Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

August 31, 2001  1456 - 1500                                                              le 31 août 2001

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Propak Systems Ltd., et al.

Dennis A. McDermott, Q.C.

McDermott & Company

v. (28708)

Amoco Canada Petroleum Company Ltd., et al. (Alta.)

James S. Peacock

Gowling Henderson Lafleur

FILING DATE 3.8.2001

Pierino Divito, et al.

Franco B. Iezzoni

Pateras & Iezzoni

c. (28714)

Les États-Unis d’Amérique (Qué.)

André A. Morin

Procureur général du Canada

DATE DE PRODUCTION 3.8.2001

Christopher Degeer

Nigel Campbell

Blake, Cassels & Graydon

v. (28730)

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

John R. Shipley

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 8.8.2001

Pauline Vrhounik

Ronald G. Chapman

v. (28723)

Dravidian Management Limited (Ont.)

Donald E. Short

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin

FILING DATE 13.8.2001

Taiwo Adun

Steven Greenberg

v. (28735)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Scott C. Hutchison

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 13.8.2001

Brian Thomas Pratt

F.G. Vaughn Marshall

v. (28732)

The Board of Governors of the University of Lethbridge, et al.  (Alta.)

Robert W. Thompson        

Bennett Jones

FILING DATE 14.8.2001

George Manship, of 205 St. George St., Moncton, New Brunswick, acting in his own right and under the business name and style of Gentleman’s Massage Club, et al.

Eugene J. Mockler, Q.C.

Mockler Peters Oley Rouse & Williams

v. (28733)

The City of Fredericton, a municipal corporation (N.B.)

Bruce A. Noble

City of Fredericton

FILING DATE 14.8.2001

Terry Paul Bigcharles

Nathan H. Smith, Q.C.

v. (28736)

Doctor Alan John Lomax, et al. (B.C.)

Paul T. McGivern

Harper Grey Easton

FILING DATE 14.8.2001

Zellers Inc.

Théodore Goloff

Robinson Sheppard Shapiro

c. (28738)

François Hamelin, et al. (Qué.)

François Hamelin

DATE DE PRODUCTION 15.8.2001

Abdel Moneim Mousa, et al.

Abdel Moneim Mousa

v. (28746)

City of Coquitlam (B.C.)

Daniel R. Bennett

Bull, Housser & Tupper

FILING DATE 15.8.2001

Susan A. Armstrong

Susan A. Armstrong

v. (28747)

London Life Insurance Company, et al. (Ont.)

Paul G. Vogel

Cohen Highley Vogel & Dawson

FILING DATE 15.8.2001

Claude John, et al.

Barbara L. Legate

Legate & Associates

v. (28739)

Shawn Flynn, et al. (Ont.)

Mark S. Wilson

Lilly Anderson Morgan

FILING DATE 16.8.2001

Annie Chélin

Jean Pomminville

Lavery, de Billy

c. (28731)

Me Guy E. Dulude, ès qualités d’arbitre de grief, et al. (Qué.)

Guy E. Dulude

DATE DE PRODUCTION 17.8.2001

Susan Krock

G. Brent Gawne

v. (28740)

The Attorney General of Canada (F.C.)

Terry Beaudoin

A.G. of Alberta

FILING DATE 17.8.2001

Downtown Eatery (1993) Ltd., et al.

Mark D. Contini

Mathews, Dinsdale & Clark

v. (28744)

Joseph Alouche (Ont.)

J. Gardner Hodder

Polten Hodder

FILING DATE 20.8.2001

AUGUST 27, 2001 / LE 27 AOÛT 2001

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Bastarache

Procureur général du Québec

c. (28556)

Jimmy Delage (Crim.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Infractions - Interprétation - Article 85(2)  du Code criminel , L.R.C. 1985, ch. C-46  -  Usage d’une fausse arme à feu lors de la perpétration d’une infraction - Détermination de la peine - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré dans son interprétation de l’expression «fausse arme à feu» utilisée à l’art. 85(2)  du Code criminel  - En cas de réponse affirmative, la Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en modifiant la sentence prononcée par le juge de première instance?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 11 février 1998

Cour supérieure du Québec

(Desjardins j.c.s.)

Intimé déclaré coupable par un jury de vol qualifié avec violence ou menace de violence contrairement aux art. 343 a )  et 344 b )  du Code criminel , de vol qualifié avec une arme ou imitation d’une arme contrairement aux art. 343 d ) , 344 b )  et 21  du Code criminel , et de utilisation d’une fausse arme à feu lors de la perpétration d’un vol qualifié contrairement à l’art. 85(2)  du Code criminel ; intimé condamné à une peine de 12 ans sur le 1er chef et 3 ans consécutifs quant au 3e chef; arrêt de procédures prononcé sur le 2e chef

Léo Doyon

c. (28569)

Fédération des producteurs acéricoles du Québec et Regroupement pour la commercialisation des produits de l'érable du Québec Inc. (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, articles 6 et 23 - Droit commercial - Créancier et débiteur - Dommages-intérêts - Recours - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en ne respectant pas le principe de la primauté du droit? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en ignorant les principaux arguments du demandeur? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en ne respectant pas le droit des producteurs acéricoles? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en ignorant le fait que les membres du groupe étaient propriétaires de l’inventaire du sirop d’érable? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en substituant son appréciation des faits à celle du juge de première instance?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 27 avril 2001

Cour sûpreme du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

Francine Mayville et als

c. (28509)

L'union canadienne des travailleurs en communications (unité 4) et Guiseppe Giarrusso

et

Nortel (Northern Télécom Canada Ltée) et Nordx/Cable Design Technologies (CDT) (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure — Requête en exception déclinatoire ratione materiae — Code de procédure civile du Québec, L.R.Q., ch. C-25, art. 163 et 164 — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que la Cour supérieure était sans compétence ratione materiae pour décider l’action des demandeurs?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Francine Mayville et als

c. (28511)

Nortel (Northern Télécom Canada Ltée)

- et -

L’Union canadienne des travailleurs en communications (unité 4),

Giuseppe Giarrusso et

Nordx/Cable Design Technologies (CDT) (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure — Requête en exception déclinatoire ratione materiae — Code de procédure civile du Québec, L.R.Q., ch. C-25, art. 164 — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que la Cour supérieure était sans compétence ratione materiae pour décider l’action des demandeurs?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Kailash Chandra Dhawan

v. (28581)

Patrick Kenniff (Que.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Civil Code - Extra-contractual liability - Defamation - Right to reputation - Whether the Court of Appeal manifestly erred in its application of the defence of “fair comment”?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Arbour et LeBel

Communauté urbaine de Montréal

c. (28531)

Les Immeubles Yale Ltée et

Les Placements Carlow Inc.

- et -

Ville de Kirkland et

Bureau de Révision de l’évaluation foncière du Québec (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit municipal — Fiscalité municipale — Évaluation foncière — Loi sur la fiscalité municipale, L.R.Q., ch. F-2.1, art. 43 — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que la décision du Bureau de révision de l’évaluation foncière (le « BREF ») était déraisonnable et en refusant de la rétablir? — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en élargissant le champ d’application de la présomption de valeur nominale aux terrains qui sont inconstructibles à cause de leurs seules caractéristiques physiques plutôt qu’en raison de la nature du zonage qui leur est applicable? — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en affirmant qu’une valeur basée sur le principe d’anticipation dans le contexte de la Loi sur la fiscalité municipale s’oppose au concept de valeur réelle prévalant au moment de l’évaluation prévu par les articles 42 à 46 de la Loi? — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en affirmant que la détermination des valeurs par le BREF ne reposait sur aucune preuve et débordait la connaissance d’office ou la discrétion du BREF?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Ville de Kirkland

c. (28491)

Les Immeubles Yale Ltée et

Les Placements Carlow Inc.

- et -

Communauté urbaine de Montréal et

Bureau de révision de l’évaluation foncière du Québec (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit municipal — Fiscalité municipale — Évaluation foncière — Loi sur la fiscalité municipale, L.R.Q., ch. F-2.1, art. 43 — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en confirmant le jugement de la Cour du Québec cassant la décision du Bureau de révision de l’évaluation foncière (le « BREF »)? — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en affirmant qu’une valeur basée sur le principe d’anticipation dans le contexte de la Loi sur la fiscalité municipale s’oppose au concept de valeur réelle prévalant au moment de l’évaluation prévu par les articles 42 à 46 de la Loi? — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en affirmant que la détermination des valeurs par le BREF ne reposait sur aucune preuve et débordait la connaissance d’office ou la discrétion du BREF? — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en élargissant le champ d’application de la présomption de valeur nominale à des terrains dont le zonage ne peut être assimilé à une expropriation déguisée? — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en exigeant une preuve de marché pour renverser cette présomption?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Sébastien Brousseau

v. (28479)

Barreau du Québec and Professions Tribunal (Que.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative Law - Appeal - Judicial Review - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in giving a narrow interpretation to the jurisdiction of the Professions Tribunal and restricting its revisions to unreasonable error - Whether the decision of the Professions Tribunal was in any event, manifestly unreasonable - Whether the result of the Bar and Court of Appeal’s decision is manifestly unreasonable in that it is incompatible with the fundamental values of rehabilitation, compassion and equality in our society.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Floyd Creatchman

c. (28537)

Consolidated Life Insurance Company Ltd. (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Assurance - Assurance collective - Exclusion - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en déclarant opposable à l’adhérant à une police d’assurance collective, une exclusion qui n’a jamais été portée à sa connaissance, exclusion contenue dans un document externe à la demande d’adhésion de l’adhérant?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Les Laboratoires Bio‑Recherches Ltée

v. (28507)

Technilab Inc. (Que.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law – Contracts – Breach of contract – Damages – Civil Code of Lower Canada, ss. 1073 and 1075 – Did the trial judge and the Court of Appeal err in their assessments of damages for breach of contract?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Compagnie d'assurance continental du Canada

c. (28522)

Technilab Inc. et Les laboratoires Bio‑recherches Ltée (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial — Assurance — Obligation de l’assuré de donner avis du sinistre — L’assurée est-elle en défaut de donner avis du sinistre? — Code civil du Bas-Canada, art. 2572 — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en considérant qu’un avis donné quatre mois après la connaissance de l’omission reprochée n’était pas tardif? — L’assureur a-t-il subi un préjudice du fait de l’avis tardif puisque, lorsqu’il est intervenu au dossier, l’assurée avait déjà mené des négociations pendant plusieurs mois et avait même admis sa responsabilité? — En faisant obstruction à l’enquête de l’expert en sinistre de l’assureur, sous le couvert de motifs de confidentialité, l’assurée a-t-elle contrevenu à son obligation de collaboration?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

CORAM:   Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Major et Binnie

Theresa Anne Glaremin

v. (28689)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Mental disorder - Non-mental disorder automatism - Dissociative identity disorder - Whether the trial judge erred in charging the jury on the defence or not criminally responsible.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

April 3, 1998

Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)

(Cunningham J.)

Conviction: second degree murder

Sentence: life imprisonment with parole ineligibility of 20 years

Stegor Consultants (1988) Limited, Donald J. Stelliga, Gary R. Hedges, Hillar Kassfeldt and Peter Fordham

v. (28578)

 Jeff Sproat and Peat Marwick Thorne (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial Law - Accounting - Fiduciary duty - Whether an accountant retained to advise both the vendor and purchaser of a business, owes a fiduciary duty to, and must always act in the best interests of both parties - Whether an accountant requires the informed consent of both parties adverse in interest before being engaged by such parties - Whether there is a clear obligation on an accountant to disclose known material facts to one client which may be contrary to the interest of the other client once a retainer is entered into - Whether the Ontario Court of Appeal properly reversed the trial judge’s findings which were supported by the evidence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

May 1, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal and extension of time filed

Ann Justice

v. (28655)

The Government of Manitoba (Man.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Damages - Vicarious liability - Sexual abuse - Repressed memory - Action against the Government of Manitoba for its potentially vicarious liability as employer of social worker allowed to proceed pursuant to Part II of The Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. L150 - Whether where a sexually abused child as an adult gives truthful evidence with respect to sexual abuse which had been repressed in her memory and there is sufficient confirmation which was not adverted to by the trial judge, a decision reversing the trial judge on this ground should not be permitted by the Supreme Court of Canada to deprive the plaintiff of her remedy and damages.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Walter Gordon McOuat

v. (28519)

The Law Society of British Columbia (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Appeal - Barristers and solicitors - Reinstatement hearing - Decision from panel of Benchers of  Law Society of B.C. to deny application for reinstatement upheld by Court of Appeal - Whether a reasonable apprehension of bias exists on the part of the Court of Appeal as one justice of the Appeal Court is  a Life Bencher of the Law Society of B.C. and another justice was a Bencher when applicant was disbarred? - Whether there is a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the hearing panel of the Law Society of B.C. due to a lack of impartiality as panel members are all Benchers and members of the respondent, Law Society of B.C.? - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find the hearing panel was inexorable in its position denying the reinstatement of the applicant and that the hearing panel decision was not reasonable? - Whether the decision of the Court of Appeal is inequitable and unfair? -- Legal Profession Act, S.B.C. 1998, c. 9, s.19(1).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

January 21,. 1999

Hearing Panel of Benchers of Law Society

of British Columbia

(Panel: Keighley, Ramsey and Martin)

Application for reinstatement denied

February 12, 2001

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Southin, Rowles and Low JJ.A.)

Appeal from the decision of a panel of the Law Society of British Columbia, rejecting the Applicant’s application for reinstatement to the bar, dismissed; appeal from costs dismissed.

April 12, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

2774880 Manitoba Ltd.

v. (28631)

Superior Management Ltd. and The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (Man.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Real property - Leases - Mortgages - Whether an assignment given by a tenant of its entire right, title and interest in a lease of property owned by a third party to a mortgagee as security for a loan transfers the benefit and burden of the lease so as to bind the mortgagee to the covenant to pay rent - Whether a mortgagee in possession takes the obligations of the mortgagor’s lease of property taken as security for the mortgage - If so, what are the rights and obligations of a mortgagee in possession in relation to third party contracts of the mortgagor - Whether an agreement to lease parking stalls becomes a mere licence if the tenant fails to designate or use designated stalls - If so, can the tenant or its assignee assert that the description of the demised premises in the lease is uncertain when it seeks to avoid its obligations under the lease for unrelated reasons?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

AUGUST 30, 2001 / LE 30 AOÛT 2001

28406                    Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority Inc. ‑ v. ‑ National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers' Union of Canada (CAW ‑ Canada), Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board and Attorney General for Saskatchewan (Sask.) (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

Labour law - Labour relations - Unions - Certification -  Native law - Indians - Respondent Union certified as exclusive bargaining agent for certain employees of Applicant’s casino pursuant to The Trade Union Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. T-17 - Whether operation of casinos by Applicant can be characterized as a “federal work, undertaking or business” within meaning of Canada Labour Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2  - Whether Applicant and employment matters forming integral part of its operations fall within s. 91(24)  of Constitution Act, 1867  - Test for determining what constitutes “Indianness”.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

November 30, 1999

Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board

Gray (Chair), Bell and Todd

Respondent Union certified as exclusive bargaining agent for certain employees of  one of Applicant’s casinos

28624                    Werner August Frebold ‑ v. ‑ Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Crim.)

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

Criminal law - Procedural law - Juries - Jury secrecy - Mistrial - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the common law rule of juror secrecy extends to communications between the trial judge and the juror after verdict but before sentencing - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the common law rule of juror secrecy extends to prohibit juror communications being used as the basis of a mistrial application

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28603                    Brian Dempsey ‑ v. ‑ Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Crim.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Bastarache 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

Criminal law - Consciousness of innocence - How should a trial judge instruct jurors on evidence of consciousness of innocence - Unreasonable verdict - Is there any obligation on an appellate court to give reasons for concluding that a verdict, which passes the “lurking doubt” threshold, is not unreasonable - Reasonable doubt - Is the traditional “timid juror” instruction appropriate in the post-Lifchus era

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28535                    Walter Koszil ‑ v. ‑ Bank Canadian National (B.C.) (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

Procedural law - Courts - Interference with judgment on the same issue and involving same parties  by a court of competent jurisdiction - Allegation that interference warranted by fresh evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not allowing the Applicant’s new evidence to set aside the earlier judgment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

October 26, 1999

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Melvin J.)

Respondent’s application for the dismissal of the Applicant’s action granted

November 2, 2000

Court of Appeal

(McEachern C.J.B.C., Finch and Mackenzie

JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

April 6, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

April 26, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

(LeBel J.)

Motion to extend time to file and serve leave application granted

28292                    Jeanette Dechant ‑ v. ‑ Zahra Coulter, Andrea Coulter, minor by her next friend Zahra Coulter, Ronald G. Stevens, Code Hunter Wittmann, a Partnership ‑ and between ‑ Jeanette Dechant ‑ v. ‑ Zahra Coulter and Andrea Coulter, minor by her next friend Zahra Coulter ‑ and between ‑ Jeanette Dechant ‑ v. ‑ Zahra Coulter (Alta.) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ.

The motions for extension of time and the motion to file a lengthy memorandum of argument are granted.  The motions to adduce new evidence and the motion to expedite the application for leave to appeal are dismissed.  The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to all respondents. 

Les requêtes en prorogation de délai et la requête pour déposer un mémoire volumineux sont accordées.  Les requêtes pour déposer de nouveaux éléments de preuve et la requête pour hâter le traitement de la demande d’autorisation d’appel sont rejetées.  La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens aux intimés. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Test for removal of counsel  - Abuse of process - Whether interlocutory stay of an action available under Rule 129 of the Alberta Rules Court and comparable legislation in other provinces - What is the applicable test and can a stay be granted absent any evidence? - Applicable test for an interlocutory stay of proceedings pursuant to Rule 229 of the Alberta Rules of Court and comparable legislation in other provinces and can such a stay be granted absent any evidence? - Role of case management judge.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

January 26, 2001  

Supreme Court of Canada

(Gonthier J.)

Motion for extension of time referred to panel seized of leave application

March 15, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

28534                    Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, The Attorney General of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Province of Alberta, Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Province of Saskatchewan, Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Province of Manitoba, Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Province of New Brunswick, Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Province of Prince Edward Island, Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Province of Nova Scotia, Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Province of Newfoundland, The Government of the Northwest Territories, The Government of Nunavut and The Government of the Yukon Territory ‑ v. ‑ Sutts, Strosberg LLP ‑ and between ‑ Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, The Attorney General of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Province of Alberta, Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Province of Saskatchewan, Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Province of Manitoba, Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Province of New Brunswick, Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Province of Prince Edward Island, Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Province of Nova Scotia, Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Province of Newfoundland, The Government of the Northwest Territories, The Government of Nunavut and The Government of the Yukon Territory ‑ v. ‑ Hodgson Tough Shields Desbrisay O'Donnell (Ont.) (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

Procedural Law - Standing - Class Proceeding - Counsel fees - Whether Court of Appeal erred in denying the Applicants standing to challenge the quantum of fees awarded to class counsel out of a fund in which the Applicants claim a contingent pecuniary interest - Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

June 22, 2000

Superior Court of Justice

(Winkler J.)

Motion for approval of counsel fees for class proceeding Settlement Agreement granted

January 26, 2001

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Morden, Moldaver and MacPherson JJ.A.)

Motion to quash appeals granted

March 23, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

March 26, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

March 26, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

28498                    Lloyd Lewis McLean ‑ v. ‑ The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.) (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

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom - Immigration - Statutes - Interpretation - Whether the Applicant’s case would involve a retroactive application of the Charter - Whether the Applicant was confronted by his citizenship status and had engaged the provisions of the Citizenship Act long before section 15  of the Charter came into force - Whether the date the Applicant applied for Canadian citizenship is determinative of whether the denial of the Applicant’s application for citizenship involved a retrospective or retroactive application of the Charter - Whether the lower courts erred in applying the test in Benner v. Secretary of State of Canada [1997] 1 S.C.R. 358 - Do the Benner decision and the Charter apply to the circumstances of persons including the Applicant born prior to 1947 whose applications for Canadian citizenship are denied today on the basis of the gender and marital status of their Canadian born parent?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28271                    151730 Canada Inc. ‑ c. ‑ 167593 Canada Inc. (Qué.) (Civile)

CORAM:               Le Juge en chef et les juges  Iacobucci et Bastarache

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec aucune ordonnance relative aux dépens.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit civil – Hypothèque légale – Privilège du fournisseur de matériaux de construction – Inscription d’un privilège au registre foncier – Code civil du Québec, L.Q. 1991, ch. 64, art. 2726 et 3063 – Procédure civile – Requête en radiation d’inscription au registre foncier – Code de procédure civile, L.R.Q., ch. 25, art. 804 – Principe de l’autorité de la chose jugée (res judicata)

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

28524                    The Corporation of the City of Toronto also known as the City of Toronto ‑ v. ‑ Donna Myshrall and Eddy Maharaj, Nathan Myshrall, Tara Myshrall and Jonathan Myshrall and Ryan Maharaj by their litigation guardian Donna Myshrall (Ont.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and Binnie 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

Statutes - Interpretation - Procedural law - Limitation of Actions - Municipal law - Highways -  Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a notice under s. 284(5) of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. M-45 which is intended to give a municipality notice of a lack of repair of a particular street or sidewalk does not have to include the time and place and occurrence nor the full address and identity of the claimant - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling the question of whether a notice letter must meet the requirements of the statute was an issue for trial - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overruling Peckham v. the City of Mississauga (1998), 45 M.P.L.R. (2d) 279.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28408                    David Venn ‑ v. ‑ Her Majesty the Queen ex rel. Steeds (Ont.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes - Interpretation - Constitutional law - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Applicant found guilty of practising as a Public Accountant without licence, contrary to Public Accountancy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.37, s. 24(1)(b) - Whether the Court of Appeal, in attempting to provide meaning to the P.A.A. crossed the line from judicial interpretation to “judicial legislation”, a constitutional function within the excusive authority of the Legislature? - Whether the Court of Appeal created retroactive statutory prohibitions that infringe the Applicant’s right not to be found guilty on account of any act that was not an offence at the time the act was committed, contrary to section 11 (g) of the Charter? - Whether statutes such as the P.A.A (in particular sections 1 , 24(1)(b) and 34 ), with prohibitions that can only be defined by expert evidence at trial infringe a defendant’s right to security of the person under section 7  of the Charter?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

March 6, 1998

Ontario Court (Provincial Division)

(Leclerc J.P.)

Applicant found guilty of practising as Public Accountant without license, contrary to s.24(1)(b) of Public Accountancy Act (P.A.A.)

February 7, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada  

Application for leave to appeal filed

28500                    Royal Canadian Mounted Police ‑ v. ‑ Her Majesty the Queen (N.S.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Labour law - Jurisdiction - Statutory interpretation - Canada Labour Code  - Whether the Provincial Court has jurisdiction to try the RCMP under Part II of the Canada Labour Code  by virtue of section 11(1.1)  of the Financial Administration Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

July 29, 1999

Provincial Court of Nova Scotia

(Ross J.)

Application challenging the applicability of Part II of the Canada Labour Code  to the RCMP  dismissed

September 22, 2000

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

(Kennedy C.J.S.C.)

Application for prohibition with certiorari in aid dismissed

February 7, 2001

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

(Roscoe, Chipman and Flinn JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

April 6, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

28487                    Apotex Inc. ‑ v. ‑ The Wellcome Foundation Limited and Glaxo Welcome Inc. (F.C.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property Law - Patents - Reference to determine the extent of patent infringement and account for profits - Methods appropriate to determine extent of infringement and to account for profits.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28421                    Fred Weeks ‑ v. ‑ Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)(Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  -  Taxation - Equality rights - Deduction for disabled persons - Deductions available for institutionalised disabled persons but not for those cared in home - Whether legislation discriminatory and contrary to equality rights in s. 15(1)  of the Charter.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28563                    Carl Cardella ‑ v. ‑ Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and Binnie 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

Taxation - Assessment - Deduction in computing income for losses sustained with respect to interests in limited partnership - Whether there was a reasonable expectation of profit.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28454                    Abdelhafidh Ben‑Hafsia ‑ v. ‑ City of Vancouver, City of Ottawa Police Services Board, City of Hull and Communauté urbaine de Montréal (F.C.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Scope of the extra provincial jurisdiction conferred by s.25  of the Federal Court Act  [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 ] on the Federal Court of Canada.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28445                    ORC Management Limited (carrying on business as the Ontario Racquet Club) ‑ v. ‑ Infinite Maintenance Systems Ltd. (Ont.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Contracts - Penalty and liquidated damage clauses - Whether contract clause a penalty or liquidated damage clause - Damages.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28478                    Raymond F. Pasquan ‑ v. ‑ Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and Binnie 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

Labour law - Unemployment Insurance - Termination of employment by mutual agreement - Whether failure to consider “mutual agreement” as just cause for voluntarily leaving employment violates s. 2 (d) of the Charter - Whether an indefinite disqualification for voluntarily leaving employment without just cause violates s. 12  of the Charter - Whether the reliance by the Board on hearsay evidence was a breach of the principles of natural justice.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28594                    Abdul Habib Ahmadi ‑ v. ‑ Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Crim.)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major 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 - Crown disclosure - Whether the Crown’s failure to disclose material pertaining to the previous conviction of a Crown witness for possession of a narcotic and charges for trafficking in  heroin impaired the Applicant’s ability to make full answer and defence

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28557                    Kurt Alexander Hiebert ‑ v. ‑ Joe Price, in his capacity as Acting/Assistant Commissioner, Corporate Development, Correctional Service of Canada and Ole Ingstrup, in his capacity as Commissioner of Corrections (F.C.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Procedural law - Section 7  Charter right of federal prisoners not to be deprived of their liberty interests without fundamental justice - Extension of time for filing appeal of decision on judicial review - Whether judge failed to give sufficient weight to all considerations relevant to an extension of time under s. 27(2)  of the Federal Court Act  - Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in not interfering with the discretion of judge as the discretion was wrongly exercised.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

December 15, 1999

Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division

(Pelletier J.)

On application for certiorari and mandamus, Applicant’s request for disclosure of documents dismissed

July 4, 2000

Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division

(Gibson J.)

Applicant’s application pursuant to Rule 369 for an order extending the period of time to file a Notice of Appeal dismissed

March 6, 2001

Federal Court of Appeal

(Richard C.J., Strayer and Sharlow JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

May 7, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

28554                    Doaktown Lumber Limited ‑ v. ‑ GMAC Commercial Credit Corporation Canada and Coopers & Lybrand Limited (now Pricewaterhouse Coopers Limited) (N.B.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the Respondent, GMAC Commercial Credit Corporation Canada.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens à l’intimé, GMAC Commercial Credit Corporation Canada.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial Law - Bankruptcy - Res Judicata - Issue Estoppel - Whether the Court of Appeal failed to properly apply the principles of res judicata/issue estoppel in an application to annul a proposal in bankruptcy - Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, s. 63(1) 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

October 21, 1999

Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick

(Russell J.)

GMAC’s application to annul a proposal in bankruptcy pursuant to s. 63(1)  of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act  dismissed

November 22, 2000

Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick

(Riordon J.)

GMAC’s application to annul a proposal in bankruptcy pursuant to s. 63(1)  of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act  granted

March 20, 2001

Court of Appeal of New Brunswick

(Drapeau, Deschênes and Robertson JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

May 3, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

28502                    Christopher Fenton, an infant by his Guardian Ad Litem, Suzann Fenton ‑ v. ‑ Daniel Robert Baldo, Andre Francois Baldo and The District of Kitimat (B.C.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural Law - Trial - No-evidence motions - Whether the proper test for a no-evidence motion permits a court to weigh the evidence and dismiss the action where the evidence is capable of more than one interpretation -  Whether a no-evidence motion brought at the close of a plaintiff’s case should be granted with respect to only one defendant in an action brought against multiple defendants.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28426                    Noël Ayangma ‑ v. ‑ NAV Canada and Mr. John S. Navaux, Manager ACC Operations (NAV Canada) (P.E.I.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Civil procedure - Jurisdiction - Torts - Libel and slander - Damages - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Motions judge had acted outside of her jurisdiction in finding that a statement made by the Respondent Mr. Navaux was defamatory - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the statement made by the Respondent was protected by either absolute or qualified privilege - Whether the Motions judge erred in assessing the Applicant’s damages as nominal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

March 31, 2000

Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island (Trial Division)

(Webber J.)

Applicant’s motion for summary judgment granted: Respondents ordered to pay $1,500 for defamatory statement made about Applicant

January 8, 2001

Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island (Appeal Division)

(Mitchell C.J.P.E.I., McQuaid and Carruthers JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed, Applicant’s statement of claim dismissed

February 15, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

28450                    Body Rubs of Ontario Inc. ‑ v. ‑ The Corporation of the City of Vaughan (Ont.)(Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs on a party and party basis.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Municipal Law - Licensing businesses - Bylaws - Accountability of a municipality for the financial impact of its by-law making powers - Whether a municipality may pass licensing by-laws circumscribing a legal right to carry on a lawful business without carrying on an effects based analysis to ensure that the exercise of its legislative making powers does not have a prohibitory effect - Extent of effects based analysis that ought to be conducted in support of a by-law - How effects of a proposed bylaw are to considered and weighed - Whether decisions below are inconsistent with cases which provide that a municipality is not permitted to pass a by-law whose effect is to make it practically impossible to conduct a legal business.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28505                    Federated Co‑Operatives Limited ‑ v. ‑ Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and Binnie 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

Taxation - Whether the Applicant’s claim for monetary damages on the basis of unjust enrichment invokes equitable relief - What is the intersection between statutory limitation periods and the tri-partite analysis of a claim based on unjust enrichment

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28657                    Association des communautés scolaires franco‑protestantes du Québec, Jocelyn Aubut, Daniel Desjardins, Dorothy Booth Fortier, Céline Moisan Matte, Roger Boudreau, Raymond Lesage, Maurice Phénix, Richard Thériault, Sylvain Rancourt, Christian Grondin et Jean Boivin ‑ c. ‑ La Procureure générale du Québec et la Procureure générale du Canada (Qué.) (Civile)

CORAM:               Les juges Gonthier, Binnie et Arbour

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

The application for stay of proceedings and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit constitutionnel - Écoles - Articles 93  et 93A  de la Loi Constitutionnelle de 1867  - Demande de sursis - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en faits et en droit en concluant à l’inexistence d’un préjudice irréparable pour les demandeurs? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en concluant que la Modification constitutionnelle de 1997 (Québec) n’est pas un cas flagrant d’inconstitutionnalité et que le critère de la prépondérance des inconvénients n’est pas rempli?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

28632                    John Ford Bolt ‑ v. ‑ Marie Annette Bolt (Ont.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Iacobucci and Arbour JJ.

The application for stay of proceedings is dismissed and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

La demande pour sursis d’exécution est rejetée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family Law - Division of Property - Setting aside a Separation Agreement - Whether courts should simply set aside duly negotiated separation agreements between equal parties each represented by separate and independent legal counsel, where both parties understood the nature and the consequences of the agreement- What is the effect of a sworn certificate of independent legal advice and an affidavit of counsel certifying that the party received legal advice, understood the nature and effect of the agreement and signed the agreement voluntarily - Whether the court should recognize a witness as an expert in order to accept that person’s opinion evidence on the mental state of a party.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

August 25, 1999

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

(Taliano J.)

Respondent’s counter-petition to set aside the separation agreement, granted

April 4, 2001

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Charron, Rosenberg and Goudge JJ.A.)

Applicant’s appeal dismissed; Respondent’s cross-appeal on issue of costs allowed in part

June 4, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

August 17, 2001                                  

Supreme Court of Canada

(Iacobucci J.)

Application for leave to appeal filed

Motion for a stay referred to panel seized of the leave application

21.8.2001

Before / Devant:   ARBOUR J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Privacy Commissioner of Canada

IN/DANS:              The Commissioner of Official Languages

v. (28188)

Robert Lavigne (F.C.A.)

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE 

UPON APPLICATION by The Privacy Commissioner 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 Privacy Commissioner 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. 

21.8.2001

Before /  Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the book of authorities of the intervener the Attorney General of Alberta

Chief Councillor Mathew Hill, also known as Tha-Iathatk, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Kitkatla Band, et al.

     v. (27801)

The Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, et al. (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’intervenant le procureur général de l’Alberta

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to June 18, 2001.

21.8.2001

Before /  Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Miscellaneous motion

Gilmore Wright

    v. (28577)

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

Autre requête

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Decision on the miscellaneous motion for an order excusing the applicant from complying with Rule 33(3)(a), which requires that the printed pages must face up on the left.

21.8.2001

Before /  Devant:   LE JUGE ARBOUR

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer l’avis d’appel

Sylvain Prud’homme

     c. (28679)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the notice of appeal

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Délai prorogé au 15 juin 2001.

21.8.2001

Before /  Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum and the book of authorities of the intervener the Attorney General of Canada

Chief Councillor Mathew Hill, also known as Tha-Iathatk, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Kitkatla Band, et al.

     v. (27801)

The Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, et al. (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire et le recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’intervenant le procureur général du Canada

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to July 24,  2001.

21.8.2001

Before /  Devant:  ARBOUR J.

Motion  for extension of time and leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Canadian Civil Liberties Association

IN/DANS:              David Malmo-Levine

v. (28026)

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

and

Christopher James Clay

v. (28189)

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

and

Victor Eugene Caine

v. (28148)

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

Requête visant à obtenir une prorogation de délai et l’autorisation d'intervenir

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association  for an extension of time and for leave to intervene in the above appeals;

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion for an extension of time and for leave to intervene of the applicant Canadian Civil Liberties Association is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a joint 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 appellants and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellants and respondents by the intervention.

22.8.2001

Before  / Devant:   LE JUGE ARBOUR

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

BY/PAR:                Richard B. Holden

IN/DANS:              Roderick Macdonell, c.r.

c. (28092)

La procureure générale du Québec, et al. (Qué.)

Motion for leave to intervene

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

UPON APPLICATION by Richard B. Holden 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 Richard B. Holden is denied.

23.8.2001

Before /  Devant:   THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Motion to state a constitutional question by the appellant

David Scott Hall

    v. (28223)

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

Requête de l’appelant pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    The notices of intervention are to be filed on or before October 1, 2001.

1.                  Does s. 515(10) (c) of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 , infringe s. 11( e )  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

2.                  If Question 1 is answered affirmatively, is the infringement demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society pursuant to s. 1  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

1.         L’alinéa 515(10) c) du Code criminel , L.R.C. 1985, ch. C-46 , viole‑t‑il l’al. 11 e )  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

2.         Si la réponse à la première question est affirmative, la justification de cette violation peut‑elle se démontrer dans le cadre d’une société libre et démocratique, conformément à l’article premier de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

23.8.2001

Before  / Devant:   ARBOUR J.

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

Lance Olmstead

     v. (28710)

Attorney General of Canada, et al. (B.C.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to September 15, 2001.

23.8.2001

Before /  Devant:   ARBOUR J.

Motion for a stay of execution

3017970 Nova Scotia Company

    v. (28727)

Pacifica Papers Inc., et al. (B.C.)

Requête en vue de surseoir à l’exécution

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

UPON APPLICATION by 3017970 Nova Scotia Company for an order staying proceedings in respect of the Order of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, dated August 10, 2001, and staying the issuance by the Respondent Director of a Certificate of Arrangement pursuant to section 192  of the Canada Business Corporations Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-44 , pending the determination of its application for leave to this Court;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The applicant, 3017970 Nova Scotia Company, applies under s. 65.1(1)  of the Supreme Court Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26  (as amended by S.C. 1994, c. 44, s. 101), for an order staying proceedings in respect of the Order of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, dated August 10, 2001, and staying the issuance by the Respondent Director of a Certificate of Arrangement pursuant to section 192  of the Canada Business Corporations Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-44 , pending the determination of its application for leave to this Court.

In a similar motion in Imperial Oil Limited v. Eric S. Lloyd et al. (File no. 27744) (February 24, 2000), Major J. reiterated that

 “[t]he general rule is that the applicant must apply to the court appealed from.  See Esmail v. Petro-Canada, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 3 and Richter & Partners Inc. v. Ernst & Young, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 5. ...

The applicant has the onus of establishing a reason why the court appealed from cannot consider the application for a stay of proceedings.  It has failed to establish this.”

The present applicant has also offered no explanation as to why the matter should not have proceeded according to the usual practice, before the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

Accordingly, this application must be dismissed without prejudice to the applicant’s right to bring the same application before the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

23.8.2001

Before /  Devant:   LE REGISTRAIRE

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire et le recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’intervenant le procureur général de l’Alberta

Louise Gosselin

   c. (27418)

Le procureur général du Québec (Qué.)

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum and book of authorities of the intervener the Attorney General of Alberta

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Délai prorogé au 18 juillet 2001.

23.8.2001

Before  / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondent’s response to August 21, 2001

Irvine George Forrest

    v. (28663)

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

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to August 21, 2001.

23.8.2001

Before  / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

J.W.R.

    v. (28433)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le dossier de l’intimée

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to July 30, 2001.

23.8.2001

Before  / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Miscellaneous motion

Clinton Junior Gayle

   v. (28699)

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

Autre requête

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Decision on the miscellaneous motion by the applicant for an order accepting the application for leave to appeal as is, notwithstanding the printing is on the right hand side.

24.8.2001

Before /  Devant:   ARBOUR J.

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file a notice of appeal

S.F.

    v. (28692)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer un avis d’appel

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to July 20, 2001.

24.8.2001

Before /  Devant:   LE JUGE ARBOUR

Requête en radiation

Louise Gosselin

    c. (27418)

Le procureur général du Québec (Qué.)

Motion to strike

DISMISSED / REJETÉE  La requête de l’intimé en radiation de parties du mémoire de l’intervenante, la Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse est rejetée.  L’intimé est autorisé à produire un mémoire supplémentaire d’au plus 15 pages, avant le 30 septembre 2001.               

24.8.2001

Before  / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum and book of authorities of the intervener the Attorney General of Manitoba

Deborah Smith

    v. (27844)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire et le recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’intervenant le procureur général du Manitoba

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to August 7, 2001.

24.8.2001

Before  / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum and book of authorities of the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario

Ivon Shearing

    v. (27782)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire et le recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’intervenant le procureur général de l’Ontario