - Loss of status as permanent resident under Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, s. 24, due to an absence from Canada of more than 183 consecutive days in a 12-month period - Whether the Immigration and Refugee Board, Appeal Division has equitable jurisdiction over a person who has abandoned his status as a permanent resident of Canada - Whether the Court of Appeal correctly identified the standard of review applied to the review of factual findings of the Immigration Appeal Division.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

June 26, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

28596                    Peggy Ann Sheppard ‑ v. ‑ The Royal Institution for the Advancement of Learning (McGill University) (Que.) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Whether the  Court of Appeal erred in holding that the first judge did not allow an appeal from the arbitration decision by failing to recognize that the first judge redefined the orders given in a final and binding arbitration decision - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to recognize that the first judge made a series of palpable and determining errors that gravely affected the Superior Court’s assessment of the facts and the testimony of witnesses - Whether the Court of Appeal disregarded the principles of the law of evidence in holding that no witness established that the arbitration order with respect to the removal of a letter from the Applicant’s file had not been obeyed and also in holding that it was necessary to deposit the file in the court record in order to prove that the letter was not withdrawn - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to recognize that the Superior Court judgment did not fairly or reasonably interpret the burden of proof when applied to proving beyond a reasonable doubt the actus reus and the mens rea with respect to the Respondent’s failure to comply with the orders rendered in an arbitration award.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

February 17, 1998

Superior Court of Quebec

(Lévesque J.)                                                                             

Applicant’s motion for condemnation for contempt of court dismissed

March 16, 2001

Court of Appeal of Quebec

(Mailhot, Dussault and Letarte [ad hoc] JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

May 15, 2001

Supreme Court du Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

16.10.2001

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (28385)

Jeffrey Fink (Crim.)(Ont.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to October 10, 2001.

16.10.2001

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Transamerica Life Insurance Company of Canada

v. (28163)

Maria Oldfield (Ont.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to October 4, 2001.

17.10.2001

Before / Devant:   LEBEL J.

Further order on motions for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Canada

Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association

DIRECTV Inc.

Canadian Alliance for Freedom of Information and Ideas

Congres Iberoamericain du Canada

IN/DANS:              Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership

v. (28227)

Richard Rex, et al. (B.C.)

Autre ordonnance sur des requêtes en autorisation d'intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉES

UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General of Canada, the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association, DIRECTV Inc., the Canadian Alliance for Freedom of Information and Ideas and the Congres Iberoamericain du Canada for leave to intervene in the above appeal and pursuant to the order of September 11, 2001;

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said interveners are granted permission to present oral argument at the hearing of the appeal not to exceed the time allowed respectively to each of them as follows:

1.         Attorney General of Canada                                            15 minutes

2.         Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association             10 minutes

3.         DIRECTV Inc.                                                                10 minutes

4.         Canadian Alliance for Freedom of Information and Ideas     10 minutes

5.         Congres Iberoamericain du Canada                                  10 minutes

17.10.2001

Before / Devant:   THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Motions for additional time to present oral argument

Louise Gosselin

c. (27418)

Le procureur général du Québec (Qué.)

Requêtes en prorogation du temps alloué pour les plaidoiries

DISMISSED / REJETÉES   Les requêtes présentées par l’appelante et l’intimé en vue de prolonger le temps de présentation lors de l’audition de l’appel sont rejetées.

18.10.2001

Before / Devant:   ARBOUR J.

Motion to expedite the application for leave to appeal

BCTV, a division of Global Communications Limited, et al.

v. (28823)

Her Majesty the Queen, et al. (Crim.)(B.C.)

Requête visant à accélérer la demande d’autorisation d’appel

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

The applicants BCTV, CKVU, CTV INC et al ( the media) are seeking an order expediting their application for leave to appeal from a decision of Madam Justice Bennett dismissing their application for Expanded Media Coverage of the respondents’ trial.  The judgment of Bennett J. was rendered Sept. 25, 2001, at the opening of the trial.  The first four weeks of the trial have been occupied by voir dire proceedings, and the trial proper, which is expected to last eight weeks before judge alone, was to begin around October 15. 

The applicants argue that the issue of radio and television access to courtrooms is a question of national importance and that they will not be granted the access that they claim there are entitled to in this case unless they can get  immediate appellate review.

All respondents oppose the motion.  In short, counsel for the accused submit that they are fully occupied in the defence of their case, which is now at trial, and that they do not have the means and the capacity to responds adequately to the proposed appeal on an expedited basis.  As for the Crown, it opposes the application to expedite unless the applicants undertake not to seek a delay of the trial, regardless of the outcome of the leave application.  The media being unwilling to commit to that position, the crown opposes the motion.

This brings home the reality of the situation.  Even if this matter were to be  expedited as per the Media’s request, (the respondents would have 10 days to respond to the Leave Application, and the applicants 3 days to reply), and even if the leave panel could render its decision within days thereafter, it is obvious that if leave were granted, the appeal could not possibly be prepared, including with the participation of hypothetical interveners, argued, and decided in time to permit the coverage of this trial on the terms requested by the applicants.

This illustrates once again the obvious fact that this Court is not designed to have first level error-correcting appellate jurisdiction.  That function is normally performed by provincial courts of appeal, which can respond in a timely fashion to situations that present a time sensitive issue.  Matters such as this one cannot be appealed to courts of appeal under the terms of the Criminal Code .  Appeal rights being entirely statutory, the applicants must avail themselves of s. 40 of the Supreme Court Act since the judgment at trial on their Charter claim is final and not subject to review by any other court.

This statutory deficiency has been noted in the past (see Dagenais v. CBC, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835, at paras. 18 & 66; R. v. McClure [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445 at para. 66).   In Dagenais, Lamer C.J.C. made the following forceful comments:

It is important to note once more that the current situation is deplorable.  Fundamental rights are at stake, but no truly satisfactory avenue of appeal has been established by statute.  I hope that Parliament will soon consider filling this jurisdictional lacuna and establishing statutory rights of  appeal for third parties such as the media [at para. 66].

I am conscious of the fact that while the applicants may succeed in pursuing their broad-based legal claim ultimately before this court, the reality of the situation is that they have no forum in which to obtain redress, assuming redress is due, in the case at bar.  The corrective measure to this situation can only come from Parliament.

In these circumstances, the motion to expedite must fail.  It would serve no practical purpose while unduly distracting trial counsel from the important task of trying the case.  If and when this issue comes before this Court, it should be accorded all the time and attention that it deserves, without interfering with the proper administration of justice at the trial level.

Motion dismissed.

18.10.2001

Before / Devant:   ARBOUR J.

Motion for additional time to present oral argument

Patrick Berry, et al.

v. (27992)

Chris Pulley, et al. (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du temps alloué pour les plaidoiries

DISMISSED / REJETÉE    Motion by the appellants for an additional 15 minutes to present oral argument is dismissed.

18.10.2001

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Donna Louise Barrow

v. (28772)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la réponse de l'intimée

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to October 17, 2001.

19.10.2001

Before / Devant:   ARBOUR J.

Motion by the applicant for a stay of execution

Alfred Mayor

c. (28724)

Jean-Pierre Semeniuk (Qué.)

Requête de la part du requérant en vue de surseoir à l'exécution

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

19.10.2001

Before / Devant:   ARBOUR J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                The Advocates’ Society

IN/DANS:              Fellowes, McNeil

v. (28199)

Kansa General International Insurance Company Ltd., et al. (Ont.)

Requête en autorisation d'intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by The Advocates’ Society 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 The Advocates’ Society  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 respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondents by the intervention.

19.10.2001

Before / Devant:   ARBOUR J.

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

Fellowes, McNeil

v. (28199)

Kansa General International Insurance Company Ltd., et al. (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la réponse des intimés

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Motion to extend the time to serve and file the respondents’ response to the motion for leave to intervene of The Advocates’ Society to September 20, 2001 is granted.

19.10.2001

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

David Malmo-Levine

v. (28026)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les mémoire et recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’appelant

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Motion to extend the time to serve and file the appellant’s factum and book of authorities to forty-five (45) days from the decision on the motion to state Constitutional Questions is granted.

19.10.2001

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Victor Eugene Caine

v. (28148)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les mémoire et recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’appelant

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Motion to extend the time to serve and file the appellant’s factum and book of authorities to forty-five (45) days from the decision on the motion to state Constitutional Questions is granted.

19.10.2001

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Clayton Charles Ruby

v. (28029)

The Solicitor General (F.C.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to October 19, 2001.

19.10.2001

Before / Devant:   THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Motion to state a constitutional question

David Malmo-Levine

v. (28026)

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

Requête pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Notices of intervention are to be filed on or before November 26, 2001.

1.             Does prohibiting possession of Cannabis (marihuana) for the purpose of trafficking under s. 4(2) of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1, by reason of the inclusion of this substance in s. 3 of the Schedule to the Act (now s. 1, Schedule II, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , S.C. 1996, c. 19 ), infringe s. 7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

2.             If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is the infringement justified under s. 1  of the Charter?

3.             Does prohibiting possession of Cannabis (marihuana) for the purpose of trafficking under s. 4(2) of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1, by reason of the inclusion of this substance in s. 3 of the Schedule to the Act (now s. 1, Schedule II, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , S.C. 1996, c. 19 ), infringe s. 15(1)  of the Charter by discriminating against a certain group of persons on the basis of their substance orientation, occupation orientation, or both?

4.             If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative, is the infringement justified under s. 1  of the Charter?

1.             Est-ce que l’interdiction d’avoir en sa possession du Cannabis (marihuana) en vue d’en faire le trafic que prévoit le par. 4(2) de la Loi sur les stupéfiants, L.R.C. 1985, ch. N-1, du fait de la mention de cette substance à l’art. 3 de l’annexe de cette loi (maintenant l’art. 1 de l’annexe II de la Loi réglementant certaines drogues et autres substances , L.C. 1996, ch. 19 ), porte atteinte à l’art. 7  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

2.             Si la réponse à la question 1 est affirmative, l’atteinte est-elle justifiée au regard de l’article premier de la Charte?

3.             Est-ce que l’interdiction d’avoir en sa possession du Cannabis (marihuana) en vue d’en faire le trafic que prévoit le par. 4(2) de la Loi sur les stupéfiants, L.R.C. 1985, ch. N-1, du fait de la mention de cette substance à l’art. 3 de l’annexe de cette loi (maintenant l’art. 1 de l’annexe II de la Loi réglementant certaines drogues et autres substances , L.C. 1996, ch. 19 ), porte atteinte au par. 15(1)  de la Charte en traitant un certain groupe de personnes de façon discriminatoire sur le fondement de leur orientation sous l’angle de la substance concernée, de leur orientation sous l’angle de leur occupation ou de leur orientation sous ces deux aspects?

4.             Si la réponse à la question 3 est affirmative, l’atteinte est-elle justifiée au regard de l’article premier de la Charte?

19.10.2001

Before / Devant:   THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Motion to state a constitutional question

Victor Eugene Caine

v. (28148)

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

Requête pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Notices of intervention are to be filed on or before November 26, 2001.

1.             Does prohibiting possession of Cannabis (marihuana) for personal use under s. 3(1) of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1, by reason of the inclusion of this substance in s. 3 of the Schedule to the Act (now s. 1, Schedule II, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , S.C. 1996, c. 19 ), infringe s. 7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

2.             If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is the infringement justified under s. 1  of the Charter?

3.             Is the prohibition on the possession of Cannabis (marihuana) for personal use under s. 3(1) of the Narcotic Control Act, by reason of the inclusion of this substance in s. 3 of the Schedule to the Act (now s. 1, Schedule II, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , S.C. 1996, c. 19 ), within the legislative competence of the Parliament of Canada as being a law enacted for the peace, order and good government of Canada pursuant to s. 91  of the Constitution Act, 1867 ; as being enacted pursuant to the criminal law power in s. 91(27) thereof; or otherwise?

1.             Est-ce que l’interdiction d’avoir en sa possession du Cannabis (marihuana) aux fins de consommation personnelle – interdiction prévue au par. 3(1) de la Loi sur les stupéfiants, L.R.C. 1985, ch. N-1, du fait de la mention de cette substance à l’art. 3 de l’annexe de cette loi (maintenant l’art. 1 de l’annexe II de la Loi réglementant certaines drogues et autres substances , L.C. 1996, ch. 19 ) – , porte atteinte à l’art. 7  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

2.             Si la réponse à la question 1 est affirmative, l’atteinte est-elle justifiée au regard de l’article premier de la Charte?

3.             Est-ce que l’interdiction d’avoir en sa possession du Cannabis (marihuana) aux fins de consommation personnelle – interdiction prévue au par. 3(1) de la Loi sur les stupéfiants, L.R.C. 1985, ch. N-1, du fait de la mention de cette substance à l’art. 3 de l’annexe de cette loi (maintenant l’art. 1 de l’annexe II de la Loi réglementant certaines drogues et autres substances , L.C. 1996, ch. 19 ) –, relève de la compétence législative du Parlement du Canada en tant que règle de droit édictée soit en vertu de l’art. 91  de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867  pour assurer la paix, l’ordre et le bon gouvernement du Canada, soit en vertu du pouvoir de légiférer sur le droit criminel prévu au par. 91(27)  de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 , soit en vertu d’un autre pouvoir?

19.10.2001

Before / Devant:   THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Motion to state a constitutional question

Christopher James Clay

v. (28189)

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

Requête pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Notices of intervention are to be filed on or before November 26, 2001.

1.             Does prohibiting possession of Cannabis sativa for personal use under s. 3(1) of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1, by reason of the inclusion of this substance in s. 3 of the Schedule to the Act (now s. 1, Schedule II, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , S.C. 1996, c. 19 ), infringe s. 7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

2.             If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is the infringement justified under s. 1  of the Charter?

3.             Is the prohibition on the possession of Cannabis sativa for personal use under s. 3(1) of the Narcotic Control Act, by reason of the inclusion of this substance in s. 3 of the Schedule to the Act (now s. 1, Schedule II, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , S.C. 1996, c. 19 ), within the legislative competence of the Parliament of Canada as being a law enacted for the peace, order and good government of Canada pursuant to s. 91  of the Constitution Act, 1867 ; as being enacted pursuant to the criminal law power in s. 91(27) thereof; or otherwise?

1.             Est-ce que l’interdiction d’avoir en sa possession du Chanvre indien (Cannabis sativa) aux fins de consommation personnelle – interdiction prévue au par. 3(1) de la Loi sur les stupéfiants, L.R.C. 1985, ch. N-1, du fait de la mention de cette substance à l’art. 3 de l’annexe de cette loi (maintenant l’art. 1 de l’annexe II de la Loi réglementant certaines drogues et autres substances , L.C. 1996, ch. 19 ) –, porte atteinte à l’art. 7  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

2.             Si la réponse à la question 1 est affirmative, l’atteinte est-elle justifiée au regard de l’article premier de la Charte?

3.             Est-ce que l’interdiction d’avoir en sa possession du Chanvre indien (Cannabis sativa) aux fins de consommation personnelle – interdiction prévue au par. 3(1) de la Loi sur les stupéfiants, L.R.C. 1985, ch. N-1, du fait de la mention de cette substance à l’art. 3 de l’annexe de cette loi (maintenant l’art. 1 de l’annexe II de la Loi réglementant certaines drogues et autres substances , L.C. 1996, ch. 19 ) –, relève de la compétence législative du Parlement du Canada en tant que règle de droit édictée soit en vertu de l’art. 91  de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867  pour assurer la paix, l’ordre et le bon gouvernement du Canada, soit en vertu du pouvoir de légiférer sur le droit criminel prévu au par. 91(27)  de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 , soit en vertu d’un autre pouvoir?

22.10.2001

Before / Devant:   ARBOUR J.

Motion to strike out

Ralph Dick, et al.

v. (27641)

Her Majesty the Queen, et al. (F.C.)

Requête en radiation

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

The applicants interveners the Gitanmaax Band, the Kispiox Band, and the Glen Vowell Band are seeking to strike paragraphs 95 and 96 of the factum filed by the respondent intervener the Attorney General of British Columbia.

The respondent intervener, the Attorney-General of British Columbia, points to some foundation in the record for the statements contained in paragraphs 95 and 96 of its factum.  In my view, these references are sufficient to permit the paragraphs to stand.  There is no basis to allow the applicants to supplement the existing record.  The applicants may file an amended factum, within 10 days, to advance the arguments contained in their motion to strike.  The motion is dismissed.

12.10.2001

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Taxation of costs

Charles Tétreault

c. (28339)

La Banque Laurentienne du Canada (Qué.)

Taxation des dépens

Suite au rejet de la demande d’autorisation le 12 juillet 2001, l’intimée a demandé la taxation de son mémoire de frais auquel s’oppose en partie le demandeur.  Ayant pris en considération les objections du demandeur et la réponse de l’intimée, je réduis à 100 $ le montant des honoraires supplémentaires pour la rédaction du mémoire des arguments (Tarif d’honoraires et de débours, Partie I, art. 1c)).

Il est bien établi que les parties ont l’obligation de minimiser les coûts.  Il ressort du présent mémoire de frais que les montants réclamés au nom de l’intimée en matière de vacations, débours et signification respectent le tarif et la pratique normale des bureaux d’avocats, et ne sont en aucune façon excessifs.

Il est également bien établi que le seul pouvoir du registraire est de taxer les dépens accordés par la Cour.  La situation extrinsèque due à d’autres procédures en cours ne rentre pas en ligne de compte.

Les dépens sont taxés en conséquence.

Following the dismissal of the application for leave on July 12, 2001, the respondent sought  taxation of its bill of costs to which the applicant partially objected.  Having considered the applicant’s objections and the respondent’s reply, I reduce the additional fee for preparation of memorandum of argument to $100 (Tariff of Fees and Disbursements, Part I, item 1(c)).

It is well established that the parties have a duty to minimize their costs. In this bill of costs, the amounts claimed on the respondent’s behalf for court attendances, disbursements and service comply with the tariff and normal practice of law firms and are not excessive in any way.

It is also well established that the Registrar’s sole power is to tax costs awarded by the Court. The extrinsic situation that results from other pending proceedings is not taken into consideration.

Costs are taxed accordingly.

16.10.2001

James Chamberlain, et al.

v. (28654)

The Board of Trustees of School District #36 (Surrey) (B.C.)

5.10.2001

The Minister of Labour for Ontario

v. (28396)

Canadian Union of Public Employees and Service Employees International Union (Ont.)

September 28, 2001 / le 28 septembre 2001

REVISED October 24, 2001 / REVISÉ le 24 octobre 2001

27820                    SAGAZ INDUSTRIES CANADA INC., SAGAZ INDUSTRIES INC. and JOSEPH KAVANA  - v. - 671122 ONTARIO LIMITED formerly DESIGN DYNAMICS LIMITED (Ont.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

The appeal is allowed with costs to the appellants in this Court and in the Court of Appeal.  The order of the Court of Appeal is set aside.  The order of Cumming J., dated December 23, 1998 is restored.

Le pourvoi est accueilli avec dépens en faveur des appelants en notre Cour et en Cour d’appel.  L’ordonnance de la Cour d’appel est annulée.  L’ordonnance du juge Cumming datée du 23 décembre 1998 est rétablie.

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME

- 2001 -

- 2002 -