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. |
1435
1436 - 1443
-
-
1444 - 1447
-
1448 - 1451
1452
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1453
1454
1455 |
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 |
Ville de Repentigny
Alain-Claude Desforges
Bélanger Sauvé
c. (28722)
Les Habitations de la Rive-Nord Inc., et al. (Qué.)
Michel Lalande
Deveau, Lavoie & Associés
DATE DE PRODUCTION 8.8.2001
Alfred Mayor
Pierre Blain
Blain, Thibaudeau
c. (28724)
Jean-Pierre Semeniuk (Qué.)
Jean-Pierre Semeniuk
DATE DE PRODUCTION 9.8.2001
Daniel Taylor / D.J. Taylor & Assoc. Inc., et al.
Daniel Taylor
v. (28721)
Annie Elena Finnuk (Que.)
Julius Grey
Grey Casgrain
FILING DATE 7.8.2001
Roseland Farms Ltd.
Sidney Green, Q.C.
v. (28719)
Her Majesty the Queen (Man.)
Gerald L. Chartier
A.G. of Manitoba
FILING DATE 8.8.2001
Jamie Carpenter
Phillip N. Scarisbrick
v. (28720)
Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)
Valerie Hartney
Attorney General of Canada
FILING DATE 10.8.2001
The-Trinh Pham
The-Trinh Pham
c. (28728)
Hydro-Québec (Qué.)
Julie Lapierre
Marchand Lemieux
DATE DE PRODUCTION 7.8.2001
Quno Corporation
Eric L. Clark
Clark & Partners
v. (28729)
CIGNA Insurance Company of Canada (Que.)
Robert W. Mason
Lavery, de Billy
FILING DATE 7.8.2001
J.U.
Jean McBean, Q.C.
Family Law Office
v. (28725)
The Regional Director of Child Welfare (Alta.)
Antonella Soria
A.G. of Alberta
FILING DATE 9.8.2001
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE
|
|
DEMANDES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
AUGUST 17, 2001 / LE 17 AOÛT 2001
CORAM: Gonthier, Iacobucci and Arbour JJ. /
Les juges Gonthier, Iacobucci et Arbour
John Ford Bolt
v. (28632)
Marie Annette Bolt (Ont.)
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 |
|
|
|
AUGUST 20, 2001 / LE 20 AOÛT 2001
CORAM: Chief Justice McLachlin and Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ. /
Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Bastarache
Her Majesty the Queen
v. (28638)
Michael Donald Dahl (Crim.)(Alta.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Inchoate offences - Attempted murder - Mens rea - Whether the mens rea for the offence of attempted murder is limited to the intent to cause death, or whether it extends to the intent to cause bodily harm knowing that it is likely to cause death and being reckless whether death ensues - Whether this Court’s judgment in R. v. Ancio, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 225 ought to be reconsidered in order to expand the mens rea component of the offence of attempted murder.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 4, 2000 Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Smith J.) |
|
Conviction: aggravated assault Acquittal: attempted murder |
|
|
|
April 11, 2001 Court of Appeal of Alberta (Côté, O’Leary and Picard JJ.A.) |
|
Crown appeal against acquittal dismissed |
|
|
|
June 6, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Marian Plucinski
v. (28512)
Roderick H. Mackenzie (B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural law - Extension of time - Whether the British Columbia Court of Appeal erred in refusing to extend the time allowed for giving notice of appeal from a judgment of the British Columbia Supreme Court - Whether the British Columbia Court of Appeal erred in determining that the Applicant’s appeal had no merit.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
September 15, 2000 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Taylor J.) |
|
Action dismissed; file to remain sealed and publication ban made as to the reasons |
|
|
|
November 15, 2000 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Cumming J.A.) |
|
Extension of time to serve notice of appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
February 19, 2001 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Southin, Huddart and Saunders JJ.A.) |
|
Application to discharge November 15, 2000 order dismissed |
|
|
|
April 12, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse
c. (28436)
Bernard Genest et Gilles Genest (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., ch. C-12, art. 10.1 — Harcèlement en milieu de travail — Harcèlement sexuel — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle privé le Tribunal des droits de la personne de la compétence institutionnelle spécialisée qui lui est expressément attribuée en matière de discrimination et de harcèlement? — La prohibition des recours civils en cas de lésion professionnelle prévus par la Loi sur les accidents du Travail et les maladies professionnelles, L.R.Q., ch. A-3.001, art. 438, a-t-elle pour effet d’empêcher le Tribunal des droits de la personne d’exercer sa compétence?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 5 mars 1997 Tribunal des droits de la personne (Rivet j.c.q.) |
|
Demande accueillie ; ordonnance enjoignant aux intimés de verser conjointement et solidairement à une victime de harcèlement sexuel une somme de 8600$ avec intérêts et dépens ; intimé Bernard Genest condamné au paiement de dommages punitifs |
|
|
|
Le 12 janvier 2001 Cour d’appel du Québec (Robert, Forget et Thibault jj.c.a.) |
|
Appel accueilli ; jugement du Tribunal des droits de la personne infirmé et demande rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 1er mars 2001 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
Benoît Lacroix
v. (28513)
Dino’s T.V. Limited, Operating as North of the Border Flea Market and Anthony Di Cienzo (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural law - Labour law - Whether the Superior Court of Justice was bound by a finding of fact made in the Tax Court of Canada - Whether the Applicant was an employee of the Respondent.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 11, 2000 Superior Court of Justice (Dandie J.) |
|
Applicant’s action for damages for wrongful dismissal dismissed |
|
|
|
February 13, 2001 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Morden, Weiler and Charron JJ.A.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Appeal dismissed April 17, 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
Gilles Boies
c. (28468)
Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit criminel - Preuve - Crédibilité des témoins - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en droit en rejetant l’appel du demandeur pour le seul motif que la question était relative à la crédibilité des témoins sans se pencher sur les erreurs manifestes du juge de première instance? - Le juge de première instance a-t-il erré en ne se prononçant pas sur la crédibilité plusieurs témoins de la défense qui contredisaient des éléments essentiels du témoignage de la victime et de sa crédibilité qui en était par le fait même gravement entachée? - Le verdict du juge de première instance est-il déraisonnable puisqu’il ne repose pas sur l’ensemble de la preuve pertinente présentée?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 4 juillet 1997 Cour du Québec (Carrier j.c.q.) |
|
Demandeur déclaré coupable d’agression sexuelle et de séquestration, en violation des articles 272(1)d), (2)b) et 279(2) du Code criminel |
|
|
|
Le 23 janvier 2001 Cour d'appel du Québec (Brossard, Rouseau‐Houle et Thibault jj.c.a) |
|
Appel est rejeté
|
|
|
|
Le 19 mars 2001
Cour suprême du Canada
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée
Gaétan Plante
c. (28634)
Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit criminel - Procédure - Arrêt des procédures - Abus de procédures - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en déclarant que le demandeur n’avait pas fait la preuve d’une attitude vexatoire et oppressive de la part des autorités carcérales et que même dans l’hypothèse où il aurait fait cette preuve, il n’a pas établi avoir subi un préjudice? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit dans son interprétation en concluant qu’il n’existait pas de motifs cachés des autorités carcérales sous-tendant les promesses que ceux-ci lui ont faites de ne pas porter d’accusations criminelles contre lui à l’égard des événements du 12 avril 1994? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en soulignant la disproportion évidente entre la gravité des accusations portées contre le demandeur par rapport aux comportements qu’il reproche aux autorités d’avoir eus à son endroit?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 21 janvier 1997 Cour supérieure du Québec (Tremblay j.c.s.) |
|
Requête du demandeur pour arrêt des procédures rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 1 février 2001 Cour d'appel du Québec (Chamberland, Pidgeon et Rochette jj.c.a.) |
|
Appel rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 6 juin 2001 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée |
|
|
|
Chimitec Ltée
c. (28501)
Ordre des Chimistes du Québec (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit du travail - Législation - Procédure - Droit des professions - Appel- Interprétation - Exercice illégal de la profession de chimiste professionnel - Exception - Quel est le rôle de la Cour d’appel? - Quel est le sens de l’expression «établissement industriel» énoncée au paragraphe 2 de l’article 16 de la Loi sur les chimistes professionnels, L.R.Q., ch. C-15?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 13 septembre 1999 Cour du Québec (chambre pénale) (Bélanger j.c.q.) |
|
Demanderesse acquittée des 79 chefs d’accusation d’avoir exercé la chimie professionnelle sans être membre de l’Ordre des chimistes du Québec, contrairement aux art. 1b) et 16 de la Loi sur les chimistes professionnels |
|
|
|
Le 1 février 2000 Cour supérieure du Québec (chambre pénale) (St‐Julien j.c.s.) |
|
Appel rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 9 février 2001 Cour d'appel du Québec (Brossard, Rousseau-Houle et Thibault jj.c.a.) |
|
Appel accueilli; acquittements maintenus pour les chefs 19, 24, 57, 64 et 67; demanderesse déclarée coupable des autres chefs d’accusation |
|
|
|
Le 6 avril 2001 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée |
|
|
|
CORAM: Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ. /
Les juges Gonthier, Major et Binnie
Joel Marchand, a minor by his litigation guardian, Richard Allen Marchand, the said Richard Allen Marchand and Barbara Marchand
v. (28379)
Public General Hospital of Chatham (also known as the Public General Hospital),
A. Olsen, P. Colebrook, M. Want, G. Asher (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural law - Trial - Fair trial - Bias - Barristers and solicitors - Misconduct - Whether the misconduct of counsel at trial, coupled with the failure of the trial judge to control that misconduct, may infringe a party’s right to a fair trial, and require appellate intervention to order a new trial - Whether the failure of the trial judge to restrain the misconduct of counsel at trial creates a reasonable apprehension of bias.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
October 3, 1996 Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) (Granger J.) |
|
Applicants’ action in negligence dismissed with costs to the Respondents |
|
|
|
November 27, 2000 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Laskin, Goudge and Sharpe JJ.A.) |
|
Applicants’ appeal as to negligence and judicial bias dismissed; Applicants not responsible for Respondents’ costs at trial |
|
|
|
January 26, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
K.P.N. Holding Ltd.
v. (28649)
West Shore Ventures Limited (B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial Law - Letters of Credit - Bankruptcy - Unjust Enrichment - Standing - Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in extending the principle of unjust enrichment in a commercial context in the absence of a breach of duty to the claimant - Whether the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Commercial Tenancy Act limit the bankrupt’s obligations to three months’ rent - Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 - Commercial Tenancy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 57.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 31, 1999 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Kirkpatrick J.) |
|
Respondent’s application for a declaration that it has standing to bring the action and that Applicant was unjustly enriched, granted; Applicant ordered to pay balance remaining from letter of credit after deducting unsatisfied obligations recoverable under the lease |
|
|
|
April 11, 2001Court of Appeal of British Columbia (Lambert, Hall [dissenting] and Saunders JJ.A.) |
|
Applicant’s appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed: Applicant ordered to pay full amount of the proceeds of the letter of credit in the amount of $850,000.00 |
|
|
|
June 11, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
National Bank of Canada
v. (28517)
Western Surety Company (N.B.)
AND BETWEEN:
Western Surety Company
v. (28517)
National Bank of Canada (N.B.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Contracts - Suretyship - Creditor and debtor - Mechanics’ liens - Statutes - Interpretation - Fairness of trial - Did the appellate court err in deciding the case on issues which were neither raised in the pleadings, at trial, in the appeal documents nor at the appeal hearing and which the Applicant was not given the opportunity to address - As between a bank assignee of book debts and a surety company, who has the right to any monies owing from the owner to the contractor - Whether the appellate court erred in holding that s. 2 of the Mechanics’ Lien Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. M-6 rendered the trust provision in s. 3 inapplicable in this case.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 5, 1999 Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Creaghan J.) |
|
Judgment for the National Bank of Canada on its counterclaim in the sum of $317,899.81
|
|
|
|
February 20, 2001 Court of Appeal of New Brunswick (Rice , Turnbull and Drapeau JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal allowed; judgment set aside; judgment for Western Surety Company in the sum of $74,854.70 |
|
|
|
April 18, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed by National Bank of Canada |
|
|
|
April 23, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed by Western Surety Company |
|
|
|
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION / DEMANDE DE RÉEXAMEN
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Arbour and LeBel JJ.
Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Arbour et LeBel
Rénald Fortin c. Compagnie d’Assurance Wellington (Qué.) (Civile) (Autorisation) (28149)
JUDGMENTS ON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE |
|
JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION |
AUGUST 23, 2001 / LE 23 AOÛT 2001
28447 Marvin Androschuk and Nora Androschuk ‐ v. ‐ Kenneth Bell and Trimac Transportation Services Ltd. (Alta.) (Civil)
CORAM: The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents Kenneth Bell and Trimac Transportation Services Ltd.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimés Kenneth Bell et Trimac Transportation Services Ltée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Torts - Motor vehicles - Negligence - Contributory negligence - Whether the anachronism of the doctrine of last clear chance been fully replaced by the apportionment of liability provided for in the Contributory Negligence Act of Alberta and in similar statutes in the other common law jurisdictions of Canada - Whether the Motor Transport Act (Alberta) and similar statutes and regulations in other Canadian jurisdictions meant to regulate the inherently dangerous activity of commercial trucking, expressly or implicitly place an onus on truckers to show that a failure to respect safety standards has not contributed to a motor vehicle accident.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 11, 1998 Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Trussler J.) |
|
Order: Applicants’ action dismissed |
|
|
|
January 23, 2001 Court of Appeal of Alberta (McClung, Picard, and Perras JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
March 8, 2001
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
28463 Patricia B. MacCulloch ‐ v. ‐ Stewart McInnes & McInnes Cooper & Robertson (N.S.) (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
Torts - Damages - Property law - Wills - Whether the Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia erred in dismissing the Applicant’s cross-appeal on the quantum of damages awarded against the Respondents.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 2, 2000 Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (MacLellan J.) |
|
Respondents held liable to Applicant in negligence; Applicant awarded amount she paid in legal fees; parties to make written submissions on value of diminution of estate from expenses and fees of trustee |
|
|
|
June 20, 2000 Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (MacLellan J.) |
|
Applicant awarded further damages |
|
|
|
January 19, 2001 Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (Freeman, Bateman and Cromwell JJ.A.) |
|
Applicant’s cross‐appeal on quantum dismissed; Respondents’ appeal on finding of negligence dismissed; |
|
|
|
March 19, 2001
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
28234 Christian Carrier ‐ c. ‐ Jean Rochon, ès qualités Ministre de la Santé et des Services Sociaux, Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec et Procureur général du Québec (Qué.) (Civile)
CORAM: Le Juge en chef et les juges Iacobucci et Bastarache
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimés et du mis en cause.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents and to the mis en cause.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit du travail – Droit des professions – Médecins spécialistes – Entente relative à la rémunération des médecins spécialistes conclue entre le ministre de la Santé et la Fédération des médecins spécialistes – Entente établit un taux de rémunération moindre pour les jeunes médecins – Compétence exclusive du conseil d’arbitrage en matière d’interprétation de l’entente – L’entente est-elle illégale parce que ultra vires? – Loi sur l’assurance-maladie, L.R.Q., ch. A-29, art. 19, 21, 54 et 57 – L’entente est-elle discriminatoire à l’endroit des jeunes médecins? – Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, art. 7 et 15 – Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., ch. C-12, art. 1, 4, 10, 13, 17, 19 et 46 – Procédure civile – Tribunaux – Recours collectif – Code de procédure civile, L.R.Q., ch. C-25, art. 1002 et 1003 – La Cour supérieure est-elle compétente pour connaître d’une demande en recours collectif relative à l’entente?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 15 décembre 1998 Cour supérieure du Québec (Lesyk j.c.s.) |
|
Demande en recours collectif rejetée ; requête pour exception déclinatoire accueillie |
|
|
|
Le 14 septembre 2000 Cour d'appel du Québec (Gendreau, Otis et Pidgeon jj.c.a.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Appel rejetéLe 7 novembre 2000 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée |
|
|
|
28441 EDBE Consulting Limited ‐ v. ‐ Union Gas Limited, Union Gas Investments Limited, Enron Oil Canada and Mark Resources Inc. (Alta.) (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
Commercial law - Contract - Interpretation of Contracts - Agreement for consulting services provide for cash and overriding royalties - Termination Agreement continues certain provisions of first Agreement - Whether the question of whether a contractual obligation applies to a future event or is to be limited to the facts as existed at the date of the contract, does the doctrine of “commercial certainty” require that the contract be interpreted so as to limit its effect to the facts as they existed at the date of the contract?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 5, 1999 Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Romaine J.) |
|
Order: Applicant’s claim against Respondent Union Gas Limited dismissed |
|
|
|
January 5, 2001 Court of Appeal of Alberta (McFadyen, O'Leary and Hunt JJ.A.) |
|
Appeals allowed; Applicant’s claim against Respondents dismissed |
|
|
|
March 2, 2001
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
28439 Gunnar Kjelstrup Madsen, Bruce Chutka, Mary Ann Madsen, Stephen Funk, Larry J. Lee, Ken Grunenberg, Rose Heinekey and Wallace T. Oppal ‐ v. ‐ Her Majesty the Queen (F.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
Taxation - Assessment - Inadequate consideration - Non-arm’s length transactions - Partnerships - Minister of National Revenue finding that purchase of certain equipment by partnership was not made at arm's length - Section 69(1)(a) of Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, consequently applying to deem purchaser to have acquired equipment at fair market value - Whether “as if” rule contained in s. 96 of Act supercedes general law of partnerships for purposes of computing income or loss of partners - Whether a partnership can ever be a “taxpayer” under the Act - How arm’s length concept should be applied to a partnership, if at all, in context of computing income of partners in a partnership.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
March 20, 1998 Tax Court of Canada (Christie A.C.J.T.C.) |
|
Appeals dismissed |
|
|
|
December 22, 2000 Federal Court of Appeal (Linden, Isaac JJ.A., Campbell J.) |
|
Appeals dismissed with one set of costs |
|
|
|
February 20, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
MOTIONS |
|
REQUÊTES
|
31.7.2001
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Miscellaneous motions
Harinder Jadwani
v. (28539)
The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (Ont.)
Autres requêtes
GRANTED / ACCORDÉES Decision on the miscellaneous motion on behalf of the applicant for leave to file his application for leave to appeal notwithstanding the printing is on the right hand side and for leave to file the lower court judgments under separate cover.
31.7.2001
Before / Devant: THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Motion to state a constitutional question
BY / PAR: Patricia Babcock, et al.
IN DANS: 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.)
Requête pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE The notices of intervention are to be filed on or before September 10, 2001.
The appellants shall be permitted to serve and file a reply factum of no more than 30 pages within six (6) weeks after service of the respondents’ factum.
Is s. 39 of the Canada Evidence Act, RSC 1985, c. C-5 of no force or effect, in whole or in part, pursuant to s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 by reason of one or both of the preamble to and s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867?
L’art. 39 de la Loi sur la preuve au Canada, L.R.C. 1985, ch. C-5, est-il inopérant en totalité ou en partie en vertu de l’art. 52 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 en raison du préambule ou de l’art. 96 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 ou des deux?
1.8.2001
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the appellant’s record, factum and book of authorities
Transamerica Life Insurance Company of Canada
v. (28163)
Maria Oldfield (Ont.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le dossier, mémoire et recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’appelante
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to July 31, 2001.
2.8.2001
Before / Devant: GONTHIER J.
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the application for leave
Harry Catarat (deceased) and James Albert Sylvestre
v. (28702)
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Saskatchewan, et al. (Sask.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la demande d’autorisation
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to September 30, 2001.
10.8.2001
Before / Devant: THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Motion to expedite the appeal
Bell Express Vu Limited Partnership
v. (28227)
Richard Rex, et al. (B.C.)
Requête visant à accélérer l’appel
DENIED / REFUSÉE
UPON APPLICATION by counsel for the appellant for an order fixing a schedule for the early service and filing of factums and other materials, and for an order fixing a hearing date during the first week of the Fall 2001 session;
AND HAVING READ the material filed;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion on behalf of the appellant for an order fixing a schedule for the early service and filing of factums and other materials, and for an order fixing a hearing date during the first week of the Fall session is denied;
(2) The appeal shall be inscribed for the Fall 2001 session. The respondent’s factum shall be filed by September 14, 2001 and the Interveners factum shall be filed by October 12, 2001. The hearing of the appeal shall be scheduled during the month of December 2001.
14.8.2001
Before / Devant: IACOBUCCI J.
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the application for leave
Valery I. Fabrikant
v. (28391)
Dr. Serge Corbin (Qué.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la demande d’autorisation
DISMISSED / REJETÉE
UPON APPLICATION by the applicant Valery I. Fabrikant for an order extending the time to serve and file a complete application for leave to appeal to October 1, 2001;
AND HAVING READ the material filed ;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application for an extension of time is dismissed.
17.8.2001
Before / Devant: LE REGISTRAIRE
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la réponse de l’intimée
Gilles Boies
c. (28468)
Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondent’s response
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Délai prorogé au 12 juillet 2001.
17.8.2001
Before / Devant: IACOBUCCI J.
Motion for a stay of execution
John Ford Bolt
v. (28632)
Marie Annette Bolt (Ont.)
Requête en vue de surseoir à l’exécution
REFERRED to the panel seized of the application for leave to appeal / RÉFÉRÉE à la formation saisie de la demande d’autorisation d’appel
20.8.2001
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 du Nouveau-Brunswick
Louise Gosselin
c. (27418)
La procureure générale 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 New Brunswick
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Délai prorogé au 25 juillet 2001, nunc pro tunc.
NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
|
AVIS D’APPEL DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
7.8.2001
Chee K. Ling
v. (28315)
Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)
7.8.2001
Ruth A. Laseur
v. (28370)
Workers’ Compensation Board of Nova Scotia, et al. (N.S.)
7.8.2001
Donald Martin
v. (28372)
Workers’ Compensation Board of Nova Scotia, et al. (N.S.)
16.8.2001
Le Procureur général du Québec
c. (28417)
Laurent Laroche, et al. (Qué.)
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 REPORTS |
|
RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS DE LA COUR SUPRÊME
|
THE STYLES OF CAUSE IN THE PRESENT TABLE ARE THE STANDARDIZED STYLES OF CAUSE (AS EXPRESSED UNDER THE "INDEXED AS" ENTRY IN EACH CASE).
|
|
LES INTITULÉS UTILISÉS DANS CETTE TABLE SONT LES INTITULÉS NORMALISÉS DE LA RUBRIQUE "RÉPERTORIÉ" DANS CHAQUE ARRÊT. |
Judgments reported in [2001] 1 S.C.R. Part 3
Miller v. Canada, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 407
Miller v. Monit International Inc., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 432
Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Assn. v. Ontario (Attorney General), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 470
R. v. McClure, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445
R. v. W.B.C., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 530
R. v. Z.L., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 528
Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority Inc. v. CAW-Canada, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 644
United States of America v. Cobb, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 587
United States of America v. Kwok, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 532
United States of America v. Shulman, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 616
United States of America v. Tsioubris, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 613 |
|
Jugements publiés dans [2001] 1 R.C.S. Partie 3
États-Unis d’Amérique c. Cobb, [2001] 1 R.C.S. 587
États-Unis d’Amérique c. Kwok, [2001] 1 R.C.S. 532
États-Unis d’Amérique c. Shulman, [2001] 1 R.C.S. 616
États-Unis d’Amérique c. Tsioubris, [2001] 1 R.C.S. 613
Miller c. Canada, [2001] 1 R.C.S. 407
Miller c. Monit International Inc., [2001] 1 R.C.S. 432
Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Assn. c. Ontario (Procureur général), [2001] 1 R.C.S. 470
R. c. McClure, [2001] 1 R.C.S. 445
R. c. W.B.C., [2001] 1 R.C.S. 530
R. c. Z.L., [2001] 1 R.C.S. 528
Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority Inc. c. TCA-Canada, [2001] 1 R.C.S. 644 |
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 |
||
|
|
|