Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

March 16, 2001  482 - 528                                                                  le 16 mars 2001

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

The Corporation of the City of Mississauga

Thomas G. Heintzman

McCarthy Tétrault

v. (28363)

Greater Toronto Airports Authority et al. (Ont.)

Brian Morgan

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt

FILING DATE 2.1.2001

Constance Clara Fogal et al.

Rocco Galati

Galati, Rodrigues, Azevedo & Associates

v. (28351)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada et al.

(F.C.)

David Sgayias, Q.C.

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 4.1.2001

Michel Blondin

Franco Iezzoni

Pateras & Iezzoni

c. (28366)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)

Jean-Marie Tanguay

Procureur général du Québec

DATE DE PRODUCTION 8.1.2001

Warren James Jarvis

Alan D. Macleod, Q.C.

Macleod Dixon LLP

v. (28378)

Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

Donna R. Valgardson

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 12.1.2001

Linda Vosko

Pierre Fournier

Fournier, Perron, g.p.

v. (28437)

Anne-France Goldwater (Que.)

Michael H. Kay

Kugler Kandestin, g.p.

FILING DATE 22.1.2001

Servier Canada Inc. et al.

William W. McNamara

Ogilvy Renault

v. (28380)

Sheila Wilson (Ont.)

Joel P. Rochon

Rochon, Genova

FILING DATE 22.1.2001

Antoine C. Zarzour

Antoine C. Zarzour

c. (28438)

Sa Majesté la Reine

Rosemarie Millar

Procureur général du Canada

DATE DE PRODUCTION 26.1.2001

La procureure générale du Québec

Serge Brodeur

Procureur général du Québec

c. (28432)

Future Electronique Inc. et al. (Qué.)

Guy Du Pont

Goodman Phillips & Vineberg

DATE DE PRODUCTION 31.1.2001

J.R.L.

Lawrence Greenspon

Karam, Greenspon

v. (28381)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Renee Pomerance

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 5.2.2001

S.L.

S.L.

c. (28435)

S.D.  (Qué.)

Céline Otis

DATE DE PRODUCTION 8.2.2001

Moneta Porcupine Mines Ltd.

Darryl A. Cruz

McCarthy Tétrault

v. (28429)

Charles Gryba

Barry D. Prentice

Blaney McMurtry LLP

FILING DATE 16.2.2001

La procureure générale du Québec

Monique Rousseau

Procureure générale du Québec

c. (28431)

Le Syndicat du personnel de l’enseignement du Nord de la Capitale (Qué.)

Michel Boyer

Lapierre, St-Denis & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION 16.2.2001

Angelina Codina

Alan D. Gold

Gold & Fuerst

v. (28434)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Eric H. Siebenmorgen

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 19.2.2001

RJR Macdonald Inc.

W. Jack Millar

Millar Wyslobicky Kreklewetz LLP

v.  (28440)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

F.B. Woyiwada

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 19.2.2001

Gunnar Kjelstrup Madsen et al.

Timothy W. Clarke

Bull, Housser & Tupper

v. (28439)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

Anne-Marie Lévesque

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 20.2.2001

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse

Maurice Drapeau

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse

c. (28436)

Bernard Genest et al.  (Qué.)

Jean-Robert Laporte

Roy, Laporte & Sylvestre

DATE DE PRODUCTION 1.3.2001

EDBE Consulting Limited

Larry S. Heald

v. (28441)

Union Gas Limited et al. (Alta.)

FILING DATE 2.3.2001

MARCH 12, 2001 / LE 12 MARS 2001

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Bastarache

Gillian Guess

v. (28303)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Offences - Procedural law - Charge to the jury - Whether the trial judge erred in his charge to the jury with respect to the actus reus and mens rea of the offence of attempting to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice - Whether the trial judge erred in his charge to the jury with respect to reasonable doubt - Whether the trial judge erred in ordering the accused excluded from proceedings relating to her trial -  Whether the Applicant’s rights under sections 11(d)  and 7  of the Charter  were infringed.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Manuel Montecatine

c. (28330)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Preuve - Crédibilité - Est-ce que le jugement de culpabilité sur le chef de voie de fait est déraisonnable pour cause d’incompatibilité vu l’acquittement sur le chef de harcèlement pour doute raisonnable?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 1 novembre 1999

Cour du Québec

(Parent j.c.q.)

Demandeur acquitté sur chef de harcèlement et déclaré coupable sur chef de voie de fait, contrairement à l’article 266b)  du Code criminel 

Tawich Development Corporation

v. (28033)

Deputy Minister of Revenue of Quebec (Que.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Native law - Taxation - Interpretation - Section 985 of the Taxation Act, R.S.Q., c. I-3 - Whether the Cree Nation of Wemindji is a “Canadian municipality” under s. 985 of the Taxation Act - Whether the Applicant is exempt from capital tax under ss. 985 and 1143 of the Taxation Act?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Corrpro Canada Inc.

v. (28202)

Edmonton Centre West Ltd., Oxford Properties Canada Limited, Truscan Property Corporation, ECW Leaseholds Ltd., The Edmonton Centre Limited and Oxford Development Group Inc. (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Limitation of actions - Torts - Negligence - Injury to property - Defendant applying to dismiss action on basis that it was barred by s. 51(f) of the Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. L-15 - Whether allegation that negligent design of cathode protection system failed to prevent further corrosion of reinforced concrete slabs constitutes an allegation of “injury to real property” directly or indirectly arising from an extrinsic act.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

No. 1 Collision Repair & Painting (1982) Ltd.

v. (28184)

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, Robert Brownlee, Gordon Parsons, Derek Vettese, Stacey Bernier, Richard Fister and Neil Weatherston (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Intentional Torts - Commercial Law - Contracts - History of conflict between Crown corporation with provincial monopoly to insure automobile owners and repair shop that bills its customers at rates exceeding those approved by Crown corporation - Crown corporation engages in deliberate course of conduct that includes illegally withholding payments due to repair shop - Conduct results in significant hardship and losses to repair shop and sale of business - Whether insurer acted lawfully in using statutory powers and monopoly position to intentionally inflict economic injury - Whether judgments below achieved an otherwise unavailable limitation on insurer’s liability - Whether error to conclude that the insurer’s obligations are limited - Whether error not to find unreasonable and unlawful restraint of trade.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Hoechst Celanese Corporation

v. (28154)

Jean‐Michel Furlan, Donald Atkinson, Russell D. Reid, Mark Zwanski, Grev Grey

and Kirsten Williams

AND BETWEEN:

E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, Shell Oil Company and

Hoechst Celanese Corporation

v.

Jean‐Michel Furlan, Donald Atkinson, Russell D. Reid, Mark Zwanski, Grev Grey

and Kirsten Williams

AND BETWEEN:

Shell Oil Company

v.

Jean‐Michel Furlan, Donald Atkinson, Russell D. Reid, Mark Swanski, Grev Grey

and Kristen Williams (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Civil Procedure ‐ Courts ‐ Jurisdiction ‐ Pre‐trial procedure ‐ Service ex juris -  Appropriate criteria for assessing when a trial court may assume jurisdiction under “real and substantial connection” test ‐ Whether principles of order and fairness require a plaintiff to adduce evidence of a good arguable case against a foreign defendant who challenges the jurisdiction of the court - Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Arbour et LeBel

Robert MacKenzie

v. (28369)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Burden of Proof - Applicant convicted of attempting to obstruct justice - Whether trial judge created reverse onus - Whether trial judge required accused to contradict central allegation in order to raise reasonable doubt.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Nataly Perron

c. (28121)

Le Ministre du revenu national (C.F.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure  -  Contrôle judiciaire  -  Prescription  -  Interprétation  -  Législation et textes réglementaires  -   Assurance-emploi  -  La demanderesse a-t-elle été induite en erreur par les employés du Ministère du revenu national, de sorte qu’elle ait manqué le délai de prescription pour faire appel d’une décision du ministre quant l’assurabilité de son emploi ?  -   Y a-t-il une ambiguïté entre les Règles  de la Cour canadienne de l’impôt et la Loi   sur l’assurance-emploi  ?  -   Loi sur l’assurance-emploi , L.C. (1996) ch. 23, par. 103(1)   -  Règles de la Cour canadienne de l’impôt (Assurance-emploi), DORS/90-690 et modif., par. 26.1(1).

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Clarence Paradis

c. (27900)

Les honorable juges; Paul‐Arthur Gendreau, Morris J. Fish, René Letarte (ad hoc), La Commission des lésions professionnelles et Kraft Canada Inc. (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail – Accident de travail – Date de la consolidation de la lésion professionnelle – Révision judiciaire d’une décision de la Commission d’appel en matière de lésions professionnelles – Disposition privative – Loi sur les accidents de travail et les maladies professionnelles, L.R.Q., c. A-3.001, art. 429.59 – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en rejetant l’appel du demandeur?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Wilfried Koch

c. (28077)

Hydro-Québec

ET ENTRE :

Wilfried Koch

c.

Hydro-Québec, Corporation du village de Rawdon et Le Club juridique

ET ENTRE :

Wilfried Koch

c.

Hydro-Québec et l’Officier du Bureau de la publicité des

droits de la circonscription foncière de Montcalm (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit des biens  -  Bail  -  Privilège et droit de premier refus sur un terrain  -  Recours en jugement déclaratoire  -  Recours en injonctions mandatoire et permanente  -   Res judicata  -  Non-conformité aux normes prescrites pour la publication de droits fonciers  -  Intérêt du public à ce qu’un terrain ne soit pas loué à un particulier  -  Y a-t-il lieu de déclarer à nouveau le privilège de location et le droit de premier acheteur consentis au demandeur par l’entente du 21 mai 1974 ? - Doit-on forcer l’inscription de ces droits au registre foncier ? -  Doit-on forcer Hydro-Québec à louer son terrain au demandeur ?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

158514 Canada Inc. (Place du Saguenay) and Burnac Leaseholds, A Division of Burnac Corporation

v. (28082)

Stéphane Lachance & Associés Inc., in its quality as trusty in the bankruptcy of Groupe Boutique Chérie Inc., Sam Lévy & Associés Inc., in its quality as trustee to bankrupcy of Arthur Blumer and David Blumer (Que.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial Law - Bankruptcy - Procedural Law - Appeal - Delay for appeal - Whether the delay set forth in section 183(2)  of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act  and in section 31(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency General Rules is peremptory? - Whether article 523 of the Code of Civil Procedure has any application with respect to the delay to appeal from a judgment rendered in a bankruptcy matter? - What are the applicable principles and procedures for obtaining leave to appeal beyond the delays?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Lyndon and Fran Blacklaws, John Michael and Heather A. Smith on behalf of themselves and all other members of a class having claims against 470433 Alberta Ltd. carrying on business as Ghostpine Lake Golf and Country Resort

v. (28126)

Sam Morrow (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence - Pure economic loss - Respondent sole owner and director of company owning company that contracted with Applicants for timeshare resort - Whether Respondent personally owed a duty of care to the Time Share Owners - Whether previously recognized categories of economics loss not applicable - Whether recovery for pure economic loss should be extended - Whether policy considerations might negate the scope of the duty owed, the class of persons to whom it was owed, or the damages to which a breach of the duty may give rise.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:   Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Major et Binnie

Abdul Momen Shahnawaz

v. (28265)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law - Sentencing - Narcotics - Applicant convicted of four counts of trafficking in heroin - Applicant having suffered years of torture and political imprisonment in Afghanistan - Trial judge ordering conditional sentence in light of Applicant’s psychological condition - Whether a trial judge may depart from the customary range of sentence imposed for a particular offence in order to avoid a sentence that would significantly impair the psychological integrity of the individual and result in cruel and unusual punishment

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Dr. Ranjit Perera

v. (28114)

The Attorney General of Canada (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Statutes - Interpretation - Applicant screened out of job competition - Provision allows unsuccessful candidates to appeal appointments but appeal right can be barred in certain circumstances - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred  in their conclusion that the Appeal Board, established pursuant to section 21 of the Public Service Employment Act,  had no jurisdiction to determine if section 27 of the Public Service Employment Regulations infringed section 15  of the Charter ? Public Service Employment Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. P-33, s. 21 ; Public Service Employment Regulations, Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 127, No. 12, p. 2653, s. 27.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

October 4, 1996                                                             

Appeal Board

(Mooney, John A.)                                             

Board has authority to determine constitutional question.

Bernard C. Tanner

v. (28183)

J.D. Bruce McDonald, Bennett Jones, The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, Dr. Patrick F. Conway, Dr. Paul Reynolds, Dr. Roland F. Lynch, Calgary Regional Health Authority, Metro‐Calgary and Rural General Hospital District No. 93 (also know as Calgary Regional District Group) and Holy Cross Hospital (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Appeals - Fresh evidence - Test for admission of fresh evidence after order for summary judgment - Limitation of actions - Fraudulent concealment - Effect of fraudulent concealment on application of limitation period

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Wayne E. Strong

v. (28170)

Neil M. Kisbee, Estate Trustee for the Estate of Micheline M. Paquet

AND BETWEEN:

Wayne E. Strong

v.

General Motors of Canada Limited (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Damages -  Sexual assault - Wrongful dismissal - Defamation - Procedural law - Limitation of actions - Employee dismissed because of alleged sexual assault - Trial judge dismissing employee’s actions for defamation and wrongful dismissal - Trial judge also dismissing counterclaim for damages for sexual assault - Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding trial judge’s dismissal of claim for wrongful dismissal - Whether Court of Appeal erred in allowing cross-appeal and awarding damages for sexual assault.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Corrine Godin

v. (28019)

Premier Salon International Inc., Magic Cuts Hair Salon Inc. and Gaétanne Thériault (N.B.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence - Evidence - Plaintiff falling after rising to leave her chair at a hairdressing salon - Whether trial judge erred in assessing discovery evidence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION / DEMANDES DE RÉEXAMEN

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Major

1.             William Fook Wah Lim v. Hong Kee Lim (B.C.)(27635)

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache et LeBel

1.             A.H. c. Institut Philippe Pinel, et al. (Qué.)(27854)

CORAM:   Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Binnie et Arbour

1.             Arlette Jumelle c. Robert Maxwell Soloway (Man.)(27701)

MARCH 15, 2001 / LE 15 MARS 2001

28062                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE ‐ v. ‐ FIRST VANCOUVER FINANCE (Sask.) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Creditor and debtor - Statutes - Interpretation - Taxation - Whether deemed statutory trust under the Income Tax Act  attaches property of an employer coming into existence after the employer fails to remit payroll deductions to Revenue Canada - Whether the interests of  the Minister of National Revenue have priority over those of a factor in respect of accounts receivable - Whether the Goods and Services Tax component of accounts receivable purchased in a factoring transaction belong to the Minister of National Revenue.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28165                    DUBREUIL BROTHERS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, A DIVISION OF IWA CANADA, LOCAL 2693 ‐ v. ‐ LONDON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, DUBREUIL FOREST PRODUCTS LIMITED, MICHAEL BENDEL (Ont.) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to London Life Insurance Company.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de la compagnie d’assurance London Life.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Arbitration - Jurisdiction - Collective agreement - Long term disability benefits - Whether the Ontario Court of Appeal erred in its analysis of the exclusive jurisdiction model of arbitral jurisdiction - Whether the Ontario Court of Appeal erred in concluding that a grievance arbitrator does not have jurisdiction to add a third party insurer as a party defendant - Whether the analysis of the Ontario Court of Appeal in its decision in the present matter is at variance with analyses in other of its recent decisions?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28081                    MICHAEL MONAGHAN ‐ v. ‐ WILLIAM CHESHER, LISA CHESHER (Ont.) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to William Chesher and Lisa Chesher.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de William Chesher et Lisa Chesher.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes - Interpretation - Torts - Damages - Was the statutory presumption in favour of periodic payments under s. 116 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 43 outweighed by the Plaintiff’s plan to use the damages awarded for his future care to pay current debts and add home improvements - Did the Court of Appeal err in refusing the Defendants’ request for a structured settlement where the Plaintiff had requested and was awarded an income tax gross-up and where the intended use of a lump sum award would attract little or no income tax liability - Did the Court of Appeal err in permitting the Motion for a structure to become a forum for re-opening the assessment of damages at trial - Did the Court of Appeal err in deciding that because the proposed structure would cost less to the Defendant than payment of a lump sum that this would not be in the Plaintiff’s best interest - Did the Court of Appeal err in considering the absence of a guarantee period as a reason for defeating the statutory presumption in favour of a structure - Did the Court of Appeal err in determining that the Court could not adjust the proposed structure in a manner that would meet the Plaintiff’s best interests?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27989                    LE PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL DU CANADA, EN SA QUALITÉ DE REPRÉSENTANT DE SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE DU CHEF DU CANADA, L'ADMINISTRATEUR FÉDÉRAL NOMMÉ EN VERTU DU CHAPITRE 22 DE LA CONVENTION DE LA BAIE JAMES ET DU NORD QUÉBÉCOIS ET CHRISTINE STEWART, EN SA QUALITÉ DE MINISTRE DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT DU CANADA, JANE STEWART, EN SA QUALITÉ DE MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES INDIENNES ET DU NORD CANADIEN ET JOHN MANLEY, EN SA QUALITÉ DE MINISTRE DE L'OFFICE FÉDÉRAL DE DÉVELOPPEMENT RÉGIONAL ‐ QUÉBEC, DAVID M. COLLENETTE, EN SA QUALITÉ DE MINISTRE DES TRANSPORTS ‐ c. ‐ MARIO LORD, CHEF JOHN KITCHEN, CHEF GEORGE WAPACHEE, CHEF DR. BILLY DIAMOND, ANCIEN CHEF WILLIAM MIANSCUM, CHEF KENNY LOON, CHEF ABEL BOSUM, GRAND CHEF MATTHEW COON COME, VIOLET PACHANOS, LA NATION CRIE DE WASWANIPI (BANDE), LA PREMIÈRE NATION DE WASKAGANISH (BANDE), LA PREMIÈRE NATION DE NEMASKA (BANDE), LA NATION CRIE DE MISTISSINI, LA NATION CRIE D'OUJÉ‐BOUGOUMOU, LE GRAND CONSEIL DES CRIS (EEYOU ISTCHEE) (GRAND CONSEIL DES CRIS (DU QUÉBEC)), ADMINISTRATION RÉGIONALE CRIE, CREE TRAPPERS' ASSOCIATION, EDWARD GILPIN, LE PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL DU QUÉBEC, L'ADMINISTRATEUR PROVINCIAL NOMMÉ EN VERTU DU CHAPITRE 22 DE LA CONVENTION DE LA BAIE JAMES ET DU NORD QUÉBÉCOIS, L'HONORABLE PAUL BÉGIN, L'HONORABLE GUY CHEVRETTE (MAINTENANT L'HONORABLE JACQUES BRASSARD) EN SA QUALITÉ DE MINISTRE DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES, LA SOCIÉTÉ DE DÉVELOPPEMENT DE LA BAIE JAMES, REXFOR, DOMTAR INC., PRODUITS FORESTIERS DONOHUE INC.(LAQUELLE INCLUT LA COMPAGNIE ANCIENNEMENT CONNUE COMME PRODUITS FORESTIERS SAUCIER INC.) ET BISSON ET BISSON INC., BARRETTE‐CHAPAIS LTÉE ET FOURNITURES MINIÈRES SIMARD INC., TEMBEC INC., NORMICK‐PERRON INC., LES INDUSTRIES NORBORD INC., PRODUITS FORESTIERS ALLIANCE INC.,OPTIBOIS INC.(ANCIENNEMENT CONNUE COMME 2541‐3998 QUÉBEC INC. (PRÉCIBOIS)) ET COMPAGNIE INTERNATIONALE DE PAPIER DU CANADA, LES CHANTIERS DE CHIBOUGAMAU LTÉE, ABITIBI‐CONSOLIDATED INC. (ANCIENNEMENT CONNUE COMME COMPAGNIE STONE‐CONSOLIDATED ET COMME ABITIBI‐PRICE ET COMME CONSOLIDATED BATHURST), MATÉRIAUX BLANCHET INC., SCIERIE AMOS INC., SCIERIE GALLICHAN INC., SCIERIE LANDRIENNE INC., SCIERIE SENCO LTÉE, FILIFOR INC., IPB INTERNATIONAL INC., PANNEAUX CHAMBORD INC., LE GROUPE FOREX INC. ET FOREX INC., BOIS KMS (GMI) LTÉE, KRUGER INC., HOWARD ‐ BIENVENUE INC.  (Qué.) (Civile)

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

La demande d’audition orale et la demande d’autorisation d’appel sont rejetées avec dépens à Mario Lord, Chef John Kitchen, Chef George Wapachee, Chef Dr. Billy Diamond, Ancien Chef William Mianscum, Chef Kenny Loon, Chef Abel Bosum, Grand Chef Matthew Coon Come, Violet Pachanos, La nation crie de Waswanipi (bande), La Première Nation de Waskaganish (bande), La Première Nation de Nemaska (bande), La Nation crie de Mistissini, La Nation crie d'Oujé‐Bougoumou, Le Grand conseil des Cris (Eeyou Istchee) (Grand conseil des Cris (du Québec)), Administration régionale crie, Cree Trappers' Association et Edward Gilpin.

The application for an oral hearing and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs to Mario Lord, Chief John Kitchen, Chief George Wapachee, Chief Dr. Billy Diamond, Former Chief William Mianscum, Chief Kenny Loon, Chief Abel Bosum, Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come, Violet Pachanos, The Cree Nation of Waswanipi (Band), The Waskaganis First Nation (Band), The Nemaska First Nation  (Band), The Cree Nation of Mistissini (Band), The Oujé‐Bougoumou Cree Nation, The Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) (Grand Council of the Crees of Quebec), The Cree Regional Authority, Cree Trappers' Association and Edward Gilpin.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit constitutionnel – Droit des Autochtones – Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 , art. 96  et 101  – Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 , art. 35  – Loi sur la Cour fédérale, art. 17 et 18 – Compétence de la Cour supérieure – Compétence de la Cour fédérale – Immunité de la Couronne dans une action en dommages-intérêts soulevant des questions constitutionnelles – Lorsqu’elle a compétence sur un litige, la Cour supérieure peut-être émettre des ordonnances de nature mandatoire, comme l’injonction et le mandamus, contre la Couronne fédérale? – La violation des droits garanties à l’art. 35  de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982  est-elle une question d’ordre constitutionnel?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

28060                    MARIO LORD, CHIEF JOHN KITCHEN, CHIEF GEORGE WAPACHEE, CHIEF DR. BILLY DIAMOND, FORMER CHIEF WILLIAM MIANSCUM, CHIEF KENNY LOON, CHIEF ABEL BOSUM, GRAND CHIEF MATTHEW COON COME, VIOLET PACHANOS, THE CREE NATION OF WASWANIPI, THE NEMASKA FIRST NATION, THE WASKAGANISH FIRST NATION (BAND), THE CREE NATION OF MISTISSINI (BAND), THE OUJÉ‐BOUGOUMOU CREE NATION, THE GRAND COUNCIL OF THE CREES (EEYOU ISTCHEE) (GRAND COUNCIL OF THE CREES (OF QUEBEC), THE CREE REGIONAL AUTHORITY, CREE TRAPPERS' ASSOCIATION, EDWARD GILPIN, ALLAN SAGANASH SR., CHRISTINE JOLLY SAGANASH AND CHIEF GEORGE WAPACHEE ‐ v. ‐ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUÉBEC, THE PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATOR UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE JAMES BAY AND NORTHERN QUEBEC AGREEMENT AND THE HONOURABLE PAUL BÉGIN, MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT, THE HONOURABLE GUY CHEVRETTE (NOW THE HONOURABLE JACQUES BRASSARD, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES), THE ATTORNEY‐GENERAL OF CANADA, THE FEDERAL ADMINISTRATOR UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE JAMES BAY AND NORTHERN QUÉBEC AGREEMENT, THE HONOURABLE CHRISTINE STEWART, THE HONOURABLE JANE STEWART, THE HONOURABLE JOHN MANLEY AND THE HONOURABLE DAVID M. COLLENETTE, JAMES BAY DEVELOPEMENT CORPORATION, REXFOR, DOMTAR INC., PRODUITS FORESTIERS DONOHUE INC., BISSON ET BISSON INC., BARRETTE‐CHAPAIS LTD. AND FOURNITURES MINIÈRES SIMARD INC., TEMBEC INC., NORMICK‐PERRON INC., LES INDUSTRIES NORBORD INC., PRODUITS FORESTIERS ALLIANCE INC.,  COMPAGNIE INTERNATIONALE DE PAPIER DU CANADA, SCIERIE LANDRIENNE INC., FILIFOR INC. AND MATÉRIAUX BLANCHET INC., OBTIBOIS INC. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS 2541‐3998 QUÉBEC INC. (PRÉCIBOIS), LES CHANTIERS DE CHIBOUGAMAU LTÉE, SCIERIE AMOS INC., SCIERIE GALLICHAN INC. AND SCIERIE SENCO LTD., IPB INTERNATIONAL INC., PANNEAUX CHAMBORD INC., LE GROUPE FOREX INC. AND FOREX INC., ABITIBI‐CONSOLIDATED INC. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STONE‐CONSOLIDATED CORPORATION AND AS ABITIBI‐PRICE AND AS CONSOLIDATED BATHURST), KRUGER INC. (Que.) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the Attorney General of Quebec.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de la procureure générale du Québec.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural Law – Recusation– Code of Civil Procedure, ss. 29, 238 and 511 – Courts – Reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the trial judge – Distinction between grounds for recusation and grounds for appeal – Did the Quebec Court of Appeal err in dismissing the Applicants’ applications for leave to appeal the decision to forcibly remove the trial judge from the case?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28074                    MARIO LORD, CHIEF JOHN KITCHEN, CHIEF GEORGE WAPACHEE, CHIEF DR. BILLY DIAMOND, FORMER CHIEF WILLIAM MIANSCUM, CHIEF KENNY LOON, CHIEF ABEL BOSUM, GRAND CHIEF MATTHEW COON COME, VIOLET PACHANOS, THE CREE NATION OF WASWANIPI, THE NEMASKA FIRST NATION, THE WASKAGANISH FIRST NATION (BAND), THE CREE NATION OF MISTISSINI, THE OUJÉ‐BOUGOUMOU CREE NATION, THE GRAND COUNCIL OF THE CREES (EEYOU ISTCHEE) (GRAND COUNCIL OF THE CREES (OF QUÉBEC), THE CREE REGIONAL AUTHORITY, CREE TRAPPERS' ASSOCIATION, EDWARD GILPIN ‐ v. ‐ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUÉBEC, THE PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATOR UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE JAMES BAY AND NORTHERN QUEBEC AGREEMENT AND THE HONOURABLE PAUL BÉGIN, THE HONOURABLE GUY CHEVRETTE (NOW THE HONOURABLE JACQUES BRASSARD, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES), JAMES BAY DEVELOPEMENT CORPORATION, REXFOR, DOMTAR INC., PRODUITS FORESTIERS DONOHUE INC., BISSON ET BISSON INC., BARRETTE‐CHAPAIS LTD. AND FOURNITURES MINIÈRES SIMARD INC., TEMBEC INC., NORMICK‐PERRON INC., LES INDUSTRIES NORBORD INC., PRODUITS FORESTIERS ALLIANCE INC., OPTIBOIS INC. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS 2541‐3998 QUÉBEC INC. (PRÉCIBOIS), COMPAGNIE INTERNATIONALE DE PAPIER DU CANADA, SCIERIE LANDRIENNE INC., FILIFOR INC., MATÉRIAUX BLANCHET INC., LES CHANTIERS DE CHIBOUGAMAU LTD., ABITIBI‐CONSOLIDATED INC. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STONE‐CONSOLIDATED CORPORATION AND AS ABITIBI‐PRICE AND AS CONSOLIDATED BATHURST), SCIERIE AMOS INC., SCIERIE GALLICHAN INC. AND SCIERIE SENCO LTD., IPB INTERNATIONAL INC., PANNEAUX CHAMBORD INC., LE GROUPE FOREX INC. AND FOREX INC., BOIS KMS (GMI) LTD., KRUGER INC., HOWARD ‐ BIENVENUE INC. (Que.) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the Attorney General of Quebec, the Provincial Administrator Under Section 22 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Honourable Paul Bégin, the Honourable Guy Chevrette (now the Honourable Jacques Brassard, in his capacity as Minister of Natural Resources), Domtar Inc., Produits Forestiers Donohue Inc., Bisson et Bisson Inc.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens à la procureure générale du Québec, l’Administrateur provincial nommé en vertu du chapitre 22 de la Convention de la Baie James et du Nord Québecois et l’honorable Paul Bégin, l’honorable Guy Chevrette (maintenant l’honorable Jacques Brassard, ès qualités de ministre des Ressources naturelles), Domtar Inc., Produits Forestiers Donohue Inc., Bisson et Bisson Inc.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional Law – Aboriginal Rights – Constitution Act, 1982 , s. 35  – Environment Quality Act, R.S.Q., c. Q-2, s. 144 –James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement – Motion for Safeguard – Interlocutory Injunction – Did the Trial Judge decide ultra petita in declaring that s. 144 of the Environment Quality Act was inoperative because it infringes on Aboriginal rights guaranteed by s. 35  Constitution Act, 1982 ? – Did the Trial Judge err in making such declaration, in light of the fact that he reserved his decision on the motion for safeguard?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27887                    GERALD MICHAEL VAUGHAN ‐ v. ‐ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE PENETANGUISHENE MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE ‐ and between ‐ GERALD MICHAEL VAUGHAN ‐ v. ‐ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE PENETANGUISHENE MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE ‐ and between ‐ GERALD MICHAEL VAUGHAN ‐ v. ‐ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE PENETANGUISHENE MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE ‐ and between ‐ GERALD MICHAEL VAUGHAN ‐ v. ‐ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE PENETANGUISHENE MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE, ONTARIO REVIEW BOARD (Ont.) (Criminal)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ.

The applications for an extension of time are granted and the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

Les demandes de prorogation de délai sont accordées et les demandes d’autorisation d’appel sont rejetées.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Procedural law - Mental disorder - Whether the court of appeal erred in holding that there was no merit to the procedural issues raised by the Applicant - Whether the court of appeal erred in dismissing the appeal without determining the issues raised in the Applicant’s factum - Whether the court of appeal demonstrated bias toward the Applicant - Whether the Applicant had the right to waive his hearing under the mental disorder provisions of the Criminal Code 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

May 15, 1997

Ontario Review Board

Order that the Applicant’s detention continue

May 5, 1998

Ontario Review Board

Order that the Applicant’s detention continue

May 5, 1999

Ontario Review Board

Order that the Applicant’s detention continue

October 26, 1999

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Doherty, Rosenberg and Feldman JJ.A.)

Applicant’s appeals from the May 15, 1997,  May 5, 1998 and May 5, 1999 review board orders dismissed

March 22, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

Notice of Application for leave to appeal filed

November 8, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal (file no. 27887) and motion for the extension of time filed

December 20, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

Applications for leave to appeal (file nos. 27887) and motions for the extension of time filed

28285                    SULLVIE POOLE ‐ v. ‐ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (B.C.) (Criminal)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ.

The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal - Criminal Law - Detention - Sentencing - Dangerous offender provisions - Indeterminate imprisonment - Whether trial judge erred in sentencing applicant to indeterminate imprisonment under dangerous offender provisions - Whether finding of sentencing judge that applicant is a dangerous offender involves an error of law, fact, or mixed law and fact - Whether  sentencing judge placed too much emphasis or complete reliance upon past behaviour and criminal record and ignored current circumstances or fettered his discretion by accepting conclusions of a report and evidence without assessing the merits of the conclusions - Whether trial judge misinterpreted dangerous offender provisions - Standard required by a proper interpretation of s. 753(1) for not declaring an offender to be a dangerous offender - Whether assessment provisions set out in s. 752.1(1)  of the Criminal Code  consistent with Charter  - Whether assessment provisions compel applicant to provide evidence against himself, to provide information in circumstances that amount to unreasonable search and seizure, are unconstitutionally vague or infringe ss. 7 , 8  or 11  of the Charter  - Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 752 , 753  and 759 .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28097                    GREYHOUND CANADA TRANSPORTATION CORP. ‐ v. ‐ MARIUSZ BRZOZOWSKI AND KAZIMIERZ KOWASLKI, THE WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD (B.C.) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Workers’ compensation - Whether the injuries suffered by the Respondents arose out of, and in the course of, their employment - Did the Court of Appeal of British Columbia err in holding that it could not review the reasoning of a Workers’ Compensation Board’s decision - Is the appellate decision inconsistent with Kovach v. Workers’ Compensation Board, [2000] 1 SCR 55.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28133                    METRO‐CAN CONSTRUCTION LTD. ‐ v. ‐ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (FC) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment -  Income tax - Partnerships - Debtor’s gain on settlement of debts - Income Tax Act  providing that amount of forgiven debt must be applied against taxpayer's non‐capital losses, farm losses, net capital losses and restricted farm losses, in that order - Whether amount of debt forgiveness to be applied at partnership level or at partner level - Income Tax Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp .), s. 80(1).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28134                    FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ‐ v. ‐ GINGER M. BERG, A MINOR, BY HER LITIGATION GUARDIAN, ELEANOR S. BERG (Ont.) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Civil procedure - Courts - Jurisdiction - Pre-trial procedure - Appropriate forum - Minnesota resident bringing action against Minnesota insurer in Ontario claiming entitlement to statutory accident benefits - Motions judge staying action but Court of Appeal reversing decision - Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that Ontario was appropriate forum - Whether Court of Appeal failed to apply proper test for determining appropriate forum as outlined in Amchem Products Inc. v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 897 - Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that motions judge should have considered wording and effect of Power of Attorney and Undertaking signed by Minnesota insurer when determining whether Ontario was proper forum.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28148                    VICTOR EUGENE CAINE ‐ v. ‐ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (B.C.) (Criminal)

CORAM:               L'Heureux‐Dubé, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Section 7 - Narcotic Control Act, s. 3(1) - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its formulation and appreciation of the significance of the test laid down in R. v. Butler [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452 in the context of cannabis (marihuana) prohibition - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its “balancing of the interests” under s. 7  of the Charter  based on the findings of the trial judge - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to apply the limit to the “harm principle” that an act should not count as a crime unless it causes harm that is serious both in nature and degree - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the onus of proof under s. 7  of the Charter  remained on the Applicant throughout the proceedings in which the Applicant asserted a breach of his rights under s. 7  of the Charter  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider whether or not the conduct in question, the personal decision to choose to possess and consume cannabis sativa by taking it into one’s body, was a “decision of fundamental personal importance” thereby informing and delineating the ambit and scope of the liberty interest threatened with penal consequences in the circumstances - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to identify and apply the additional principles of fundamental justice applicable to the circumstances of the case, namely the principle of restraint as a corollary to the harm principle, the principle precluding irrationality and arbitrariness in the legislative scheme, and the principle of overbreadth within the statutory regime, as additional or alternative bases upon which to ground violation of s. 7  of the Charter  in the circumstances.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

April 20, 1998

Provincial Court of British Columbia

(Howard J.)

Application for a declaration that s. 3(1) of the Narcotic Control Act prohibiting the possession of marihuana for personal use is contrary to s. 7 of the Charter denied

November 12, 1998

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Thackray J.)

Appeal dismissed

June 2, 2000

Court of Appeal of British Columbia

(Rowles, Prowse [dissenting], Braidwood JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

October 6, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

(LeBel J.)               

Motion for an extension of time to October 31, 2000 granted

October 30, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

28026                    DAVID MALMO‐LEVINE ‐ v. ‐ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (B.C.) (Criminal)

CORAM:               L'Heureux‐Dubé, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Section 7 - Narcotic Control Act, s. 4 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in characterizing the harms that may come with cannabis use as inherent, instead of a product of mis-cultivation, mis-distribution and mis-use - Did the Court of Appeal fail to address the issue of whether the harm principle applies to growers and dealers of cannabis who arguably play an essential role in cannabis harm reduction? - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not considering the principle of equality found in s. 15  of the Charter  as it applies to “substance orientation” and in not applying equality to every producer and distributor of stimulants and relaxants, whether bean, grape, herb or otherwise - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial result would not have been different if certain evidence had been admitted.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28189                    CHRISTOPHER JAMES CLAY ‐ v. ‐ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Ont.) (Criminal)

CORAM:               L'Heureux‐Dubé, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Narcotics - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that so long as there was a reasonable apprehension of harm, an activity that is done in privacy and which involves no one but the actor may be the subject of a criminal prohibition and still be in accordance with the Charter  s. 7  “principles of fundamental justice” - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the criminalization of the private consumption (and cultivation necessarily incidental to that private consumption) is not ultra vires Parliament - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Narcotic Control Act should be interpreted to allow for the criminal prohibition of possessing and cultivating plants (or other substances) which have no psychoactive effects and are used exclusively as an industrial product.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28287                    NOVOPHARM LTD. ‐ v. ‐ THE WELLCOME FOUNDATION LIMITED, GLAXO WELLCOME INC., APOTEX INC., INTERPHARM INC. AND ALLEN BARRY SHECHTMAN ‐ and between ‐ APOTEX INC. ‐ v. ‐ THE WELLCOME FOUNDATION LIMITED, GLAXO WELLCOME INC., NOVOPHARM LTD. (FC) (Civil)

CORAM:               L'Heureux‐Dubé, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

The applications for leave to appeal are granted with costs to the applicant Novopharm Ltd. in any event of the cause.

Les demandes d’autorisation d’appel sont accordées avec dépens en faveur de la demanderesse Novopharm Ltd. quelle que soit l’issue du pourvoi.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Statutes - Interpretation - Patents -  Validity - Definition of and requirements for  invention and inventorship - Joint inventorship -  Insufficiency of disclosure - Method of medical treatment - Date of invention and whether Federal Court of Appeal decision created artificial date of invention.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28027                    LE GROUPE FOREX INC. ET LOUISIANA‐PACIFIC CANADA LTD. ‐ c. ‐ LE PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL DU QUÉBEC (Qué.) (Civile)

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 commercial - Contrats - Contrats d’approvisionnement et d’aménagement forestier (CAAF) émis par le ministre aux Forêts en conformité de la Loi sur les forêts à la demanderesse - Mode d’attribution applicable - Exigibilité du paiement de droits d’un bénéficiaire de CAAF alors que celui-ci n’a pas pu effectuer aucune récolte de bois suite à la décision du ministère de ne pas émettre un permis d’intervention bien que toutes les conditions relatives à son obtention aient été remplies.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

27851                    SCOTTISH & YORK INSURANCE CO. LTD. ‐ v. ‐ PEARL SOMERSALL, GWENDOLYN SOMERSALL AND JANICE SOMERSALL (Ont.) (Civil)

CORAM:               L'Heureux‐Dubé, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted with costs to the applicant in any event of the cause.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée avec dépens en faveur de la demanderesse quelle que soit l’issue du pourvoi.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Insurance - Automobile insurance - Statutory provision relating to underinsured coverage restricted to situations where “claimant is legally entitled to recover” - Agreement with tortfeasor to sue only to extent of insurance coverage - Whether claimant legally entitled to recover under underinsured provisions of own policy.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28191                    LUCIEN E. BERNIER ‐ c. ‐ COMMISSION DE LA SANTÉ, DE LA SÉCURITÉ ET DE L'INDEMNISATION DES ACCIDENTS AU TRAVAIL DU NOUVEAU‐BRUNSWICK  (N.‐B.) (Civile)

CORAM:               Les juges L'Heureux‐Dubé, Arbour et LeBel.

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

The motion for extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif  -  Contrôle judiciaire  -  Droit du travail  -  Accidents du travail  -  Indemnisation  -  Procédure  -  Prorogation de délai  -   La Cour d’appel du Nouveau-Brunswick a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en refusant d’ordonner que le Comité d’appel de la Commission de la santé, de la sécurité et de l’indemnisation des accidents au travail du Nouveau-Brunswick ré-étudie la réclamation du demandeur suite au rapport médical du docteur Martin ?  -  Loi sur la Cour suprême , L.R.C. 1985, c. S-26, art. 40  et 43 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

28116                    RON ARCHIBALD, EDWIN CAWKWELL, WILLIAM COOPER, RICK DOBRANSKI, DARREL ENGER, TIM HARVIE, MIKE JACKSON, CONRAD JOHNSON, GORDON KELLER, WAYNE A. KRIZ, DOUG MILLER, ART MCELROY, BRIAN OLSEN, PAUL S. ORSAK, BRIAN OTTO, JAMES M. PALLISTER, KELLY S. PATRICK, DOUGLAS ROBERTSON, GREG ROCKAFELLOW, BUCK SPENCER, WAYNE TUCK, THE ALBERTA BARLEY COMMISSION AND THE WESTERN BARLEY GROWERS ASSOCIATION ‐ v. ‐ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA AND THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD (FC) (Civil)

CORAM:               L'Heureux‐Dubé, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de l’intimée Sa Majesté la Reine du chef du Canada.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Civil - Monopoly granted to Canadian Wheat Board to market barley and wheat grown in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and parts of British Columbia - Whether monopoly violates ss. 2(d) , 6  or 15  of the Charter  - If so, whether violations justified within the meaning of s. 1  of the Charter  - Whether challenge to the Canadian Wheat Board Act dismissed for reasons involving erroneous interpretations and applications of ss. 2(d), 6 or 15 - Whether freedom of association protects association for the purpose of pursuing activities that would be lawful but for the impugned legislation - Whether freedom of association is restricted to association for the purpose of activity protected by the Charter  - Whether s. 6 of the Charter  applies to federal laws that apply only to portions of a province - Whether differential treatment of farmers in a designated area constitutes discrimination on an analogous ground contrary to s. 15(1)  of the Charter  - Canadian Wheat Board Act, R.S.C. 1985, C-24.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28194                    MIGUEL FIGUEROA ‐ v. ‐ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (Ont.) (Civil)

CORAM:               L'Heureux‐Dubé, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Civil - Elections - Statutory requirement that a political party nominate at least fifty candidates in a federal election before its contributors can receive tax benefits - Whether requirement contravenes Charter  principles of fairness or Charter  right to voter parity- Whether providing tax credits only to contributors to major parties who have fifty or more candidates is discrimination contrary to the Charter  - Whether provision of tax credits only to supporters of some political parties infringes right to freedom of association -  Canada Elections Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E‐2, as amended S.C. 1993, c. 19, ss. 24, 81, 84, 100.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27985                    LAURA BANNON ‐ v. ‐ THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF THUNDER BAY (Ont.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted with costs to the applicant in any event of the cause.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée avec dépens en faveur de la demanderesse quelle que soit l’issue du pourvoi.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes - Interpretation - Procedural law - Limitation of actions - Appeal - Torts - Negligence - Municipal law - Highways - Whether the Court of Appeal substituted its own findings for the findings of fact of the trial judge.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28223                    DAVID SCOTT HALL ‐ v. ‐ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Ont.) (Criminal)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal - Criminal Law - Pre-Trial Procedure - Judicial Interim Release - Detention of an accused in custody pending trial for just cause where necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice - Whether provision allowing detention consistent with s. 11(e)  of Charter  - Whether provision unconstitutionally vague or over broad - Whether Court of Appeal erred in determining constitutionality without regard to wording of provision - Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46,  s. 515(10) (c).  

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28091                    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA ON BEHALF OF HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS MINISTER OF JUSTICE, THE TREASURY BOARD OF CANADA AND THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE ‐ v. ‐ PATRICIA BABCOCK, LINDA BELL, VICTORIA BRYAN, LYNN BURCH, KARL BURDAK, GEORGE CARRUTHERS, GORDON CARSCADDEN, MARGARET E.T. CLARE, TIMOTHY W. CLARKE, MOYRA DHALIWAL, MARY JANE DODGE, JONAS DUBAS, S. DAVID FRANKEL, GREG D. FRANKLIN, VALERIE HARTNEY, BRUCE HILCHEY, JOHN KENNEDY, DIGBY KIER, DANIEL L. KISELBACH, INGEBORG E. LLOYD, JOSEPHINE LONCARIC, JOHN LOO, WILLIAM MAH, IAN MCKINNON, ROBERT MOEN, NACY OSTER, MICHAEL OWENS, BRENT PARIS, DARLENE PATRICK, PAUL PELLETIER, DAVID PREST, BRIAN BURDY, CHRISTOPHER RANDALL, BRIAN SEDGWICK, KAREN SHIRLEY, PAMELA LINDSAY SMITH, TIM STOKES, CORY STOLTE, JOSEE TREMBLAY, KAREN A. TRUSCOTT, MAX WEDER, HARRY WRUCK AND WEDNY YOSHIDA ‐ and between ‐ ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA ON BEHALF OF HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS MINISTER OF JUSTICE, THE TREASURY BOARD OF CANADA AND THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE ‐ v. ‐ ROSEMARY LUTTER AND EMILY REID (B.C.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Evidence - Production and disclosure of documents - Privilege - Public interest immunity - Cabinet Confidentiality - Canada Evidence Act , s. 39  -   Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that public interest immunity under s. 39  of the Canada Evidence Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5  can be waived and that a waiver can be effected by someone other than the Clerk of Privy Council or a minister of the Crown - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that waiver of public interest immunity for one Cabinet confidence results in the waiver of the immunity for all Cabinet confidences listed in a certificate under s. 39  of the Canada Evidence Act .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27006                    PACIFIC NATIONAL INVESTMENTS LTD. v. THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF VICTORIA (B.C.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

The application for a rehearing is dismissed with costs.

La demande de réaudition est rejetée avec dépens.

5.3.2001

Before / Devant:  THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend time

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (27788)

Jacques Cinous (Crim.)(Que.)

Requête en prorogation du délai

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    L’intimé doit signifier et produire son mémoire, son dossier et son receuil de jurisprudence au plus tard le 21 mars 2001.  Les intervenants doivent signifier et produire leur mémoire au plus tard le 11 avril 2001.

6.3.2001

Before / Devant:  BASTARACHE J.

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

City of Calgary and Calgary Civic Employees Benefit Society, et al.

v. (28266)

Donald R. Saggers, et al. (Alta.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la demande d'autorisation

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to December 11, 2000.

6.3.2001

Before / Devant:  BASTARACHE J.

Motion by the applicant for a stay of execution

J.R.L.

v. (28381)

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

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

6.3.2001

Before / Devant:  THE REGISTRAR

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

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

v. (27801)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les mémoire et recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine des appelants

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time to serve the appellants’ factum extended to February 15, 2001, nunc pro tunc.

Time to serve and file the appellants’ book of authorities extended to February 19, 2001, nunc pro tunc.

7.3.2001

Before / Devant:  IACOBUCCI J.

Motion for extension of time and leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Canadian Judges Conference/

Conférence canadienne des juges

IN/DANS:              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 visant à obtenir une prorogation de délai et l’autorisation d'intervenir

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the Canadian Judges Conference / Conférence canadienne des juges for an extension of time and for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion for an extension of time and for leave to intervene of the applicant Canadian Judges Conference / Conférence canadienne des juges is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a  factum not to exceed 20 pages in length to be served and filed on or before April 9, 2001.

The request to present oral argument is deferred to a date following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the interveners.

The intervener shall not be entitled to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties.

Pursuant to Rule 18(6) the intervener shall pay to the appellant and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondents by the intervention.

7.3.2001

Before / Devant:  BASTARACHE J.

Motion by the applicants for a stay of execution

Bombardier Inc., et al.

v. (28414)

Public Service Alliance of Canada, et al. (F.C.)

Requête de la part des requérants en vue de surseoir à l'exécution

REFERRED to the panel seized of the application for leave to appeal / DÉFÉRÉE à la formation saisie de la demande d’autorisation d’appel.

8.3.2001

Before / Devant:  THE REGISTRAR

Motion for permission to file the appellant’s record without marginal numbering

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia

v. (27721)

Leanne Rumley, et al. (B.C.)

Requête visant à obtenir l’autorisation de déposer le dossier de l’appelante sans numérotation dans la marge

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

8.3.2001

Before / Devant:  THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the response of the respondent Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario

Rocco Galati

v. (28345)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, et al. (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la réponse de l'intimée Sa Majesté la Reine en chef de l’Ontario

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to February 27, 2001.

8.3.2001

Before / Devant:  BASTARACHE J.

Motion by the applicant to expedite the application for leave to appeal

Petre Carabat by his Litigation Guardian Virginia Carabat, et al.

v. (28260)