This Bulletin is published at the direction of the Registrar and is for general information only. It is not to be used as evidence of its content, which, if required, should be proved by Certificate of the Registrar under the Seal of the Court. While every effort is made to ensure accuracy, no responsibility is assumed for errors or omissions. |
|
Ce Bulletin, publié sous l'autorité du registraire, ne vise qu'à fournir des renseignements d'ordre général. Il ne peut servir de preuve de son contenu. Celle‐ci s'établit par un certificat du registraire donné sous le sceau de la Cour. Rien n'est négligé pour assurer l'exactitude du contenu, mais la Cour décline toute responsabilité pour les erreurs ou omissions. |
|
|
|
Subscriptions may be had at $200 per year, payable in advance, in accordance with the Court tariff. During Court sessions it is usually issued weekly. |
|
Le prix de l'abonnement, fixé dans le tarif de la Cour, est de 200 $ l'an, payable d'avance. Le Bulletin paraît en principe toutes les semaines pendant les sessions de la Cour. |
|
|
|
The Bulletin, being a factual report of recorded proceedings, is produced in the language of record. Where a judgment has been rendered, requests for copies should be made to the Registrar, with a remittance of $10 for each set of reasons. All remittances should be made payable to the Receiver General for Canada. |
|
Le Bulletin rassemble les procédures devant la Cour dans la langue du dossier. Quand un arrêt est rendu, on peut se procurer les motifs de jugement en adressant sa demande au registraire, accompagnée de 10 $ par exemplaire. Le paiement doit être fait à l'ordre du Receveur général du Canada. |
|
|
|
CONTENTS TABLE DES MATIÈRES
Applications for leave to appeal filed
Applications for leave submitted to Court since last issue
Oral hearing ordered
Oral hearing on applications for leave
Judgments on applications for leave
Judgment on motion
Motions
Notices of appeal filed since last issue
Notices of intervention filed since last issue
Notices of discontinuance filed since last issue
Appeals heard since last issue and disposition
Pronouncements of appeals reserved
Rehearing
Headnotes of recent judgments
Agenda
Summaries of the cases
Appeals inscribed ‐ Session beginning
Notices to the Profession and Press Release
Deadlines: Motions before the Court
Deadlines: Appeals
Judgments reported in S.C.R. |
1456 - 1458
1459 - 1469
-
-
1470 - 1487
-
1488 - 1496
1497
1498
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1499
1500
- |
Demandes d'autorisation d'appel déposées
Demandes soumises à la Cour depuis la dernière parution
Audience ordonnée
Audience sur les demandes d'autorisation
Jugements rendus sur les demandes d'autorisation
Jugement sur requête
Requêtes
Avis d'appel déposés depuis la dernière parution
Avis d'intervention déposés depuis la dernière parution
Avis de désistement déposés depuis la dernière parution
Appels entendus depuis la dernière parution et résultat
Jugements rendus sur les appels en délibéré
Nouvelle audition
Sommaires des arrêts récents
Calendrier
Résumés des affaires
Appels inscrits ‐ Session commençant le
Avis aux avocats et communiqué de presse
Délais: Requêtes devant la Cour
Délais: Appels
Jugements publiés au R.C.S. |
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FILED |
|
DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION D'APPEL DÉPOSÉES |
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
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE
|
|
DEMANDES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
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. 343a) et 344b) du Code criminel, de vol qualifié avec une arme ou imitation d’une arme contrairement aux art. 343d), 344b) 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
Le 8 février 2001 Cour d'appel du Québec (Brossard, Pelletier, et Letarte [ad hoc] jj.c.a.) |
|
Appels du verdict de culpabilité et de la peine accueillis en partie; verdict de culpabilité sur le 3e chef cassé et arrêt des procédures prononcé; arrêt de procédures prononcé quant au 2e chef annulé; peine de 8 ans d’emprisonnement substituée quant 1er chef et peine de trois ans concurrente imposée quant au 2e chef |
|
|
|
Le 7 mai 2001 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demandes d'autorisation d'appel et demande en prorogation de délai déposées |
|
|
|
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 24 janvier 2000 Cour supérieure du Québec (Martin j.c.s.) |
|
Recours collectif du demandeur accueilli: intimés condamnés à payer 7 946 088,17 $ avec intérêts et indemnité additionnelle |
|
|
|
Le 6 mars 2001 Cour d'appel du Québec (Gendreau, Brossard et Rousseau‐Houle jj.c.a.) |
|
Appel accueilli: action du demandeur rejetée
|
|
|
|
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
Le 26 janvier 2000 Cour supérieure du Québec (Viau, j.c.s.) |
|
Requête des intimés en exception déclinatoire ratione materiae rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 12 février 2001 Cour d'appel du Québec (Vallerand, Delisle et Nuss, jj.c.a.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Appel accueilli ; requête en exception déclinatoire accueillie ; action des demandeurs contre les intimés rejetéeLe 12 avril 2001 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
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
Le 26 janvier 2000 Cour supérieure du Québec (Viau, j.c.s.) |
|
Requête de l’intimée en exception déclinatoire rationae materiae rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 12 février 2001 Cour d’appel du Québec (Vallerand, Delisle et Nuss, jj.c.a.) |
|
Pourvoi accueilli ; requête en exception déclinatoire accueillie ; action des demandeurs rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 12 avril 2001 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
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
October 20, 1997 Superior Court of Quebec (Reeves J.) |
|
Applicant’s action in defamation dismissed |
|
|
|
February 19, 2001 Court of Appeal of Québec (Gendreau, Dussault et Deschamps JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
April 20, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Arbour and LeBel JJ. /
Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Arbour et LeBel
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
Le 28 août 1997 Cour du Québec (Gagnon j.c.q.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Appel de l’intimée « Les Immeubles Yale Ltée » de la décision du Bureau de révision de l’évaluation foncière accueilli ; valeur des deux unités d’évaluation réduite à une valeur nominale (1$)Le 1er février 2001 Cour d’appel du Québec (Proulx, Dussault et Deschamps, jj.c.a.) |
|
Pourvoi rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 2 avril 2001 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
Ville de Kirkland
c. (28491)
Les Immeubles Yale Ltée et
Les Placements Carlow Inc.
- et -
Communauté urbaine de Montréal et
Bureau de révision de l’évaluation foncière du Québec (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit municipal — Fiscalité municipale — Évaluation foncière — Loi sur la fiscalité municipale, L.R.Q., ch. F-2.1, art. 43 — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en confirmant le jugement de la Cour du Québec cassant la décision du Bureau de révision de l’évaluation foncière (le « BREF »)? — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en affirmant qu’une valeur basée sur le principe d’anticipation dans le contexte de la Loi sur la fiscalité municipale s’oppose au concept de valeur réelle prévalant au moment de l’évaluation prévu par les articles 42 à 46 de la Loi? — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en affirmant que la détermination des valeurs par le BREF ne reposait sur aucune preuve et débordait la connaissance d’office ou la discrétion du BREF? — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en élargissant le champ d’application de la présomption de valeur nominale à des terrains dont le zonage ne peut être assimilé à une expropriation déguisée? — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en exigeant une preuve de marché pour renverser cette présomption?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 28 août 1997 Cour du Québec (Gagnon, j.c.q.) |
|
Appel de l’intimée « Les Immeubles Yale Ltée » de la décision du Bureau de révision de l’évaluation foncière accueilli ; valeur des deux unités d’évaluation réduite à une valeur nominale (1$) |
|
|
|
Le 1er février 2001 Cour d’appel du Québec (Proulx, Dussault et Deschamps, jj.c.a.) |
|
Pourvoi rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 2 avril 2001 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
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
June 15, 1999 Superior Court of Québec (Grenier J.) |
|
Respondent’s (Barreau du Québec) motion for judicial review of the Professions Tribunal’s decision declaring the Applicant admissible to the École du Barreau for the 1997-1998 academic year, dismissed |
|
|
|
February 1, 2001 Court of Appeal for Québec (Dussault, Nuss and Forget JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed; Motion for judicial review granted; Professions Tribunal’s decision set aside; Applicant declared inadmissible to the École du Barreau for the academic year 1997-1998 |
|
|
|
March 22, 2001 Court of Appeal for Québec (Robert J.A.) |
|
Applicant’s motion to suspend the execution of the February 1, 2001 judgment allowed in part; Applicant’s swearing in denied |
|
|
|
March 28, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
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
Le 3 avril 1997 Cour supérieure du Québec (Côté j.c.s.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Action du demandeur en réclamation du bénéfice d’une police d’assurance rejetéeLe 22 février 2001 Cour d'appel du Québec (Mailhot, Deschamps et Pidgeon jj.c.a.) |
|
Appel rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 20 avril 2001 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée |
|
|
|
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
February 11, 1997 Superior Court (Nolin J.) |
|
Respondent’s action for damages for breach of contract granted: Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $803,743 plus interest and additional indemnity |
|
|
|
February 16, 2001 Court of Appeal (Gendreau, Fish and Robert JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed in part: damages reduced by $54,045 |
|
|
|
April 17, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
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
Le 11 février 1997 Cour supérieure du Québec (Nolin, j.c.s.) |
|
Action en garantie de l’intimée Les Laboratoires Bio-Recherche Ltée accueillie |
|
|
|
Le 16 février 2001 Cour d’appel du Québec (Gendreau, Fish et Robert, jj.c.a.) |
|
Appel rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 12 avril 2001 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
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
December 6, 2000 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Labrosse, Weiler and Feldman JJ.A.) |
|
Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed |
|
|
|
July 10, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal and motion to extend time filed |
|
|
|
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
January 17, 2000 Superior Court of Justice (Sills J.) |
|
Applicants’ action for damages for breach of fiduciary relationship by the Respondents granted |
|
|
|
February 9, 2001 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Abella, Borins and Sharpe JJ.A.) |
|
Respondents’ appeal allowed: trial judgment set aside, action dismissed |
|
|
|
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
April 22, 1999 Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Monnin J.) |
|
Applicant’s action for damages against the Respondent and William Doucet granted; liability for general damages of $75,000.00 and special damages of $41,862.00 apportioned 25% against Respondent and 75% against William Doucet |
|
|
|
April 18, 2001 Court of Appeal of Manitoba (Twaddle, Helper and Kroft JJ.A.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Appeal allowed; cross‐appeal dismissedJune 13, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
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
October 7, 1999 Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba (DeGraves J.) |
|
Applicant’s claim for rental arrears granted |
|
|
|
September 12, 2000 Court of Appeal of Manitoba (Scott C.J.M., Twaddle and Monnin JJ.A.) |
|
Respondent’s appeal allowed |
|
|
|
April 3, 2001 Court of Appeal of Manitoba (Scott C.J.M., Twaddle and Monnin JJ.A.) |
|
Applicant’s motion for reconsideration dismissed |
|
|
|
June 4, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
JUDGMENTS ON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE |
|
JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION |
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
April 20, 2000 Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Smith J.) |
|
Application for order quashing decision of Board dismissed |
|
|
|
December 5, 2000 Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (Cameron, Gerwing and Lane JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
February 5, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
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
October 26, 1998 Supreme Court of British Columbia Hutchison J. |
|
Conviction: Fraud, forgery |
|
|
|
March 21, 2001 Court of Appeal for British Columbia Lambert, Ryan, Donald JJ.A |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
May 17, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
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
April 11, 1997 Ontario Court (General Division) (Ferguson J). |
|
Conviction: manslaughter contrary to s. 232 of the Criminal Code
|
|
|
|
July 22, 1997 Ontario Court (General Division) (Ferguson J.) |
|
Sentence: 8 years imprisonment |
|
|
|
June 23, 2000 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Abella, Moldaver and Goudge JJ.A.) |
|
Applicant’s appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed |
|
|
|
May 18, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal and motion for the extension of time filed
|
|
|
|
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
December 23, 1999 Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Martin J.) |
|
Order: Applicant’s action stayed; Applicant’s application to consolidate actions dismissed; Applicant’s application for removal of Respondents’ counsel dismissed |
|
|
|
March 8, 2000 Court of Appeal of Alberta (Sulatycky J.C.Q.B.A.) |
|
Stay of order of trial judge pending determination of appeal |
|
|
|
November 6, 2000 Court of Appeal of Alberta (McClung, Costigan and Hart JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed
|
|
|
|
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
November 4, 1999 Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (Richard A.C.J.) |
|
Application for judicial review of a citizenship order dismissed |
|
|
|
February 8, 2001 Federal Court of Appeal (Noël, Evans and Sharlow JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
April 5, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
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
Le 11 mai 1995 Cour supérieure du Québec (Frenette j.c.s.)
|
|
Requête en radiation d’inscriptions sur le registre foncier accueillie ; requête en irrecevabilité de la demanderesse rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 26 septembre 2000 Cour d’appel du Québec (Deschamps, Rochette, et Pelletier jj.c.a.) |
|
Appel rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 27 novembre 2000 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
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
September 30, 1999 Superior Court of Justice (Nordheimer J.) |
|
Applicants’ motion for summary judgment granted; Respondents’ action dismissed |
|
|
|
February 13, 2001 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Osborne A.C.J.O., Austin and Laskin JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed; issue of compliance with s. 284(5) sent to trial |
|
|
|
April 11, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
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.)
January 27, 2000 Superior Court of Justice (Fitzgerald O.C.J.) |
|
Applicant did not require a licence to practice as a public accountant in these circumstances. Appeal was allowed and conviction quashed |
|
|
|
December 11, 2000 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Labrosse , Weiler and Sharpe JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal from acquittal allowed and conviction restored; s.24(1)(b) of P.A.A. sufficiently precise to avoid problems of vagueness |
|
|
|
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
August 26, 1998 Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (MacKay J.) |
|
Amount payable to respondents determined on reference |
|
|
|
January 26, 2001 Federal Court of Appeal (Strayer, Noël and Evans JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed; cross‐appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
March 27, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
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
December 15, 1998 Tax Court of Canada (Teskey J.T.C.C.) |
|
Appeals from the assessments made under the Income Tax Act for the 1991 through 1994 taxation years dismissed |
|
|
|
December 12, 2000 Federal Court of Appeal (Rothstein, McDonald, and Sharlow JJ.A.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Appeal dismissedFebruary 12, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
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
March 16, 1999 Tax Court of Canada (Bonner J.T.C.C.) |
|
Appeal from assessments for the 1989, 1990 and 1991 taxation years dismissed |
|
|
|
February 26, 2001 Federal Court of Appeal (Stone, Evans and Malone JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed in part; Referral back for reassessment |
|
|
|
April 26, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
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
December 19, 2000 Federal Court of Canada (Trial Division) (Dubé, J.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Applicant’s application for an order to amend Notice of Appeal or for extension of time, dismissedJanuary 29, 2001 Federal Court of Appeal (Stone J.A.) |
|
Applicant’s motion granted in part; Notice of Appeal amended by substituting “September 26, 2000" for “September 25, 2000" |
|
|
|
March 2, 2001 Federal Court of Appeal (Evans J.) |
|
Applicant’s motion seeking stay of order of Stone J.A. dismissed |
|
|
|
March 13, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal
|
|
|
|
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
May 12, 1999 Superior Court of Justice (Ground J.) |
|
Order: Applicant’s action dismissed |
|
|
|
January 17, 2001 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Finlayson, Labrosse, and Weiler JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
March 7, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
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
January 23, 2001 Federal Court of Appeal (Strayer, Noël and Evans JJ.A.) |
|
Applicant’s application for judicial review of Umpire’s decision to dismiss appeal of Board of Referees’ decision, which held Applicant had voluntarily terminated employment without just cause, dismissed |
|
|
|
March 20, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
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
October 8, 1998 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Cameron J.) |
|
Conviction: Trafficking heroin (2 counts) |
|
|
|
December 22, 1998 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Cameron J.) |
|
Sentence: 7 years imprisonment |
|
|
|
March 14, 2001 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Carthy, Weiler and Laskin JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal against conviction dismissed
|
|
|
|
May 14, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
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
April 2, 1998 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Loo J.) |
|
Action in negligence against District of Kitimat declared non-suit |
|
|
|
April 8, 1998 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Loo J.) |
|
Action in negligence against Daniel Robert Baldo and Andre François Baldo declared non-suit |
|
|
|
February 9, 2001 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Cumming, Braidwood and Hall JJ.A.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Appeal dismissedApril 10, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
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
July 13, 2000 Superior Court of Justice (Lax J.) |
|
Application for an order declaring by-law ultra vires and void ab initio dismissed |
|
|
|
January 4, 2001 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Catzman, Borins and Feldman JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
March 9, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
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
June 25, 1999 Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (Dubé J.) |
|
Respondent’s application for summary judgment granted; Applicant’s Statement of Claim dismissed |
|
|
|
February 15, 2001 Federal Court of Appeal (Richard C.J.F.C., Noël and Evans JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
April 17, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
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
Le 25 janvier 2001 Cour supérieure du Québec (Lebrun j.c.s.) |
|
Requête pour l’émission d’une ordonnance de sursis accueillie |
|
|
|
Le 5 juin 2001 Cour d'appel du Québec (Dussault, Robert et Pidgeon jj.c.a.) |
|
Appel accueilli |
|
|
|
Le 5 juillet 2001 Cour d’appel du Québec (Pelletier j.c.a.) |
|
Requête pour une ordonnance de sursis rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 13 juillet 2001 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d'autorisation d'appel et requête pour sursis et autres ordonnances déposées |
|
|
|
Le 27 juillet 2001 Cour suprême du Canada (LeBel j.)
|
|
Requête pour sursis et autres ordonnances accueillie en partie; délais de réponse et de réplique abrégés; requête pour sursis déférée à la formation des juges de la Cour saisis de la demande d’autorisation d’appel |
|
|
|
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
MOTIONS |
|
REQUÊTES
|
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. 11e) 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
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to August 13, 2001.
24.8.2001
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondents’ record, factum and book of authorities
Patrick Berry, et al.
v. (27992)
Chris Pulley, et al. (Ont.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le dossier, le mémoire et le recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine des intimés
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to August 31, 2001.
27.8.2001
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to file a lengthy memorandum of argument of namely 40 pages
Salvatore Gramaglia
v. (28652)
Alberta Family and Social Services (Alta.)
Requête visant le dépôt d’un long mémoire de 40 pages
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
27.8.2001
Before / Devant: ARBOUR J.
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file a notice of appeal
Marcus Richardson
v. (28674)
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 June 25, 2001.
NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
|
AVIS D’APPEL DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
14.8.2001
Camille Noël
c (28734)
Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)
(DE PLEIN DROIT)
NOTICES OF INTERVENTION FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
|
AVIS D’INTERVENTION DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
17.8.2001
BY/PAR: Attorney General of British Columbia
IN/DANS: The Attorney General of Nova Scotia
v. (28179)
Susan Walsh et al. (N.S.)
22.8.2001
BY/PAR: Attorney General of Ontario
Attorney General of Canada
IN/DANS: The Attorney General of Nova Scotia
v. (28179)
Susan Walsh et al. (N.S.)
24.8.2201
BY/PAR`: Attorney General of Ontario
IN/DANS: Clayton Charles Ruby
v. (28029)
The Solicitor General (F.C.A.)
27.8.2001
BY/PAR: Attorney General of Albera
IN/DANS: The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada and in his capacity as Minister of Justice, et al.
v. (28091)
Patricia Babcock, et al. (B.C.)
DEADLINES: MOTIONS
|
|
DÉLAIS: REQUÊTES
|
BEFORE THE COURT:
Pursuant to Rule 23.1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, the following deadlines must be met before a motion before the Court can be heard: |
|
DEVANT LA COUR:
Conformément à l'article 23.1 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada, les délais suivants doivent être respectés pour qu'une requête soit entendue par la Cour :
|
Motion day : October 1, 2001
Service : September 10, 2001 Filing : September 14, 2001 Respondent : September 21, 2001 |
|
Audience du : 1 octobre 2001
Signification : 10 septembre 2001 Dépôt : 14 septembre 2001 Intimé : 21 septembre 2001 |
Motion day : November 5, 2001
Service : October 12, 2001 Filing : October 19, 2001 Respondent : October 26, 2001
|
|
Audience du : 5 novembre 2001
Signification : 12 octobre 2001 Dépôt : 19 octobre 2001 Intimé : 26 octobre 2001 |
Motion day : December 3, 2001
Service : November 9, 2001 Filing : November 16, 2001 Respondent : November 23, 2001 |
|
Audience du : 3 décembre 2001
Signification : 9 novembre 2001 Dépôt : 16 novembre 2001 Intimé : 23 novembre 2001 |
DEADLINES: APPEALS
|
|
DÉLAIS: APPELS |
The Fall Session of the Supreme Court of Canada will commence October 1, 2001.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court Act and Rules, the following requirements for filing must be complied with before an appeal can be inscribed for hearing:
Appellant’s record; appellant’s factum; and appellant’s book(s) of authorities must be filed within four months of the filing of the notice of appeal.
Respondent’s record (if any); respondent’s factum; and respondent’s book(s) of authorities must be filed within eight weeks of the date of service of the appellant's factum.
Intervener's factum and intervener’s book(s) of authorities, if any, must be filed within four weeks of the date of service of the respondent's factum, unless otherwise ordered.
Parties’ condensed book, if required, must be filed on or before the day of hearing of the appeal.
Please consult the Notice to the Profession of October 1997 for further information.
The Registrar shall inscribe the appeal for hearing upon the filing of the respondent's factum or after the expiry of the time for filing the respondent's factum.
|
|
La session d’automne de la Cour suprême du Canada commencera le 1er octobre 2001.
Conformément à la Loi sur la Cour suprême et aux Règles, il faut se conformer aux exigences suivantes avant qu'un appel puisse être inscrit pour audition:
Le dossier de l’appelant, son mémoire et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine doivent être déposés dans les quatre mois du dépôt de l’avis d’appel.
Le dossier de l’intimé (le cas échéant), son mémoire et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine doivent être déposés dans les huit semaines suivant la signification du mémoire de l’appelant.
Le mémoire de l'intervenant et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine, le cas échéant, doivent être déposés dans les quatre semaines suivant la signification du mémoire de l'intimé, sauf ordonnance contraire.
Le recueil condensé des parties, le cas échéant, doivent être déposés au plus tard le jour de l’audition de l’appel.
Veuillez consulter l’avis aux avocats du mois d’octobre 1997 pour plus de renseignements.
Le registraire inscrit l'appel pour audition après le dépôt du mémoire de l'intimé ou à l'expiration du délai pour le dépôt du mémoire de l'intimé. |
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE
CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME
- 2001 -
OCTOBER - OCTOBRE |
|
NOVEMBER - NOVEMBRE |
|
DECEMBER - DECEMBRE |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
M 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
7 |
H 8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
|
4 |
M 5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
2 |
M 3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
|
11 |
H 12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
|
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
|
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
|
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
23 |
24 |
H 25 |
H 26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
- 2002 -
JANUARY - JANVIER |
|
FEBRUARY - FÉVRIER |
|
MARCH - MARS |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
|
H 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
|
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
13 |
M 14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
|
10 |
M 11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
|
10 |
M 11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
|
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
|
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
|
|
|
24 31 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
H 29 |
30 |
APRIL - AVRIL |
|
MAY - MAI |
|
JUNE - JUIN |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
H 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
|
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
|
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
14 |
M 15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
|
12 |
M 13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
|
9 |
M 10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
|
19 |
H 20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
|
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
23 30 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
Sittings of the court: Séances de la cour: |
|
18 sitting weeks / semaines séances de la cour 79 sitting days / journées séances de la cour 9 motion and conference days / journées requêtes, conférences 2 holidays during sitting days / jours fériés durant les sessions |
|
Motions: Requêtes: |
M |
||
Holidays: Jours fériés: |
H |
||
|
|
|