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. |
529
530 - 539
-
-
540 - 549
-
550 - 553
554
-
-
555 - 560
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
561
562
563 |
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 |
Eli Lilly & Company, et al.
Anthony G. Creber
Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
v. (28382)
Apotex Inc., et al. (F.C.)
Harry Radomski
Goodmans LLP
FILING DATE 19.2.2001
Her Majesty the Queen
William F. Ehrcke, Q.C.
A.G. of British Columbia
v. (28443)
Rajinder Kumar Benji (B.C.)
Peter Leask, Q.C.
Leask Bahen
FILING DATE 27.2.2001
Kyle Brendon Stroshein
Morris P. Bodnar, Q.C.
Bodnar, Wanhella & Cutforth
v. (28392)
Her Majesty the Queen (Sask.)
Eric J. Neufeld, Q.C.
A.G. for Saskatchewan
FILING DATE 28.2.2001
Yvonne Jacqueline Daley
Yvonne Jacqueline Daley
v. (28444)
Deston Osmond Daley (Ont.)
Deston Osmond Daley
FILING DATE 1.3.2001
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE
|
|
DEMANDES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
MARCH 19, 2001 / LE 19 MARS 2001
CORAM: Chief Justice McLachlin and Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ. /
Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Bastarache
Paul Creek
v. (28255)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Evidence - Unreasonable verdict - Whether the verdict was reasonable and supported by the evidence
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 8, 1998 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Stewart J.) |
|
Conviction: Second degree murder |
|
|
|
September 21, 2000 British Columbia Court of Appeal (Esson, Southin and Braidwood JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
November 23, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada (Major J.) |
|
Motion for the extension of time granted |
|
|
|
January 19, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Evangeline Godron
v. (28424)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Sask.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - Public nudity - Mischief - Defences - Colour of right - Whether prohibiting women from being topless in a public place for a non-commercial and non-sexual purpose is discrimination based on sex and therefore contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter - Whether s. 429(2) (Defence to Mischief offence) is unconstitutional in that it places an evidentiary burden upon an accused in order to establish a legal justification or excuse and colour of right thereby violating the presumption of innocence as contained in the Charter - Whether s. 429(2) requires an accused to make out legal justification or excuse and colour of right or whether any of these three defences is sufficient - Whether the colour of right defence is made out where the accused is honestly mistaken in law or whether this defence is restricted to mistake of fact - Whether a societal interest and/or policy reason must be satisfied before the colour of right defence can succeed - Whether there are conflicting authorities concerning a woman’s right to be topless in public.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
September 20, 1999 Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Orr P.C J.) |
|
Conviction: Mischief (Criminal Code s. 430(1)) |
|
|
|
May 11, 2000 Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan (Hunter J.) |
|
Summary conviction appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
December 12, 2000 Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (Cameron, Gerwing, Lane JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
February 13, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal and motion for the extension of time filed |
|
|
|
Marjan Aghaipour
v. (28350)
National Bank of Canada AND Roland Home Improvements Limited and Roland Karl Filzmaier AND Laurentian Bank of Canada as Trustee for RRSP 28A‐11571 (Paul Ezrin) (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural Law - Civil Procedure - Contempt of Court - Applicant found in contempt - Whether court has a positive duty to consider statutory context of an order when adjudicating upon contempt - Standard of review of contempt orders - Whether Court of Appeal failed to properly base its judgement on terms of original order and statutory context.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 7, 2000 Superior Court of Justice (Greer J.) |
|
Applicant held in contempt of court; Applicant, Roland Home Improvements Limited and Roland Filzmaier ordered to pay $84,365.00 plus interest into Court |
|
|
|
November 9, 2000 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Finlayson, Labrosse and Weiler JJ.A.) |
|
Applicant’s appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
January 2, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
McCall Pontiac Buick Ltd.
v. (28175)
Reid Hamer‐Jackson (B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Labour law - Commercial law - Wrongful dismissal - Whether the principle pronounced by this Court in Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 701 applies to events occurring after the dismissal of an employee - What distinctions between aggravated damages, punitive damages and the increased damages are permitted by the principle enunciated in Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd. - Whether it is a proper exercise of judicial discretion to award special costs in circumstances where the litigant had already been punished for the same conduct in an award of aggravated, punitive or increased damages - Whether a litigant who has effectively mitigated the loss occurring from loss of employment can voluntarily terminate the mitigation and resume a claim for damages against the prior employer.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 7, 1998 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Burnyeat J.) |
|
Respondent’s action in damages for wrongful dismissal allowed |
|
|
|
July 4, 2000 Court of Appeal of British Columbia (Ryan, Huddart, and Saunders JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
September 27, 2000 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Ryan, Huddart, and Saunders JJ.A.) |
|
Respondent’s application for special costs on appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
September 29, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Roderick Macdonell
c. (28092)
Procureur général du Québec et Assemblée Nationale (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit constitutionnel – Protection du processus décisionnel des membres de l’Assemblée nationale du Québec – Accès à l’information – Législation – Loi sur l’accès aux documents des organismes publics et sur la protection des renseignements personnels, L.R.Q., c. a-2.1 – Interprétation des exceptions au principe général de l’accès aux documents des organismes publics – Qu’est-ce qu’un document préparé pour le compte d’un député? – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en rejetant la demande en révision judiciaire d’une décision de la Commission d’accès à l’information?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 15 mai 1996 Cour du Québec (Longtin, j.c.q.) |
|
Requête pour permission d’en appeler d’une décision de la Commission d’accès à l’information rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 3 décembre 1996 Cour supérieure du Québec (Barbeau, j.c.s.) |
|
Requête en révision judiciaire accueillie ; Assemblée nationale enjointe de donner accès au demandeur au document demandé |
|
|
|
Le 31 mai 2000 Cour d’appel du Québec (Chamberland [dissident], Forget et Denis [ad hoc], jj.c.a.) |
|
Appel accueilli ; requête en révision judiciaire rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 30 août 2000 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation déposée |
|
|
|
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Arbour and LeBel JJ. /
Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Arbour et LeBel
Maurice Boucher
c. (28280)
Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit criminel - Preuve - Témoin délateur - Mise en garde de type Vetrovec - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en renversant l’exercice du pouvoir discrétionnaire du juge du procès sans même référer aux faits de la cause, mais seulement à la plaidoirie de la Couronne - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en considérant comme potentiellement corroboratives des circonstances factuelles qui soit n’étaient pas indépendantes du témoignage de Gagné, soit n’avaient aucune relation avec la question en litige - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en appliquant à tort l’article 686(4)b)(i) du Code criminel, L.R.C. 1985, ch. C-46 - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit dans sa compréhension et dans son application de l’arrêt R. c. Vetrovec, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 811?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 27 novembre 1998 Cour supérieure du Québec (Boilard j.c.s.) |
|
Demandeur reconnu non coupable, suite à procès devant juge et jury, de 2 chefs d’accusation en vertu de l’article 235 et un chef d’accusation en vertu de l’article 239a) du Code criminel |
|
|
|
Le 10 octobre 2000 Cour d'appel du Québec (Proulx, Fish, Chamberland jj.c.a.) |
|
Appel accueilli et ordonnance pour la tenue d’un nouveau procès |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Le 8 décembre 2000 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée
|
|
|
|
Fraternité des préposés à l'entretien des voies
c. (28124)
Canadien Pacifique Limitée (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit administratif - Révision judiciaire - Preuve extrinsèque - Convention collective - Est-ce qu’un décideur unique dans un système d’arbitrage créé pour une industrie donnée peut rendre des décisions contradictoires sans que cela ne puisse justifier l’intervention des tribunaux supérieurs, et ce, en application de l’arrêt de cette Cour dans l’affaire Domtar c. Québec (CALP)? Est-ce qu’un arbitre peut recourir à une preuve extrinsèque afin de contredire des dispositions claires d’une convention collective sans que cela ne puisse justifier l’intervention des tribunaux supérieurs? Est-ce qu’une preuve extrinsèque qui ne traduit aucunement l’intention des parties à une convention peut servir à en contredire les dispositions?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 12 mars 1997 Cour supérieure du Québec (Grenier j.c.s.) |
|
Requête en évocation de la demanderesse accueillie; décision de l’arbitre cassée et annulée |
|
|
|
Le 16 juin 2000 Cour d'appel du Québec (Rothman, Forget et Biron jj.c.a.) |
|
Pourvoi accueilli avec dépens |
|
|
|
Le 15 septembre 2000 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
Jones Power Co. Limited and J.A. Jones Construction Company
v. (28205)
Mitsui & Co. (Point Aconi) Ltd. (N.S.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural Law - Appeal - New trial - What is the correct legal test to be applied by an appellate court in the determination whether to order a new trial after finding error in the court below - Whether it is appropriate for an appellate court to make a determination of a material issue in an appeal on the basis of evidence not available to one of the parties, and in the absence of submissions on the effect of such evidence from one of the parties
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 5, 1999 Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Trial Division (Richard J.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Memorandum of Understanding held to be a valid and legally binding contractAugust 23, 2000 Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (Cromwell, Roscoe and Flinn JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
October 20, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Johanne Blackburn
c. (28162)
Sylvain Boivin (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Procédure - Appel - Responsabilité civile - Délit intentionnel - Requête en rejet d’appel dilatoire ou abusif - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en accueillant la requête en rejet d’appel et en concluant que cet appel n’avait aucune chance de succès et était voué à l’échec ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit sur le fardeau imposé à l’appelante lors d’une requête en rejet d’appel ? - Le juge de première instance a-t-il erré dans son appréciation des faits et de la crédibilité des témoins? - Code de procédure civile du Québec, L.R.Q., c. C-25, par. 501(5).
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 28 janvier 2000 Cour supérieure du Québec (Morin j.c.s.) |
|
Requête interlocutoire rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 16 février 2000 Cour supérieure du Québec (Morin j.c.s.) |
|
Action en dommages rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 10 juillet 2000 Cour d'appel du Québec (Gendreau, Pidgeon, Thibault jj.c.a) |
|
Appel rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 28 septembre 2000 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
605715 Saskatchewan Ltd., carrying on business under the name “Showgirls” and Sally Dube
v. (28152)
The Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Licensing Commission and The Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority (Sask.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1 and 2(b) - Civil - Constitutional law - Administrative law - Freedom of expression - Liquor control licences - Striptease performance - Prohibited entertainment pursuant to s. 54(1)(b) of The Alcohol Control Regulations, 1994 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its Charter analysis - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in making a distinction between expression for commercial purposes and other expressions - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in permitting Government an ability to place “time, manner and place” restrictions on expression without having to justify those restrictions under s. 1 of the Charter.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 27, 1999 Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Dielschneider J.) |
|
Application for judicial review on the basis that s.54(1)(b) of The Alcohol Control Regulations contravened s.2(b) of the Charter dismissed |
|
|
|
September 6, 2000 Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (Vancise, Gerwing and Lane JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed
|
|
|
|
November 6, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
CORAM: Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ. /
Les juges Gonthier, Major et Binnie
Allen Bulmer
v. (28375)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Judicial impartiality - Reasonable apprehension of bias - Whether there existed a reasonable apprehension of bias for the trial judge to preside over the Applicant’s trial in circumstances where the trial judge had previously presided over a trial in which the Applicant was convicted of similar charges and the trial judge had made adverse findings of credibility against the Applicant
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 5, 1998 Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division) (Montgomery J.) |
|
Conviction: impaired care and control of a motor vehicle (Criminal Code s. 253(a)) |
|
|
|
November 18, 1999 Ontario Court of Justice (Hermiston J.) |
|
Summary conviction appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
November 17, 2000 Ontario Court of Appeal (Weiler, Goudge, Simmons JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 26, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal and motion for the extension of time filed |
|
|
|
Her Majesty the Queen
v. (28411)
Fotios Ploumis (Crim.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal Law - Sentencing - Blended sentences where the totality of sentences exceeds two years less a day - Whether Court may combine a conditional sentence with a term of imprisonment.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 25, 2000 Ontario Court of Justice (Ormston J.) |
|
Conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of weapon |
|
|
|
April 26, 2000 Ontario Court of Justice (Ormston J.) |
|
Sentence to 8 months incarceration plus 2 years less a day conditional and three years probation |
|
|
|
December 13, 2000 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Osborne A.C.J., Moldaver and Goudge JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal and cross-appeal from sentence allowed; 2 years less a day conditional reduced to 16 months less a day |
|
|
|
February 9, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Vimalathas Aseervatham
v. (28232)
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter - Civil - Civil rights - Right to counsel - Immigration law - Federal Court, Trial Division dismissing application for judicial review of Refugee Division’s decision to schedule hearing on a date on which it knew that Applicant’s counsel of choice was not available - Whether Federal Court, Trial Division erred in ruling that Applicant’s right to counsel was not violated by Refugee Division’s decision - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 - Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, s. 69(1).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 1, 2000 Federal Court, Trial Division (Dubé J.) |
|
Application for judicial review dismissed |
|
|
|
November 8, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Vimalathas Aseervatham
v. (28218)
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law - Judicial review - Appeal - Jurisdiction - Immigration law - Federal Court, Trial Division dismissing application for judicial review of decision made under Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 - Trial Division refusing to certify question pursuant to s. 83 of Act - Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in declining jurisdiction to entertain appeal.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 1, 2000 Federal Court, Trial Division (Dubé J.) |
|
Application for judicial review dismissed |
|
|
|
September 5, 2000 Federal Court of Appeal (Décary J.A.) |
|
Registry directed to reject notice of appeal |
|
|
|
November 2, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Rachel Leah Moss
v. (28228)
The Attorney General of Canada (Man.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Bankruptcy - Power of court to annul bankruptcy - Motions judge granting Respondent’s application for an order annulling Applicant’s assignment in bankruptcy pursuant to s. 181(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 - Whether, having found as a fact that Applicant was insolvent, court should exercise its discretion to annul assignment - Type of conduct or impact on creditors that should merit annulment of an assignment in bankruptcy - Whether status of annuity contracts a relevant consideration in disposition of motion to annul assignment.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 2, 1999 Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Steel J.) |
|
Bankruptcy of Applicant annulled |
|
|
|
September 12, 2000 Court of Appeal of Manitoba (Twaddle, Kroft and Monnin JJ A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
November 7, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
JUDGMENTS ON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE |
|
JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION |
MARCH 22, 2001 / LE 22 MARS 2001
28167 FRANCIS RIOUX ‐ c. ‐ SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE (Qué.) (Criminelle)
CORAM: Les juges L'Heureux‐Dubé, Arbour et LeBel.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit criminel - Législation - Interprétation - Preuve - Garde ou contrôle d’un véhicule - Présomption - La cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en statuant que la garde ou le contrôle a été prouvé par la simple existence d’une possibilité future de conduite, compte tenu que le demandeur a renversé la présomption prévue à l’article 258(1)a) du Code criminel et qu’il a pris les moyens pour éviter de mettre son véhicule en marche en prenant soin
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 7 mai 1998
Cour du Québec
(Bilodeau j.c.q.)
Déclaration de culpabilité: garde ou le contrôle d’un véhicule à moteur alors que capacité de conduire du Demandeur était affaiblie par l’alcool contrairement aux articles 253 a) et 255(1) du Code criminel
Le 27 août 1998 Cour supérieure du Québec (Grenier j.c.s.) |
|
Appel accueilli; verdict d’acquittement rendu |
|
|
|
Le 3 juillet 2000 Cour d'appel du Québec (Rousseau‐Houle, Pidgeon et Thibault jj.c.a.) |
|
Appel accueilli; jugement de la Cour du Québec rétabli |
|
|
|
Le 29 septembre 2000 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
28159 STANLEY DWYER ‐ v. ‐ CAVALLUZZO, HAYES, SHILTON, McINTYRE & CORNISH AND JAMES K. A. HAYES (Ont.) (Civil)
CORAM: L'Heureux‐Dubé, Arbour and LeBel 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 - Barristers and solicitors - Duty of fair representation - Applicant bringing action against law firm and lawyer claiming that they breached their duty to act competently and skilfully in representing him in a grievance arbitration - Motions judge concluding that court had no jurisdiction to entertain claim - Whether Court of Appeal erred in affirming decision - Whether unfair representation provision in Canada Labour Code operates so as to deprive court of jurisdiction to consider claim - Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, s. 37.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 25, 1999 Superior Court of Justice (Ground J.) |
|
Applicant’s action dismissed |
|
|
|
July 10, 2000 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Morden, Catzman, Moldaver JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
September 28, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave filed
|
|
|
|
27987 SYNDICAT NATIONAL DES EMPLOYÉS MUNICIPAUX DE POINTE‐CLAIRE ‐ c. ‐ MARC BOISVERT, EN SA QUALITÉ D'ARBITRE DE GRIEFS - et - VILLE DE POINTE-CLAIRE (Qué.) (Civile)
CORAM: Les juges L'Heureux‐Dubé, Arbour et LeBel.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de la mise en cause Ville de Pointe-Claire.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the mise en cause City of Pointe-Claire.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit du travail – Congédiement – Employé congédié pour cause de maladie – Le congédiement est-il une pratique discriminatoire au sens de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., c. C-22, art. 10, 16 et 20? – La Cour supérieure et la Cour d’appel ont-elles erré quant à l’intensité des obligations d’accommodement d’un employeur en matière de handicap? – La Cour supérieure et la Cour d’appel ont-elle erré quant à l’existence d’accommodements contractuels non respectés par l’employeur, la Ville de Pointe-Claire?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 16 mars 2000 Cour supérieure du Québec (Frappier, j.c.s.) |
|
Requête en contrôle judiciaire de la décision de l’arbitre rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 28 avril 2000 Cour d’appel du Québec (Nuss, j.c.a.) |
|
Requête pour permission d’en appeler rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 22 juin 2000 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
28125 ANRAJ FISH PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES LTD. AND BENGAL SEAFOODS INC. ‐ v. ‐ HYUNDAI MERCHANT MARINE CO. LTD. (FC) (Civil)
CORAM: L'Heureux‐Dubé, Arbour and LeBel 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
International law - Conflicts of law - Choice of jurisdiction - Forum selection clause in bill of lading - Commercial law - Contracts - Maritime contract - Consideration of the factors set out in The Eleftheria [1969] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 237 case - Appellate review - Standard of review - The interpretation of jurisdiction clauses in bills of lading - What is the appropriate standard of second-level appellate review.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 1, 1999
Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division
(Lafrenière, Prothonotary)
Action stayed pending litigation of this matter in Seoul Civil District Court with fixed costs
December 10, 1999 Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (Reed J.) |
|
Appeal granted: Order of the Prothonotary set aside |
|
|
|
June 20, 2000 Federal Court of Appeal (Décary, Sexton and Evans JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed: Prothonotary’s order restored with costs |
|
|
|
September 15, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
28245 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ‐ v. ‐ CATHERINE HUFF (Crim.) (Ont.)
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 - Driving over 80 - Evidence to the contrary - Compellability of statement - Statement given to police while detained and before afforded right to counsel - Whether roadside statements of an accused as to alcohol consumption can be considered by a trial judge in relation to a defence of evidence to the contrary - Whether decision is in conflict with R. v. Smug, [1998] O.J. No. 4357 (QL)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 23, 1998 Ontario Court (Provincial Division) (Casey J.) |
|
Conviction: Respondent found guilty of driving while impaired contrary to s.253(b) of the Criminal Code |
|
|
|
November 5, 1999 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (sitting as a summary conviction appeal court) (Wren J.) |
|
Appeal against conviction allowed; new trial ordered |
|
|
|
September 19, 2000 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Rosenberg, Moldaver and Simmons JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
November 16, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
28306 LARRY DRURY, WILLIAM HAZARD ‐ v. ‐ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Man.) (Criminal)
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
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - Right to counsel - Appointment of state-funded counsel - Whether the motions judge erred in not ordering the Crown to pay for counsel to represent the Applicants at trial - Trial procedure - Voir dire - Whether the trial judge erred in reading in evidence adduced on the voir dire
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 19, 1999 Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba (Duval J.) |
|
Motion to determine whether counsel should be appointed and legal fees provided by the Crown dismissed |
|
|
|
March 22, 1999 Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Wright J.) |
|
Conviction: Possession of proceeds of crime, unlawful possession of a restricted weapon unlawfully concealing a weapon |
|
|
|
October 5, 2000 Court of Appeal of Manitoba (Huband, Kroft and Steel JJ.A.) |
|
Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 4, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
28251 JOSEPH SHAUN FINNESSEY ‐ v. ‐ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Ont.) (Criminal)
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 - Sentencing appeal - Sentence varied by court of appeal - Appellate review of sentencing - Whether the court of appeal erred in substituting their view of an appropriate sentence for that of the trial judge in the absence of an error in principle or an unfit sentence - Whether the court of appeal erred in fettering a trial judge’s discretion on sentence by requiring a penitentiary sentence for convictions for criminal harassment.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 30, 1999 Ontario Court of Justice (McGrath J.) |
|
Applicant pled guilty and convicted of: breaking and entering and uttering threats, mischief, uttering threats, criminal harassment; failing to attend court; sentenced to 20 months in custody and 3 years of probation |
|
|
|
September 11, 2000 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Osborne A.C.J.O., Doherty and Charron JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal from sentence allowed; sentence varied to 4 years |
|
|
|
November 30, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
November 22, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada (Gonthier J.) |
|
Motion for an extension of time to serve and file application for leave to appeal granted |
|
|
|
27895 ROLSTON RICARDO MOFFATT ‐ v. ‐ THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION (FC) (Civil)
CORAM: Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ.
The application for extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Civil - Sections 7 and 15 of the Charter - Immigration law - Deportation - Danger to the public determination by the Minister - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the motion to adduce fresh evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the constitutional question challenging the constitutionality of subsection 70(5) of the Immigration Act pursuant to s. 15 of the Charter - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in dismissing the appeal, and in ordering the Applicant to pay costs.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 21, 1997 Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (Gibson J.) |
|
Applicant’s application for judicial review of the Respondent Minister’s decision that the Applicant is a danger to the public in Canada dismissed |
|
|
|
April 7, 2000 Federal Court of Appeal (Isaac, Robertson and Sexton JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed with costs |
|
|
|
October 25, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal and motion for an extension of time to file and serve the application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
28150 DOUGLAS SLOAN ‐ v. ‐ THE YORK REGION DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD, GARY MICHAEL, PERSONALLY AND AS VICE‐PRINCIPAL OF THE YORK REGION DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD, MICHAEL MAGARREY, PERSONALLY AND AS A PRINCIPAL OF THE YORK REGION DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD, HELEN FOX, PERSONALLY AND AS PRINCIPAL OF THE YORK REGION DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD, UNKNOWN OTHERS, PERSONALLY AND AS AGENTS OR OFFICERS OF THE YORK REGION DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD (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
Procedural law - Actions - Torts - Libel and slander - Did lower courts err in disposition of case.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 26, 1999 Superior Court of Justice (Lamek J.) |
|
Applicant’s action for defamation stayed |
|
|
|
July 20, 2000 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Labrosse, Weiler, Sharpe JJ.A.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Appeal dismissedSeptember 27, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
28142 HENRY McALISTER LANG ‐ v. ‐ YOLANDA NACCARATO (Ont.) (Civil)
CORAM: Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000 on a solicitor and client basis.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens fixés au montant de 5 000 $ sur une base d’avocat-client.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural law - Costs - Appeal - Assessment order reducing lawyer’s bill of costs to client - Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to reverse the order
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 25, 1998
Ontario Court (General Division)
Lane, A.O.
Assessment report requiring Applicant to return the sum of $12,582.68 to the Respondent client
December 9, 1998
Superior Court of Justice
(Noble J.)
Motion to adduce further evidence and motion opposing confirmation of report of Assessment Officer dismissed with costs
March 28, 2000
Divisional Court, Superior Court of Justice
(O'Driscoll, Millette and Marshman JJ.)
Appeal dismissed with costs
June 28, 2000
Court of Appeal for Ontario
(McMurtry C.J.O., Morden and Rosenberg JJ.A.)
Applicant’s motion for leave to appeal dismissed with costs
September 25, 2000
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
28235 EKREM PUPOVIC ‐ v. ‐ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Ont.) (Criminal)
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 - Trial - Evidence - Sentencing - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in failing to hold that the verdict of guilty on the charge of unlawful confinement was inconsistent with the Applicant’s acquittal on all the other charges - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in applying too narrow a test in determining whether a verdict is inconsistent - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in holding that the learned trial judge did not err in law in holding that an attack on the complainant’s credibility opened up the Applicant to cross-examination upon his criminal history involving crimes of violence - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in holding that the learned trial judge did not err in law in admitting in reply, evidence that was excluded as hearsay and not admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule or pursuant to the principled rule for admission - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in holding that the learned trial judge did not err in law in admitting improper reply evidence which tended to show that the Applicant was a person of bad character thus substantially prejudicing the Applicant’s right to a fair trial
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 27, 1998
Ontario Court of Justice
(Whealy J.)
Applicant convicted by jury of the charge of unlawful confinement contrary to s. 279(2) of the Criminal Code, and acquitted of charges of breaking and entering a dwelling place with intent to commit an indictable offence and attempted kidnapping contrary to ss. 349(1) and 279(1) of the Criminal Code
June 16, 1998 Ontario Court of Justice (Whealy J.) |
|
Applicant sentenced to five years imprisonment |
|
|
|
September 8, 2000 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Labrosse, Weiler and Sharpe JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal sentence granted, appeal allowed and sentence reduced to two years imprisonment and three years probation |
|
|
|
November 1, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
28083 GEORGE BABES, PAUL SLAT, CHRISTOPHER BARTLETT, DOMINGUS MOURA, LUIGI FILIPELLI AND ALLISTER MCCREADY ‐ v. ‐ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Ont.) (Criminal)
CORAM: Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ.
The application for 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 - Evidence - Informer privilege - Whether the informant who provided evidence enabling police to obtain a wiretap authorization was really an agent of the police - Whether the Crown committed an abuse of process by changing its position with respect to the informant - Whether the appropriate remedy for such an abuse of process is the disclosure of the informant’s identity
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
March 26, 1999 Ontario Court (Provincial Division) (Bassel J.) |
|
Application by Applicants for an order that the identity of a Crown informant be disclosed granted |
|
|
|
July 20, 1999 Superior Court of Justice (Humphrey J.) |
|
Appeal of Bassel J. order allowed |
|
|
|
August 10, 2000 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Morden, Austin and Goudge JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
August 21, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Notice of Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
December 7, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal and motion for the extension of time filed |
|
|
|
28211 ABTAR SINGH BAINS ‐ v. ‐ RAGBIER SINGH BHANDAR (B.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 - Civil Procedure - Appeal - Evidence - New evidence -Due diligence in discovering concealed evidence - Whether an undisclosed agreement which might inhibit a material witness from giving evidence constitutes an interference with the administration of justice which warrants the judgment being set aside and a new trial ordered - What are the tests which a court of appeal must apply where it reconsiders its own decision after judgment has been handed down but before the order has been entered - Whether a party who conceals evidence can rely on the defence of due diligence in arguing that his adversary should have discovered the concealed evidence.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 15, 1997 Supreme Court for British Columbia (Lowry J.) |
|
Applicant’s action to set aside previous judgment dismissed |
|
|
|
January 22, 1999 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (McEachern C.J.B.C., Prowse and Braidwood JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
August 16, 2000 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (McEachern C.J.B.C., Prowse and Braidwood JJ.A.) |
|
Order of January 22, 1999 set aside; appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
October 16, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
28174 IMPERIAL TOBACCO LIMITED, ROTHMANS, BENSON & HEDGES INC. ‐ v. ‐ LJUBISA SPASIC, AS ESTATE TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF MIRJANA SPASIC (Ont.) (Civil)
CORAM: Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ.
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.
Les demandes d’autorisation d’appel sont rejetées avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural Law - Civil Procedure - Motion to strike pleadings - Torts - Spoliation - Action against tobacco manufacturers for general, aggravated, exemplary and punitive damages for lung cancer caused to Respondent - Whether spoliation of evidence constitutes a cause of action - Whether it is plain and obvious that there is no cause of action in Canada for the intentional spoliation of evidence - Whether there is a conflict between British Columbia and Ontario appellate courts
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 25, 1998 Ontario Court (General Division) (Cameron J.) |
|
Order striking out clauses from the Respondent’s Statement of Claim as disclosing no cause of action |
|
|
|
July 21, 2000 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Borins, MacPherson, Sharpe JJ.A.) |
|
Respondent’s appeal allowed and order of Cameron J. varied; cross-appeals dismissed with costs to the Respondent |
|
|
|
September 29, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
September 29, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
MOTIONS |
|
REQUÊTES
|
13.3.2001
Before / Devant: BASTARACHE J.
Motion for additional time to present oral argument
The Law Society of British Columbia
v. (27108)
Jaswant Singh Mangat, et al. (B.C.)
Requête en prorogation du temps accordé pour la plaidoirie
DISMISSED / REJETÉE Motion on behalf of the respondents Mangat and Sparling, jointly, for an order extending the length of their oral arguments to a total of one hour and fifteen minutes is dismissed.
13.3.2001
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondent’s factum and book of authorities
Her Majesty the Queen
v. (27838)
Z.L. (Crim.)(B.C.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les mémoire et recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’intimé
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time to serve and file the respondent’s factum extended to January 19, 2001, nunc pro tunc. Time to serve and file the respondent’s book of authorities extended to March 2, 2001, nunc pro tunc.
13.3.2001
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondent's response
Fred Weeks
v. (28421)
Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)
Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la réponse de l'intimée
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to April 6, 2001.
13.3.2001
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondent’s factum and book of authorities and motion for permission to file the respondent’s factum without marginal numbering
Her Majesty the Queen
v. (28226)
Lloyd Alfred Pakoo (Crim.)(Man.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les mémoire et recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’intimé et requête visant à obtenir l’autorisation de déposer le mémoire de l’intimé sans numérotation dans la marge
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to March 1, 2001.
13.3.2001
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the applicant's reply
Golden Flight Travel Ltd.
v. (28341)
Jowaks Developments Limited, et al. (Ont.)
Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la réplique du requérante
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to March 9, 2001.
14.3.2001
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum and book of authorities of the interveners Friends of the Earth, West Coast Environmental Law Association and Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment
John Hollick
v. (27699)
The City of Toronto (Ont.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les mémoire et recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine des intervenants Les Ami(e)s de la terre, West Coast Environmental Law Association et Association canadienne des médecins pour l’environnement
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to March 30, 2001.
14.3.2001
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondent's response
La Procureure générale du Québec
c. (28431)
Le Syndicat du personnel de l’enseignement du Nord de la Capitale (Qué.)
Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la réponse de l'intimé
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Délai prorogé au 17 avril 2001.
14.3.2001
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Miscellaneous motion
Ralph Dick, et al.
v. (27641)
Her Majesty the Queen, et al. (F.C.)
Autre requête
GRANTED IN PART / ACCORDÉE EN PARTIE The parties are permitted to serve and file 12 copies of a joint record on or before May 8, 2001. The time to serve and file the appellants’ factums and books of authorities is extended to May 8, 2001. The time to serve and file the respondents’ factums and book of authorities is extended to August 7, 2001.
15.3.2001
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend time and motion for an order permitting the respondent to file a supplementary record
Sa Majesté la Reine
c. (27581)
Neil Peters (Crim.)(Qué.)
Requête en prorogation du délai et requête visant à obtenir une ordonnance autorisant l’intimé de déposer un dossier supplémentaire
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE La requête pour obtenir une ordonnance prorogeant le délai pour signifier et produire le mémoire et le dossier de l’appelante en réponse à l’appel incident au 19 février 2001 est accordée et la requête pour obtenir une ordonnance permettant à l’intimé de déposer un dossier supplémentaire est accordée.
15.3.2001
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 Quebec
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of New Brunswick as represented by The Minister of Finance, et al.
v. (27722)
Ian P. Mackin, et al. (N.B.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les mémoire et recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’intervenante la Procureure générale du Québec
GRANTED / ACORDÉE Délai prorogé au 15 avril 2001.
15.3.2001
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file a joint response of the landowner respondents
The Chippewas of Sarnia Band
v. (28365)
Attorney General of Canada, et al. (Ont.)
Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt d’une réponse conjointe des propriétaires fonciers intimés
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to May 30, 2001.
NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
|
AVIS D’APPEL DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
15.3.2001
Valérie Tremblay
c. (27965)
Le Syndicat des employées et employés professionnels-les et de bureau, section locale 57 SIEPB, CFC-FTQ (Qué.)
15.3.2001
Compagnie d’assurance-vie Transamerica Canada
c. (27939)
Danielle Goulet (Qué.)
APPEALS HEARD SINCE LAST ISSUE AND DISPOSITION |
|
APPELS ENTENDUS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION ET RÉSULTAT
|
16.3.2001
CORAM: Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour JJ.
Her Majesty the Queen
v. (27838)
Z.L. (B.C.)(Crim.)(As of Right)
John M. Gordon and Beverly MacLean for the appellant.
William B. Smart, Q.C. for the respondent.
DISMISSED / REJETÉ
Iacobucci J. (orally):
Mr. Smart, it will not be necessary to hear from you, the Court is ready to pronounce judgment.
This is an appeal as of right. Looking at all the circumstances of this case, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal and accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
[traduction] Le juge Iacobucci (oralement):
Il ne sera pas nécessaire de vous entendre Me Smart, la Cour est prête à rendre jugement.
Le présent pourvoi est formé de plein droit. Compte tenu de toutes les circonstances de l’affaire, nous ne voyons aucune raison de modifier l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie‐Britannique et, par conséquent, nous rejetons le pourvoi.
Nature of the case:
Criminal law - Evidence - Sexual assault -Trial - Verdict - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in law in concluding that the verdict reached by the trial judge was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.
Nature de la cause:
Droit criminel - Preuve - Agressions sexuelles- Procès - Verdict - La Cour d’appel à la majorité a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en concluant que le verdict du juge du procès était déraisonnable ou ne pouvait s’appuyer sur la preuve?
16.3.2001
CORAM: Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour JJ.
W.B.C.
v. (27822)
Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)(Crim.)(As of Right)
Sharon E. Lavine for the appellant.
Randy Schwartz for the respondent.
DISMISSED / REJETÉ
Iacobucci J. (orally):
Ms. Lavine, you have said all that could be said on behalf of your client. Mr. Schwartz, it will not be necessary to hear from you, the Court is ready to pronounce judgment.
This appeal comes to us as of right. The sole issue in the appeal is whether the proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code can be invoked to uphold the appellant’s conviction. For substantially the reasons of the majority in the Ontario Court of Appeal, we agree that the proviso properly applies and accordingly we dismiss the appeal.
[Traduction] Le Juge Iacobucci (oralement):
Maître Lavine, vous avez dit tout ce qui pouvait être dit en faveur de votre client. Maître Schwartz, il ne sera pas nécessaire de vous entendre, la Cour est prête à rendre jugement.
Le présent appel nous a été soumis de plein droit. La seule question en litige dans le présent pourvoi est de savoir si le sous-al. 686(1)b)(iii) du Code criminel peut être invoqué pour confirmer la déclaration de culpabilité de l’appelant. Essentiellement pour les motifs exposés par les juges de la majorité en Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, nous sommes d’avis que cette disposition s’applique et, en conséquence, nous rejetons l’appel.
Nature of the case:
Criminal law - Evidence - Error of trial judge in admission of out-of-court statement by earlier complainant and exclusion of the transcript of the earlier trial with respect to the circumstances surrounding the commission of the sexual assault to establish the evidence of similar facts or prior discreditable conduct - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in law in applying the curative proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) to uphold the Appellant’s conviction for sexual assault?
Nature de la cause:
Droit criminel - Preuve - Le juge du procès a commis une erreur en concluant à l’admissibilité d’une déclaration extrajudiciaire faite par une ancienne plaignante et à l’exclusion de la transcription d’un procès antérieur, relativement aux circonstances entourant la perpétration de l’infraction d’agression sexuelle, en vue d’établir une preuve de faits similaires ou de conduite déshonorante antérieure - Les juges majoritaires de la Cour d’appel ont-ils commis une erreur de droit en appliquant la disposition réparatrice du sous-alinéa 686(1)b)(iii) afin de maintenir la déclaration de culpabilité de l’appelant pour agression sexuelle?
19.3.2001
CORAM: Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie Arbour and LeBel JJ.
Ludco Enterprises Ltd., et al
v. (27320)
Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)(Civil)(By Leave)
Guy Du Pont, François Barette and Robert Raizenne for the appellants.
Pierre Cossette and Sophie-Lyne Lefebvre for the respondent.
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Taxation - Income tax - Income from a business or property - Deductions - Expenses incurred in borrowing money - Interest - Capital gains - Taxpayers borrowing to invest in shares of two foreign companies - Taxpayers paying $6M in interest - Taxpayers realizing a capital gain of $9.2M upon redemption of shares - Whether taxpayers entitled to deduct interest on the funds borrowed to finance their investment pursuant to paragraph 20(1)(c)(i) of the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63 (ITA).
Nature de la cause:
Droit fiscal - Impôt sur le revenu - Revenu tiré d'une entreprise ou d'un bien - Déductions - Frais engagés pour emprunter des fonds - Intérêt - Gains en capital - Les contribuables ont emprunté des fonds pour investir dans l'acquisition d'actions de deux sociétés étrangères - Les frais d'intérêt se sont élevés à 6 000 000 $ - Lors du rachat des actions, les contribuables ont réalisé un gain en capital de 9 200 000 $ - Les contribuables peuvent‐ils déduire les frais d'intérêt engagés pour financer leur investissement suivant le sous-alinéa 20(1)c)(i) de la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu, L.C. 1970-71-72, ch. 63 (LIR).
19.3.2001
CORAM: Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.
Her Majesty the Queen
v. (27477)
John R. Singleton (F.C.)(Civil)(By Leave)
Donald G. Gibson and Deen C. Olsen for the appellant.
John H. Saunders for the respondent.
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Taxation - Income tax ‐ Income from business or property ‐ Deductions ‐ Interest payments - Direct use of the borrowed funds - Whether all transactions that are “conterminous and interdependent” must be taken into account in determining whether borrowed money was “used for the purpose of earning income” from a business or property within the meaning of paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Act.
Nature de la cause:
Droit fiscal - Impôt sur le revenu ‐ Revenu d’une entreprise ou d’un bien ‐ Déductions ‐ Intérêts payés - Utilisation directe de la somme empruntée - Toutes les opérations qui sont «survenu[e]s l'une à la suite de l'autre» et qui sont «interdépendant[e]s» doivent-elles être prises en considération pour déterminer si l’argent emprunté a été «utilisé en vue de tirer un revenu» d'une entreprise ou d'un bien au sens de l’al. 20(1)c) de la Loi?
20.3.2001
CORAM: Chief Justice McLachlin and L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.
Thierry Van Doosselaere, et al.
v. (27905)
Holt Cargo Systems Inc., et al. (Qué)(Civil)(By Leave)
and between
Frans G.A. Deroy, et al.
v. (27290)
Holt Cargo Systems Inc. (F.C.)(Civil)(By Leave)
Mark E. Meland for the appellants Van Doosselaere, et al. (27905).
David G. Colford for the appellants Deroy, et al. (27290).
Richard L. Desgagnés and Véronique Marquis pour les intimées Holt Cargo, et al. (27905).
Thomas E. Hart and Jane O’Neill for the respondent Holt Cargo (27290).
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case (27905):
International Law - Commercial Law - Conflict of Laws - Bankruptcy - Whether the issues in this case arise primarily from a bankruptcy matter or a maritime matter - Whether Canada favours a “universal” or territorial” approach to international insolvencies and bankruptcies - Which Court in Canada had jurisdiction to receive and rule on the Request for Assistance from the Belgian Bankruptcy Court?
Nature de la cause (27905):
Droit international - droit commercial - conflit de lois - faillite - les questions en litige dans la présente affaire sont-elles d’abord liées aux lois de la faillite ou aux lois maritimes? - le Canada est-il favorable à une approche « universelle » ou « territoriale » en ce qui concerne les cas internationaux d’insolvabilité et de faillite? - quel tribunal canadien a la compétence pour accueillir une demande d’aide du tribunal de la faillite de Belgique et prononcer un jugement à ce sujet?
Nature of the case (27290):
International Law - Maritime Law - Commercial Law - Bankruptcy - Conflict of Laws - Securities - Maritime lien - Whether in international bankruptcies, the universal approach should be adopted unless there are public policy reasons to the contrary, which means that the admiralty territorial approach must give way - Whether by virtue of their differing subject matter over which each court exercises jurisdiction, the admiralty court must defer to or, at least, be seen to be cooperative with, the directions of the bankruptcy court - Whether the response of Canadian courts must be uniform.
Nature de la cause (27290):
Droit international - Droit maritime - Droit commercial - Faillite - Conflit de lois - Sûretés - Privilège maritime - Dans les faillites internationales, la démarche universelle devrait‐elle être adoptée à moins qu’il n’existe des motifs d’ordre public exigeant le contraire, ce qui signifierait que la démarche territoriale en matière d’amirauté doive céder le pas? - Compte tenu des différentes matières sur lesquelles les tribunaux exercent leur compétence, le tribunal de l’amirauté doit-il faire preuve de retenue envers les directives du tribunal de la faillite ou, à tout le moins, paraître faire preuve de collaboration à son égard? - La réponse des tribunaux canadiens doit-elle être uniforme?
21.3.2001
CORAM: Chief Justice McLachlin and L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.
The Law Society of British Columbia
v. (27108)
Jaswant Singh Mangat, et al. (B.C.)(Civil)(By Leave)
William S. Berardino, Q.C. and Elizabeth B. Lyall for the appellant.
Neena Sharma for the intervener Attorney General of British Columbia.
Michel Y. Hélie for the intervener Attorney General for Ontario.
Rodney G. Garson for the intervener Attorney General of Manitoba.
Mira J. Thow for the intervener Canadian Bar Association.
Jack Giles, Q.C. and Susan B. Horne for the respondent Jill Sparling.
Richard R. Sugden, Q.C. and Craig P. Dennis for the respondent J.S. Mangat.
Urszula Kaczmarczyk, Kevin Lunney and Brenda Carbonell for the intervener Attorney General of Canada.
Malcolm N. Roby for the intervener Association of Immigration Counsel of Canada.
Jack Giles, Q.C. and Susan B. Horne for the intervener Organization of Professional Immigration Consultants Inc.
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Constitutional law - Paramountcy of federal statutes - Barristers and Solicitors - Unauthorized practice of law - Statutes - Interpretation - Whether s 26 of the Legal Profession Act, S.B.C. 1987 c.25 is constitutionally inoperative or inapplicable to persons acting under ss. 30 and 69 of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 and its associated Rules and Regulations and, if so, are the latter provisions ultra vires Parliament - Whether there is a operational conflict between the two statutory provisions.
Nature de la cause:
Droit constitutionnel - Primauté des lois fédérales - Avocats et procureurs - Pratique illégale du droit - Lois - Interprétation - L’article 26 de la Legal Profession Act, S.B.C. 1987 ch. 25, est-il inopérant du point de vue constitutionnel ou inapplicable aux personnes agissant en vertu des art. 30 et 69 de la Loi sur l’immigration, L.R.C. (1985), ch. I-2, et ses textes d’application? - Dans l’affirmative, ces dispositions excèdent-elles la compétence du Parlement? - Y a-t-il un conflit d’application entre les deux dispositions législatives?
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 : April 17, 2001
Service : March 27, 2001 Filing : March 30, 2001 Respondent : April 9, 2001 |
|
Audience du : 17 avril 2001
Signification : 27 mars 2001 Dépôt : 30 mars 2001 Intimé : 9 avril 2001 |
Motion day : May 14, 2001
Service : April 23, 2001 Filing : April 27, 2001 Respondent : May 4, 2001
Motion day : June 11, 2001
Service : May 18, 2001 Filing : May 25, 2001 Respondent : June 1, 2001 |
|
Audience du : 14 mai 2001
Signification : 23 avril 2001 Dépôt : 27 avril 2001 Intimé : 4 mai 2001
Audience du : 11 juin 2001
Signification : 18 mai 2001 Dépôt : 25 mai 2001 Intimé : 1 juin 2001 |
DEADLINES: APPEALS
|
|
DÉLAIS: APPELS |
The Spring Session of the Supreme Court of Canada will commence April 17, 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 du printemps de la Cour suprême du Canada commencera le 17 avril 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 [2000] 2 S.C.R. Part 4
Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 764, 2000 SCC 57
Musqueam Indian Band v. Glass, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 633, 2000 SCC 52
R. v. Avetysan, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 745, 2000 SCC 56
R. v. Beauchamp, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 720, 2000 SCC 54
R. v. Charlebois, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 674, 2000 SCC 53
R. v. Knoblauch, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 780, 2000 SCC 58
R. v. Russell, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 731, 2000 SCC 55 |
|
Jugements publiés dans [2000] 2 R.C.S. Partie 4
Bande indienne de Musqueam c. Glass, [2000] 2 R.C.S. 633, 2000 CSC 52
Harper c. Canada (Procureur général), [2000] 2 R.C.S. 764, 2000 CSC 57
R. c. Avetysan, [2000] 2 R.C.S. 745, 2000 CSC 56
R. c. Beauchamp, [2000] 2 R.C.S. 720, 2000 CSC 54
R. c. Charlebois, [2000] 2 R.C.S. 674, 2000 CSC 53
R. c. Knoblauch, [2000] 2 R.C.S. 780, 2000 CSC 58
R. c. Russell, [2000] 2 R.C.S. 731, 2000 CSC 55
|
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE
CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME
2000
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 |
1 |
M 2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
8 |
H 9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
|
5 |
M 6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
|
3 |
M 4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
|
12 |
H 13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
|
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
|
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
|
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
26 |
27
|
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
24 |
H 25 |
H 26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
- 2001 -
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 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
|
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
14 |
M 15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
|
11 |
M 12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
|
11 |
M 12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
|
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
|
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
|
|
|
|
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
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 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
R 4 |
R 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
H 13 |
14 |
|
R 6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
|
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
15 |
H 16 |
M 17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
|
13 |
M 14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
|
10 |
M 11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
|
20 |
H 21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
|
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sittings of the court: Séances de la cour: |
|
18 sitting weeks / semaines séances de la cour 78 sitting days / journées séances de la cour 9 motion and conference days / journées requêtes, conférences 3 holidays during sitting days / jours fériés durant les sessions
|
Motions: Requêtes: |
M |
|
Holidays: Jours fériés: |
H |