Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

January 12, 20011 - 61                                                                       le 12 janvier 2001

NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS

In response to the comments received from our Survey, we are currently redesigning the Bulletin of Proceedings to enhance its usefulness.

The Cumulative Indices of Appeals and Applications for Leave to Appeal will no longer be included in the Bulletin of Proceedings.  The Indices will continue to appear in the last Part of each unbound volume as well as at the beginning of each bound volume of the Canada Supreme Court Reports.  The Index of Appeals is entitled “Table of Judgments” and the Index of Applications for Leave to Appeal is entitled “Motions”.

This information is also available electronically on the Court’s website at www.scc-csc.gc.ca.  Click on “Information on Cases” and then on “SCC Case Information” to retrieve information on specific cases.  Alternatively, you can find case information in commercial databases.

AVIS AUX ABONNÉS

À la suite des commentaires reçus dans le cadre de notre sondage, nous procédons actuellement au remaniement du Bulletin des procédures pour qu’il soit mieux adapté aux besoins.

Les index cumulatifs des pourvois et des requêtes en autorisation de pourvoi ne figureront plus dans le Bulletin des procédures, mais ils se trouvent toujours dans le dernier fascicule de chaque volume ainsi qu’au début de chaque volume relié du Recueil des arrêts de la Cour suprême du Canada.  L’index des pourvois s’intitule «Table des jugements» et l’index des requêtes en autorisation de pourvoi, «Requêtes».

Ces renseignements figurent aussi sur le site Web de la Cour (www.scc-csc.gc.ca).  Il suffit de cliquer sur «Renseignements sur les dossiers de la Cour», puis sur «Renseignements sur les dossiers» pour obtenir des renseignements sur un dossier particulier.  Vous pouvez également consulter certaines bases de données commerciales.

CONTENTS                                                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Sullvie Poole

Russell W. Cornett

v. (28285)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Beverly A. MacLean

A.G. of B.C.

FILING DATE 29.11.2000

George Babes et al.

Paul Slansky

v. (28083)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

D.D. Graham Reynolds, Q.C.

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 7.12.2000

Novopharm Ltd.

Carol Hitchman

Warren Sprigings

Hitchman & Sprigings

v. (28287)

The Wellcome Foundation Limited et al. (F.C.)

Patrick Kierans

Peter J. Stanford

Ogilvy, Renault

FILING DATE 22.12.2000

and between

Apotex Inc.

H.B. Radomski

Goodman Phillips & Vineberg

v. (28287)

The Wellcome Foundation Limited et al. (F.C.)

Patrick Kierans

Peter J. Stanford

Ogilvy, Renault

FILING DATE 22.12.2000

Pushpa Thawani et al.

Govind Thawani

v. (28289)

Shell Canada Products Limited (Man.)

B. Patrick Metcalf

D’Arcy and Deacon

FILING DATE 10.11.2000

David Speirs and Louis J.C. Mix

Norman K. Machida

Machida Mack Shewchuk

v. (28294)

Sorrel 1985 Limited Partnership et al. (Alta.)

Peter S. Jull

Stephen Lee

Ballem MacInnes

FILING DATE 27.11.2000

and between

David Speirs and Louis J.C. Mix

Robert J. Hall

Scott Hall

v. (28294)

Sorrel 1985 Limited Partnership et al. (Alta.)

Peter S. Jull

Stephen Lee

Ballem MacInnes

FILING DATE 27.11.2000

Greenforco Holding Corporation

Ronald G. Chapman

v. (28297)

Yonge-Merton Developments Limited (Ont.)

Sandra L. McNeely

FILING DATE 1.12.2000

De la Capitale Dodge Chrysler (Québec) Ltée

Michael Cain, c.r.

Pierre Caouette

Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells

c. (28298)

Jean-Yves Ratté et al.  (Qué.)

Myriam Bédard

Poirier Crevier Ambrosio

DATE DE PRODUCTION  5.12.2000

Ernest Caron

Ernest Caron

v. (28290)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

Louis Sébastien

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 11.12.2000

Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.

Dougald E. Brown

Nelligan Power LLP

v. (28295)

Attorney General of Canada (F.C.)

Geoffrey Lester

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 15.12.2000

DECEMBER 28, 2000 / LE 28 DÉCEMBRE 2000

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Major

Wilson Fuel Co. Limited

v. (28180)

Her Majesty the Queen

AND BETWEEN:

Allan Daniel MacAskill

v.

Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(N.S.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural Law - Courts - Jurisdiction of Provincial court of Nova Scotia  to try offences alleged to have occurred outside of the province of Nova Scotia.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Marc Teahan

v. (27999)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law -Sexual assault - Defence of Consent - Complainant made four separate statements to the police and medical staff - Defence counsel cross-examined complainant on three statements - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in finding that the trial judge was permitted to infer that the prior statements were consistent, because there had been no cross-examination on certain prior statements - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in finding that the trial judge had not relied upon the prior consistencies in the complainant’s statements to bolster the complainant’s credibility

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache et LeBel

Ramdat Narain

v. (28212)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Burden/Onus of proof - Whether the court of appeal erred by concluding that the trial judge’s application of the test for rebutting evidence of recent possession of stolen goods did not reverse the onus of proof - Whether the court of appeal erred by effectively applying the curative proviso of s. 686(1)(iii) of the Criminal Code  to the trial judge’s error with respect to recent possession - Whether this Court has not set out the precise limits of the doctrine of recent possession and its effect on the normal criminal burden of proof.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Presteve Foods Limited and Sylvia Pankhurst

v. (28119)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Limits on a non-accused third party’s right to apply for a writ of certiorari to challenge the lawfulness of a search warrant executed on their property - Whether sufficient basis for concluding that there would be evidence found at the place to be searched; namely, the residence of an innocent third party - Does Bisson v. Attorney General for Canada, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1097 stand for proposition that material non-disclosure cannot in and of itself justify an order quashing a search warrant.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:   Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Binnie et Arbour

Abitibi‐Consolidated Inc. (Grand Falls Division)

v. (28050)

Communications, Energy and Paperworks Union of Canada, Local 63 (Nfld.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Collective Agreement - Lockout - Interpretation of the word lockout in a collective agreement - Standard of review - Whether the board’s interpretation should be afforded curial deference where it purports to encompass matters outside the constitutional competence of that authority enacting the legislative definition - How is an arbitration board to select from equally compelling, but opposite, inferences from the evidence -  Whether a negative or any inference as to subjective intent to lockout can be drawn by the board.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

JANUARY 3, 2001 / LE 3 JANVIER 2001

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Major

Construction Aggregates Ltd.

v. (28042)

City of Coquitlam (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional law - Division of powers - Municipal law - Legislation - By-laws - Validity - Whether the power granted to the provinces under section 92A(4)  of the Constitution Act, 1867  can be delegated to municipal corporations - Whether such delegation can be without restrictions - Whether legislation permitting the collection of a fee authorizes the imposition of a tax - Whether the Respondent’s by-law is a valid indirect tax, in that it is necessarily incidental to a valid scheme of regulation - Whether a fee which is, at its introduction, intra vires may become ultra vires in its eventual application - Allard Contractors Ltd. v. Coquitlam (District), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 371.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Sound Contracting Ltd.

v. (28073)

City of Nanaimo (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Contracts - Construction law - Tendering Process - Whether the court of appeal erred in upholding the award of the tender to the second lowest bidder - Whether the court of appeal erred in its consideration of M.J.B. Enterprises Ltd. v. Defence Construction (1951) Ltd., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 619 - Whether the duty to treat all bidders with good faith was met, or alternatively was this award unconscionable or otherwise contrary to public policy.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Clayton Charles Ruby

v. (28029)

The Solicitor General (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Civil - Procedural law - Courts - Access to information - Application for personal information from government agencies - Federal Court determining disputes as to whether information should be disclosed - Provision providing for agency’s filing information ex parte with court and that hearing be in camera - Whether s. 51 of the Privacy Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. P-21  violates s. 7  of the Charter  - If so, whether violation justified under s. 1 - Whether s. 2(b) Charter  infringement caused by s. 51  of the Privacy   Act , found by both courts below,  justified under s. 1 .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache et LeBel

White, Ottenheimer and Baker

v. (28144)

Attorney General of Canada (Crim.)(Nfld.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms   - Criminal law - Search and seizure - Solicitor and client privilege - Section 488.1  of Criminal Code  providing procedure for securing privilege in documents seized from law office - Documents seized from law office - Constitutionality of s. 488.1 - Whether constitutional validity of section 488.1  of the Criminal Code  can be upheld by severing offending portions and reading in replacement words.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Attorney General of Nova Scotia

v. (28179)

Susan Walsh and Wayne Bona (N.S.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional law - Charter of Rights  - Equality rights - Marital status - Family law - Unmarried cohabitants - Division of property - Whether Court of Appeal erred in the interpretation and application of s. 15(1)  of the Charter  by declaring s. 2(g) of the Matrimonial Property Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 275, of no force and effect, and thereby extending married property rights to unmarried cohabitants

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:   Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Binnie et Arbour

La Commission scolaire English‐Montréal, Bruno Ugolini et Adèle Marone

c. (28196)

La procureure générale du Québec et Le Ministre de l'Éducation (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Sursis d’exécution d’une loi - Commissions scolaires -  La Cour d’appel du Québec a erré en substituant sa propre discrétion à celle du tribunal de première instance, en contravention avec les principes applicables à la suspension de dispositions législatives - La Cour d’appel du Québec s’est fondée sur une interprétation erronée des garanties accordées par l’article 23  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  et elle a fait défaut de reconnaître le sérieux de la question soulevée par les demandeurs - La Cour d’appel du Québec a donné à l’article 6 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q. c. C-12 une interprétation qui la prive de son sens et qui permet au législateur de procéder à une expropriation arbitraire en contravention avec les garanties fondamentales du droit québécois en matière d’expropriation - La Cour d’appel du Québec a fait défaut de reconnaître le préjudice sérieux et irréparable subi par les demandeurs en raison de l’application de la Loi et le fait que ce préjudice est plus important que la situation de la mise en cause la Commission scolaire de Montréal - La Cour d’appel du Québec a illégalement admis en preuve des documents n’ayant aucune valeur probante, d’une façon qui portait atteinte au droit des demandeurs d’être adéquatement entendus par la Cour.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Cornelius Neil Ryan

v. (27884)

T. Eaton Co. Ltd. (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial Law- Contracts- Damages - Damages resulting from breach of contracts- Whether damages alleged to have been caused by the licence arrangements can be held against the Respondent company for not acting within its legal rights in terminating the licence agreements -  Whether the Court of Appeal and the claim officer erred in determining that the present issues of a  contractual nature are not of public importance or significance and that damages should not be granted.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Laura Bannon

v. (27985)

The Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay (Ont.)

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

JANUARY 8, 2001 / LE 8 JANVIER 2001

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Bastarache

Warren Anthony George

v. (28031)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Defence - Applicant ramming police officers with a car during a protest - Whether there was admissible evidence to support the finding that an occupation of park lands was unlawful - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to direct itself as to the relevant legal principles relating to aboriginal title and the right to occupation and use of the park lands - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to address the far more fundamental basis for the right, in a free society, to resist unlawful police action, namely, the common law right to defend liberty - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in making primary findings of fact as to whether the aboriginal occupation was “peaceable” and whether the Applicant used no more than “reasonable force”.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

David Duncan

v. (28043)

Confederation Trust Company, OCCO Developments Ltd., OCCO Investments Ltd.

and Victor O'Connell (N.B.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Mortgages - In the event of a default on a mortgage what are the obligations on a mortgagee and the mortgagor’s remedy in case of breach - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to accept the factual finding of the trial court - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the process by which the mortgagee obtained the right to acquire the security was fully compliant with the Property Act - Whether the mortgagee exercised its rights under the Pledge Agreement honestly, fairly and in good faith - Whether the Court of Appeal decision is contrary to its earlier decision in Banque Nationale du Canada v. Desrosiers (1996) 167 N.B.R. (2d) 241 (C.A.).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

146726 Canada Inc.

v. (27941)

City of Montreal and Céline Topp (Que.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Municipal law - Respondent City revoking Applicant’s permit to operate bar without hearing - Was there a breach of the duty to act fairly and if so, what are the consequences? - If the first issue does not decide the appeal, was the judge right in holding that the business could not appear above the ground floor?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Monopro Limited

c. (27953)

Montreal Trust (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Code civil – Code civil du Bas-Canada, art. 2261 et 2267 – Prescription extinctive – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en omettant de tenir compte de l’obligation du créancier de minimiser ses dommages aux fins de déterminer le point de départ du délai de prescription extinctive? – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en ne tenant pas compte du fait que le dommage subi par la demanderesse était successif (et non progressif)?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Arbour et LeBel

Denis Pouliot

c. (28168)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit criminel - Plaidoyer de culpabilité - Est-ce qu’une offre conjointe conditionnelle aux plaidoyers de culpabilité de tout les coaccusés place le demandeur dans une situation psychologique intenable de façon à  forcer le demandeur à enregistrer un plaidoyer de culpabilité contre son gré? - Est-ce qu’une offre conjointe conditionnelle aux plaidoyers de culpabilité de tout les coaccusés menant un accusé à renoncer à son droit à un procès, contrevient à l’article 11(d)  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Paramount Towing Ltd.

v. (28055)

Woodridge Lincoln Mercury Sales Ltd., in the name and on behalf of Dover Towing (1995) Ltd. (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Contracts - Parol evidence rule - What is the impact of an “entire agreement clause”? - Did the Court of Appeal of Alberta fundamentally misdirect itself in failing to apply an exception to the parole evidence rule? - Did Court of Appeal of Alberta fundamentally misdirect itself in failing to consider the equitable defence of estoppel?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Gazette, une division de Southam Inc.

c. (27961)

Conseil du référendum, L'Honorable Louis‐Charles Fournier, j.c.q., L'Honorable Rémi Bouchard, j.c.q., L'Honorable Paul Mailloux, j.c.q. et Pierre‐F. Côté, c.r. (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif  -  Contrôle judiciaire  - Législation  - Textes réglementaires  -  Interprétation des articles 488 et 570 de la Version spéciale de la Loi électorale pour la tenue d’un référendum  -  Quelles sont les limites au droit du public à l’information relative à une démarche référendaire ?  - Est-ce qu’un bulletin de vote est un «document» au sens de la Version spéciale ?  -  L’article 570 de la Version spéciale interdit-il tout accès du public aux bulletins de vote dépouillés après un référendum ?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

C.T.

c. (28281)

L.G. (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit de la famille - Pension alimentaire - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré quant à: la pension alimentaire pour le fils du demandeur; l’augmentation des revenus du demandeur; la pension alimentaire pour l’intimée; et le partage du patrimoine familial.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

CORAM:   Gonthier, Major and Binnie JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Major et Binnie

The Vancouver Sun

v. (28190)

Her Majesty The Queen

and

O.N.E.

and

The Attorney General of Canada (Crim.)(B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Publication ban - Trial judge prohibiting publication of information regarding undercover police operation - Whether trial judge erred in failing to apply the test set out in CBC v. Dagenais when he upheld the publication ban - Whether trial judge erred in failing to appreciate the superordinate importance of the public interest - Access to judgments of the courts.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Chief and Council of the Shubenacadie Indian Band

v. (28078)

Attorney General of Canada, representing the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Canadian Human Rights Commission (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Civil - Constitutional law - Division of powers - Constitutional jurisdiction - Indians - Human Rights legislation - Discrimination - Whether the Canadian Human Rights Act  applies, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal have constitutional jurisdiction, in respect of the administration of social assistance by an Indian band to and in respect of non-Indians residing on an Indian reserve - Whether s. 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6  exempts the band council’s decision in this case - Whether ss. 25 and 15 of the Charter provide a constitutional exemption.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Chief Ronnie Jules, in his personal capacity and as representative of the Adams Lake Band, Chief Stuart Lee, in his personal capacity and as representative of the Spallumcheen Indian Band and Chief Arthur Manuel, in his personal capacity and as representative of the Neskonlith Indian Band, David Anthony Nordquist, in his personal capacity and as representative of the Adams Lake Indian Band, The Spallumcheen Indian Band,  Neskonlith Indian Band and all other persons engaged in the cutting, damaging or destroying of Crown Timber at timber sale licence A38029, Block 2

v. (28071)

Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Minister of Forests

AND BETWEEN:

Chief Dan Wilson in his personal capacity and as representative of the Okanagan Indian Band and all other persons engaged in the cutting, damaging or destroying of Crown Timber at timber sale licence A57614

v.

Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Minister of Forests (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional law - Native law - Procedural law - Aboriginal title - Interlocutory injunction -  Native people logging on Crown land without permits - Interlocutory injunction granted enjoining activities of native loggers pending trial of issue - Whether the B.C. Court of Appeal erred in the tests and principles it applied to granting a statute-based injunction in circumstances where the constitutionality of those statutory provisions are impugned based on s.35  of the Constitution Act, 1982  - Whether the B.C. Court of Appeal erred in the tests and principles it applied to granting an equitable injunction to enjoin the exercise of asserted s.35 rights - Whether these are issues of public importance which ought to be decided by this Court.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

JANUARY 11, 2001 / LE 11 JANVIER 2001

28120                    JESUS ANGEL ALVAREZ ‐ v. ‐ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (B.C.) (Criminal)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Reasonableness of verdict - Motion to adduce fresh evidence - Whether the lower courts misapprehended the evidence - Did the Court of Appeal of err in law in not granting leave to appeal and denying the Applicant the entitlement of reasonable doubt - Did the Court of Appeal  err in law in finding that the Applicant did not meet the criteria of due  diligence in presenting evidence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

April 9, 1998

Provincial Court of British Columbia

(Bagnall P.C.J.)

Applicant convicted of dangerous driving and assault contrary to ss. 249(1) (a) and 266  of the Criminal Code 

July 16, 1999

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Macauley J.)

Appeal against conviction dismissed; application to adduce fresh evidence dismissed

27929                    NEDELJKO STOJANOVIC ‐ v. ‐ THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION (FC) (Civil)

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

The motion for extension of time and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed.

La demande de prorogation de délai et la demande d’autorisation d’appel sont rejetées.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Courts - Judgments and orders - Jurisdiction - Application for leave to commence judicial review - Decision of court not conveyed to Applicant until after the time in which the Applicant could apply for reconsideration - Federal Court of Appeal refused to accept notice of appeal based on the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 28, s. 82.2 - Whether s. 82.2 precludes review of the refusal of leave to commence judicial review in these circumstances - Whether an appeal period can run and be lost in these circumstances - Whether the term “pronouncement” in s. 27(2)(b) of the Federal Court Act imports an element of publication or declaration - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in refusing to accept the Applicant’s notice of appeal - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal has residual jurisdiction to review a perverse decision of a trial judge despite s. 82.2 - Whether there is evidence upon which the Federal Court of Appeal should have properly allowed the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal to be filed.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

November 17, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

Motion to extend time filed

28006                    MIHRALI CELIK CARRYING ON BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF OXFORD BUILDING MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING ‐ v. ‐ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO, DYER, BROWN LAW FIRM, ROBERT F. FLAKE AND WILLIAM G. WOODWARD (Ont.) (Civil)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents Dyer, Brown Law Firm, Robert F. Flake and William G. Woodward.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimés le cabinet d’avocats Dyer, Brown, Robert F. Flake et William G. Woodward.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Procedural law - Civil procedure - Jurisdiction - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial judge’s application of the principles of res judicata to dismiss the action  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by overtly denying the Applicant procedural due process, whereby the Court allotted fifteen minutes to the unrepresented Applicant to argue two appeals resulting in an appeal hearing in form and not in substance, which is an unlawful procedure, contrary to section 11(d)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by overturning the Ontario Consumer Protection Act, which is designed to protect people that are in the similar situation as the Appellant, also to combat the predatory practice of the major business entity - Whether the Court of Appeal erred, by demonstrating judicial and institutional bias against the Applicant by way of condoning fraud perpetrated against the Applicant, therefore the Court is in excess of its jurisdiction.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28010                    MIHRALI CELIK, CARRYING ON BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF OXFORD BUILDING MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING ‐ v. ‐ THE ST. PAUL INSURANCE COMPANIES FORMERLY KNOWN AS UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY (FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA) (Ont.) (Civil)

CORAM:               L'Heureux‐Dubé, Bastarache 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

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Commercial law - Contracts - Guaranty - Suretyship -Whether the Court of Appeal erred, by denying the Applicant his constitutional rights, in accordance with section 7 -11(d)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision of the trial judge, dismissing a valid claim for breach of contract, for subrogation - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by overturning the Ontario Consumer Protection Act, in dismissing the Applicant’s claim - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by concurring with the decision of the trial judge respecting issue estoppel or res judicata, without any objective evidence to support such a theory - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by not allowing sufficient time which was only 30 minutes, in which to present arguments for three appeals, which is not reasonable under the circumstances.    

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

27809                    TITUS NGUIAGAIN ‐ c. ‐ VILLE DE QUÉBEC ‐ et ‐ SOCIÉTÉ DE L'ASSURANCE AUTOMOBILE DU QUÉBEC  (Qué.) (Criminelle)

CORAM:               Les juges Gonthier, Binnie et Arbour

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

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

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  -Droit criminel - Procédure - Procès - Procédure en appel - Quelles sont les limites aux ordonnances conditionnelles imposées par le juge de procès? - Est-ce que l’ordonnance peut être l’équivalent d’une suspension conditionnelle d’instance? - Procédure judiciaire concernant le traitement de motifs certifiés par la cour d’appel - Lors d’une séance devant la Cour d’appel, le Président de la formation a-t-il le pouvoir de réduire sans préavis le nombre de moyens d’appel, sans toutefois déclarer l’appel dilatoire ou abusif? - Est-ce qu’il y a eu déconsidération de l’administration de la justice?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

27579                    SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE ‐ c. ‐ ROGER CRAIG DENTON  (Qué.) (Criminelle)

CORAM:               Les juges Gonthier, Binnie et Arbour

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

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

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Charte - Droit criminel - Indépendance judiciaire - Ingérence - Délai raisonnable - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en retenant le critère de l’impression d’ingérence pour conclure que l’impression d’indépendance du juge du procès a été compromise considérant les principes énoncés dans l’arrêt Canada (Ministre de la citoyenneté et de l’immigration) c. Tobiass, [1997] 3 R.C.S. 391 - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en faits et en droit en ne concluant pas que le délai écoulé entre l’inculpation et la fin du procès était déraisonnable - Le délai qui a précédé la décision du juge de première instance, cumulé au délai imputable à l’appel en Cour suprême, est-il déraisonnable et contraire aux art. 11 b )  et 7  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

27581                    SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE ‐ c. ‐ NEIL PETERS  (Qué.) (Criminelle)

CORAM:               Les juges Gonthier, Binnie et Arbour

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

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

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Charte - Droit criminel - Indépendance judiciaire - Ingérence - Contre-interrogatoire - Langue - Délai raisonnable - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en retenant le critère de l’impression d’ingérence pour conclure que l’impression d’indépendance du juge du procès a été compromise considérant les principes énoncés dans l’arrêt Canada (Ministre de la citoyenneté et de l’immigration) c. Tobiass, [1997] 3 R.C.S. 391 - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en concluant que le fait de soumettre le témoin à l’expérience d’un contre-interrogatoire en langue anglaise était nécessaire pour permettre au juge des faits d’évaluer sa capacité de rapporter fidèlement les propos recueillis - Subsidiairement, la Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en n’appliquant pas les dispositions curatives de 686(1)b)(iii) du Code criminel , L.R.C., 1985, ch. C-46  - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en faits et en droit en ne concluant pas que le délai écoulé entre l’inculpation et la fin du procès était déraisonnable - Le délai qui a précédé la décision du juge de première instance, cumulé au délai imputable à l’appel en Cour suprême, est-il déraisonnable et contraire aux art. 11 b )  et 7  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

27288                    TIVADAR GALANTAI ‐ c. ‐ SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE  (Qué.) (Criminelle)

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

La demande de réexamen et la requête pour produire de nouvelles preuves sont rejetées.

The application for reconsideration and the motion to adduce new evidence are dismissed.

REVISED JANUARY 11, 2001 / RÉVISÉ LE 11 JANVIER 2001

DECEMBER 21, 2000 / LE 21 DÉCEMBRE 2000

27871                    L’ORDRE DES CHIROPRATICIENS DU QUÉBEC - c. - PHILIPPE THOMAS (Qué.)(Civile)

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

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

19.12.2000

Before / Devant:  LEBEL J.

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

Dana Michael Fash

v. (28284)

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

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to November 10, 2000.

20.12.2000

Before / Devant:  LEBEL J.

Motion to withdraw as solicitor

Claudette Gariépy

v. (26794)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (F.C.)

Requête pour cesser d'occuper

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON READING THE MOTION, by Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, for an order removing Borden Ladner Gervais LLP as solicitors of record for the Plaintiff in the Supreme Court of Canada.

AND UPON READING the Affidavit of Peter B. Annis sworn November 30, 2000, and the attached exhibits,

THIS COURT ORDERS that Borden Ladner Gervais LLP be removed as solicitors of record for the appellant, Claudette Gariépy.

20.12.2000

Before / Devant:  THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the appellant’s record, factum and book of authorities

539938 Ontario Limited, et al.

v. (27524)

Tyler Derksen, a minor, by his litigation guardian William Derksen, et al. (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les dossier, mémoire et cahier de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’appelante

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to December 18, 2000.

20.12.2000

Before / Devant:  THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum of the respondent Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia

Osoyoos Indian Band

v. (27408)

The Town of Oliver et al. (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire de l'intimée Sa Majesté la Reine du chef de la province de la Colombie-Britannique

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to December 8, 2000.

21.12.2000

Before / Devant:  BASTARACHE J.

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

Stephen M. Byer

v. (28140)

The Bar of Montreal (Que.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to November 23, 2000.

21.12.2000

Before / Devant:  BASTARACHE J.

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

C.M.

c. (28283)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Délai prorogé au 15 février 2001.

21.12.2000

Before / Devant:  LEBEL J.

Motion for a stay of execution

C.T.

c. (28281)

L.G. (Qué.)

Requête en vue de surseoir à l'exécution

DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS / REJETÉE SANS DÉPENS

L’appelant, C.T., a déposé une demande d’autorisation d’appel contre un arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Québec prononcé le1er novembre 2000 qui rejetait son appel contre un jugement de la Cour supérieure.  Rendu en matière de divorce, celui-ci accordait à l’intimée une pension alimentaire pour les enfants du couple, pour elle-même ainsi elle pourvoyait au partage du patrimoine familial.  A la suite de son échec devant la Cour d’appel, l’appelant s’est adressé à un juge de cette Cour pour obtenir la suspension de ce jugement.  Le 27 novembre 2000, l’honorable Thérèse Rousseau-Houle a rejeté cette requête.

L’appelant avait le fardeau de démontrer, en vertu de l’article 65.1 de la Loi sur la Cour suprême, les motifs pour lesquels un sursis de la mise à effet des jugements des cours de première instance et de la Cour supérieure et de la Cour d’appel devraient être accordés.  Il devait aussi établir pourquoi cette Cour devrait réviser la discrétion exercée par la juge de la Cour d’appel en cette matière.  L’examen de la requête et des documents produits à son soutien ne fait voir aucun motif justifiant la suspension du jugement attaqué, sinon le désaccord de l’appelant avec celui-ci.

Pour ces motifs, la requête est rejetée sans frais.

27.12.2000

Before / Devant:  THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

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

The Law Society of British Columbia

v. (27108)

Jaswant Singh Mangat, et al (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire de l’intervenant le Procureur général du Canada

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to February 14, 2001.

27.12.2000

Before / Devant:  THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondent's response

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (28245)

Catherine Huff (Crim.)(Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la réponse de l'intimée

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to January 5, 2001.

27.12.2000

Before / Devant:  THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

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

Ashkan Jabarianha

v. (27725)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les mémoire et cahier de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’intimée

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to January 31, 2001.

27.12.2000

Before / Devant:  THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

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

Daniel Matthew Nette

v. (27669)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire de l’intervenant le Procureur général de l’Ontario

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to December 15, 2000.

28.12.2000

Before / Devant:  THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondent's response

Peter Pennett

v. (28239)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la réponse de l'intimée

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to February 2, 2001.

29.12.2000

Before / Devant:  THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Miscellaneous motion

Louise Gosselin

c. (27418)

Le Procureur général du Québec (Qué.)

Autre requête

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    La requête pour obtenir une ordonnance réduisant à 12 exemplaires le nombre des vols. 1 à 19 du dossier de l’appelante et une ordonnance prorogeant au 12 janvier 2001 le délai pour signifier et produire le dossier, le mémoire et le cahier d’autorités de l’appelante et une ordonnance autorisant le dépôt d’un mémoire de 60 pages est accordée.

2.1.2001

Before / Devant:  BASTARACHE J.

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

A.T.

c. (28286)

C.B. (Qué.)

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

DISMISSED / REJETÉE    La requête pour obtenir une ordonnance prorogeant le délai pour signifier et produire une demande d’autorisation d’appel à une date ultérieure à être fixée par la Cour est rejetée.

2.1.2001

Before / Devant:  BASTARACHE J.

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

The Corporation of the City of Windsor

v. (28272)

Canadian Pacific Railway Company, et al. (Ont.)

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

DISMISSED WITH COSTS / REJETÉE AVEC DÉPENS    The motion to extend time to serve and file a leave application until 60 days after the decision of the Superior Court of Ontario in two applications pending before that Court is dismissed, with costs.

3.1.2001

Before / Devant:  BASTARACHE J.

Further order of motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                The Attorney General for Ontario

IN/DANS:              Daniel Matthew Nette

v. (27669)

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

Autre ordonnance sur une requête en autorisation d'intervention

GRANTED /ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General of Ontario for leave to intervene in the above appeal and pursuant to the order of Madame Justice L’Heureux-Dubé dated November 1, 2000 thereon;

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said  intervener is granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding 15 minutes at the hearing of the appeal.

3.1.2001

Before / Devant:  BASTARACHE J.

Miscellaneous motion

All Seasons Display Inc. et al., et al.

v. (28185)

Michael Mylett, et al. (B.C.)

Autre requête

DISMISSED WITH COSTS / REJETÉE AVEC DÉPENS    The motion by the respondents, Orange Julius et al. for an order extending the time to file a response to the leave application by 30 days from the date of any order, or in the alternative, that paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the applicants’ reply be struck is dismissed, with costs.

3.1.2001

Before / Devant:  BASTARACHE J.

Miscellaneous motion

All Seasons Display Inc. et al., et al.

v. (28185)

Michael Mylett, et al. (B.C.)

Autre requête

DISMISSED WITH COSTS / REJETÉE AVEC DÉPENS    The motion by the respondents, Laing Property Corp. et al. for an order granting them leave to file a sur-reply to the applicants’ reply, or in the alternative, that paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the applicants’ reply be struck is dismissed, with costs.

4.1.2001

Before / Devant:  BASTARACHE J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                The Attorney General for Ontario

IN/DANS:              Ivon Shearing

v. (27782)

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

Requête en autorisation d'intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General of Ontario  for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion  for leave to intervene of the applicant Attorney General of Ontario is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a  factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

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

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

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

5.1.2001

Before / Devant:  BASTARACHE J.

Miscellaneous motion

Ali Ben Seifennasr

c. (28249)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Ont.)

Autre requête

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

À LA SUITE D’UNE DEMANDE de l’intimée visant à obtenir une ordonnance interdisant de publier ou de diffuser de quelque façon que ce soit l’identité des plaignantes ou des renseignements qui permettaient de les découvrir;

ET APRÈS AVOIR LU la documentation déposée ;

L’ORDONNANCE SUIVANTE EST RENDUE:

La demande est accordée et une ordonnance est émise interdisant de publier ou de diffuser de quelque façon que ce soit l’identité des plaignantes ou des renseignements qui permettraient de les découvrir.

5.1.2001

Before / Devant:  THE REGISTRAR

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

Giacinto Arcuri

v. (27797)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les mémoire et cahier de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’appelant

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to December 18, 2000.

5.1.2001

Before /Devant:  BINNIE J.

Further order of motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF)

IN/DANS:              Willis Barclay Frederick Boston

v. (27682)

Shirley Isobel Boston (Ont.)

Autre ordonnance sur une requête en autorisation d'intervention

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

UPON RECEIPT and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the intervener Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (“LEAF”);

AND IT APPEARING THAT LEAF's written argument fully sets out the general principles that in LEAF's submission ought to govern the disposition of cases such as the present;

AND IT FURTHER APPEARING THAT it would be inappropriate to permit LEAF to appear at the hearing of the appeal to make detailed submissions supporting the respondent's position on the merits any more than is already done in the written argument;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application of LEAF to present oral argument in the within appeal is dismissed.

8.1.2001

Before / Devant:  BASTARACHE J.

Miscellaneous motion

British Columbia College of Teachers

v. (27168)

Trinity Western University, et al. (B.C.)

Autre requête

DISMISSED / REJETÉE    The motion by the respondents for leave to file a reply factum of 20 pages in response to the appellant’s reply factum on the Charter issues is dismissed.

20.12.2000

The Honourable Ralph Klein et al.

v. (27980)

Barbara Decock et al. (Alta.)

5.1.2001

John Edwards et al.

v. (28108)

The Law Society of Upper Canada (Ont.)

8.1.2001

Sagaz Industries Canada Inc. et al.

v. (27820)

671122 Ontario Limited formerly

Design Dynamics Limited (Ont.)

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Saskatchewan

IN/DANS:              Louise Gosselin

 c. (27418)

Le Procureur général du Québec (Qué.)

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Ontario

IN/DANS:              Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of New Brunswick

as represented by the Minister of Finance

  v. (27722)

Ian P. Mackin et al. (N.B.)

BY/PAR Attorney General for Ontario

The Attorney General of Manitoba

La Procureure générale du Québec

IN/DANS:              Deborah Smith

  v. (27844)

The Attorney General of Canada (F.C.)