Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

December 20, 2002  1853 - 1978                                                      le 20 décembre 2002

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Mellco Developments Ltd., et al.

G. Patrick S. Riley

Taylor McCaffrey

v. (29504)

The City of Portage La Prairie, et al. (Man.)

Randolph B. McNicol, Q.C.

Fillmore Riley

FILING DATE 29.11.2002

Georges Guay

Georges Guay

c. (29505)

Me Jacques Ghanimé, et autres (Qué.)

Lizann Demers

Bernard, Roy & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION 29.11.2002

Allan Murphy

Robert Allard

Labrecque Robitaillle Roberge

c. (29509)

Comité de surveillance de l’Association des intermédiaires en assurance de personnes du Québec (Qué.)

Jacques Gauthier

Borden Ladner Gervais

DATE DE PRODUCTION 29.11.2002

Joanne Miller

Kimberly R. Murray

Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto Inc.

v. (29501)

Attorney General of Canada (F.C.)

Gail Sinclair

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 4.12.2002

Iwona Wcislo

Iwona E. Wcislo

v. (29506)

Ramsay Heights Cooperative Housing Limited (Alta.)

Tony G. Bell

Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer

FILING DATE 6.12.2002

Carmelle Boutin

Christopher R. Mostovac

Ravinsky Ryan

c. (29510)

Sa Majesté la Reine (C.F.)

Johanne Boudreau

P.G. du Canada

DATE DE PRODUCTION 10.12.2002

DECEMBER 16, 2002 / LE 16 DÉCEMBRE 2002

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Bastarache et Deschamps

Anthony Daoulov

c. (29295)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.) (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Stupéfiants - Possession pour fins de trafic - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que l’omission de diriger le jury à l’égard de la restitution n’a causé aucun préjudice au demandeur ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que la défense fondée sur la restitution n’avait ni fondement ni vraisemblance ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur sur les directives portant sur la complicité du demandeur ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en appuyant la décision du juge de première instance de ne pas permettre la divulgation de l’identité d’un informateur ?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 4 décembre 2000

Cour supérieure du Québec

(Barrette-Joncas j.c.s.)

Requêtes du demandeur en arrêt de procédures et en divulgation de l’identité d’un informateur rejetées

Le 20 décembre 2000

Cour supérieure du Québec

(Barrette-Joncas j.c.s.)

Demandeur déclaré coupable par jury de possession d’héroïne pour fins de traffic contrairement aux articles 5(2)  et 5(3)  de la Loi réglementant certaines drogues et autres substances 

Le 4 janvier 2001

Cour supérieure du Québec

(Barrette-Joncas j.c.s.)

Demandeur condamné à dix ans d’emprisonnement

Le 14 mai 2002

Cour d'appel du Québec

(Michaud j.c.q., Proulx et Rousseau‐Houle jj.c.a.)

Appel de la déclaration de culpabilité rejeté

Le 3 juin 2002

Cour d'appel du Québec

(Michaud j.c.q., Proulx et Rousseau‐Houle jj.c.a.)

Appel de la sentence accueilli: peine d’emprisonnement réduite à cinq ans, neuf mois et deux semaines

Le 13 août 2002

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée

André Vincent

c. (29337)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.) (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Procès - Meurtre, séquestration et complot - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en refusant d’accorder réparation suite à la violation du droit à la divulgation résultant de la perte d’une preuve matérielle essentielle au motif que le demandeur n’avait pas démontré de préjudice alors que la perte d’opportunité raisonnable avait été prouvée ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en prétendant qu’une phrase isolée erronée dans les directives ne rend pas le procès inéquitable alors que le juge de première instance avait attiré l’attention du jury à l’effet qu’il s’agissait là de la seule question importante du procès ?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Daniel Roy

c. (29358)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.) (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Preuve - Droit à défense pleine et entière - Audition sur détermination de la peine - Équité du procès -Interventions irrégulières du premier juge dans l’interrogatoire des deux témoins experts de la défense - Le juge de première instance a-t-il erré en droit en rejetant la requête en exclusion de la preuve présentée par le demandeur, bien que la preuve ait établi de façon claire et non équivoque que les policiers avaient sciemment induit le juge de paix en erreur dans la dénonciation au soutien de leur demande de mandat de prélèvement d’ADN - Le juge de première instance a-t-il privé le demandeur du droit à un procès juste et équitable et à une défense pleine et entière en lui interdisant de plaider qu’un témoin crucial de la poursuite avait été incapable de le reconnaître sur une parade d’identification où il apparaissait, bien que ce soit pourtant le cas - Le juge de première instance a-t-il privé le demandeur du droit  à un procès juste et équitable et à une défense pleine et entière en forçant l’avocat du demandeur à déclarer aux jurés qu’il les avait induit en erreur sur les résultats de cette parade d’identification, alors que ce n’était absolument pas le cas - Le juge de première instance a-t-il ainsi erronément induit le jury à croire que l’avocat du demandeur tentait de leur mentir, alors qu’il tentait plutôt d’établir la faiblesse de la preuve d’identification, une question cruciale et déterminante au présent litige - Le juge de première instance a-t-il privé le demandeur du droit  à un procès juste et équitable et à une défense pleine et entière en lui interdisant de mettre en preuve les résultats obtenus à un test de dépistage d’alcool subi le lendemain des événements à l’origine du litige, bien que cette preuve était de nature à contredire la preuve de la poursuite et à corroborer de façon importante son propre témoignage - Le juge de première instance a-t-il privé le demandeur du droit  à un procès juste et équitable et à une défense pleine et entière en faisant preuve de partialité dans le déroulement du procès, dans l’administration de la preuve et dans ses directives au jury, considérant notamment les conclusions tirées par la Cour d’appel dans le jugement rendu le 13 juin 2002 et qui annulait la déclaration de délinquant dangereux pour cause de partialité du juge.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 22 avril 1999

Cour supérieure du Québec

(Zigman j.c.s.)

Déclaration de culpabilité: agression sexuelle

Le 17 décembre 1999

Cour supérieure du Québec

(Zigman j.c.s.)

Demandeur déclaré délinquant dangereux contrairement aux articles 752.1 et suivants du Code criminel 

Ronald Taylor

v. (29399)

Anne Molloy (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Civil - Procedural Law - Courts - Judicial Bias - Application for extension of time to appeal denied - Whether judiciary was biased.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Canadian Forest Products Ltd.

v. (29266)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia (B.C.)

AND BETWEEN:

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

v.

Canadian Forest Products Ltd.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Assessment - Damages - Negligence - Environmental law - Environmental injury to natural resource - Compensation for damages sustained as a result of a forest fire - What are the evidentiary requirements to prove a claim for ecological damages - What is the appropriate valuation methodology for a claim for ecological damages - Whether the court of appeal erred in accepting the “passing-off” defence and awarding no damages for the commercial timber damaged or destroyed in the fire - Whether the court of appeal erred by significantly under-valuing the damages for timber located within environmentally-sensitive areas by adopting a methodology to assess environmental loss which was inappropriate and which was based on commercial value.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Jagir Singh

v. (29244)

Canada Post Corporation (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the Applicant’s appeal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

M.S.

c. (29352)

M.L. (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit de la famille - Divorce - Partage des biens - Aliments - La Cour d’appel pouvait-elle intervenir dans l’exercice de la discrétion conférée par l’art. 417 du Code civil du Québec, L.Q. 1991, ch. 64, au juge de première instance? - Quels sont les critères entourant l’application de la discrétion conférée à l’art. 417 du Code civil du Québec? - Le juge de première instance s’est-il correctement dirigé en fait en droit en appliquant les critères fixés par la Cour d’appel et en retenant la date de la cessation de vie commune pour établir la valeur nette du patrimoine familial à partager? - La Cour d’appel avait-elle compétence pour annuler la pension alimentaire alors que la Cour supérieure ne s’était pas encore prononcée sur cette question?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

CORAM:  Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Major et Arbour

Walter Stadnick and Donald Stockford

v. (29418)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian  Charter  - Criminal Law - Defence - Disclosure of evidence - Language - Right to full answer and defence - Whether the applicants’ rights to full disclosure and to make full answer and defence are denied unless full and complete disclosure is provided to each of the applicants in the only language they understand - Whether the applicants’ right to counsel and the language abilities of the chosen counsel are relevant to the applicants’ right to full disclosure and right to comprehend the evidence to be adduced by the Crown - Whether the applicants’ right to a trial in reasonable time can limit their right to full disclosure - Whether the applicants should proceed and await the possibility of an appeal after trial - Whether the Supreme Court of Canada has jurisdiction to hear the case.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Michel Rose

v. (29420)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian  Charter  - Criminal Law - Defence - Disclosure of evidence - Language - Right to full answer and defence - Whether the applicant’s rights to full disclosure and to make full answer and defence and counsel of choice are denied unless full and complete disclosure is provided to him in English - Whether the motions’ judge could consider a potential Charter  application regarding unreasonable delay, as a reason for not ordering the translation - Whether the motions’ judge erred in considering, without any evidence, the cost and time which he estimated the translations would take - Whether the applicant should proceed and await the possibility of an appeal after trial - Whether the Supreme Court of Canada has jurisdiction to hear the case.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (29283)

Abraham Robert Cooper (Crim.) (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non Charter) - Procedural Law - Courts - Jurisdiction - DNA samples - DNA data bank - Order to seize blood sample for submission to DNA data bank after conviction stayed pending outcome of appeal - Whether provincial superior court has jurisdiction to stay order - Whether Criminal Code removes jurisdiction.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Terrance Parker

v. (29264)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal - Criminal law - Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , S.C. 1996, c. 19  - Medical marihuana - Whether the doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel prevented Chapnik J. from handing down a decision inconsistent with the ruling of Pitt J. - Whether the Applicant’s section 7 right to life is being infringed.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

March 15, 2002

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

(Pitt J.)

Order extending constitutional exemption to the Applicant granted

April 19, 2002

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

(Chapnik J.)

Respondent’s motion to set aside the order  of March 15, 2002 allowed; Applicant’s cross-motion adjourned

May 3, 2002

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Feldman J.A.)

Appeal dismissed

July 9, 2002

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal and motion for stay filed

August 27, 2002

Supreme Court of Canada

(Gonthier J.)

Motion to expedite application for leave to appeal denied

The Corporation of the Town of Oakville

v. (29359)

Vann Niagara Ltd. (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Civil - Civil Rights - Freedom of Expression - Municipal bylaw prohibits  billboards  - Evidence-  Evidentiary threshold to be met in a  Charter  case - Whether a party may demonstrate a prima facie violation of s. 2(b)  of the Charter  by establishing that an activity affected by state action is commercial expression without proving any impact on freedom of expression - Whether s. 2(b) confers a prima facie right to erect commercial signs of a certain size and obliges municipalities to accept commercial signs of that size - Whether s. 1 of the Charter  obliges municipalities to establish a sufficiently rural or remarkable character in order to justify a prohibition against commercial signs beyond a certain size.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

George Kingfisher, Ben Weenie, Leslie Angus, Larry Chickness,

Lola Okeeweehow and Donald Higgins, for themselves and on behalf

of the descendants of the Chief Chipeewayan Band

v. (29302)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.A.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Native law - Indian Act, S.C. 1876, c.18 - Statutes - Interpretation - Treaty rights - Breach of fiduciary duty - Compensation - Standing - Whether collective rights under 1876 Treaty can only be asserted by claimants who are direct descendents of members of the Young Chipeewayan Band -  - Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010 - Housen v. Nikolaissen, [2002] S.C.R. 33

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

D.M.

v. (29415)

The Minister of Community Services (N.S.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Civil - Civil Rights - Whether the court of appeal erred in law in deciding that the compellability of the Applicant as a witness, before a hearing to determine whether the Applicant’s name should be entered into a Child Abuse Register pursuant to section 63(3) of the Children and Family Services Act, SNS 1990, c. 5, was a limit on a person’s “life, liberty and security of the person” in accord “with the principles of fundamental justice”, and therefore not contrary to section 7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                  CORAM:  Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ. /

Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et LeBel

Vincent Bruce Redd

v. (29319)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal for British Columbia erred upholding trial judge’s decision to admit, virtually in its entirety, evidence gathered during the course of a RCMP undercover operation on the basis that such evidence was admissible as narrative to assist the jury in assessing the credibility of the applicant.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

David Bolingbroke

v. (29197)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law- Pre-trial procedure - Statutes - Interpretation - Sufficiency of inquiries or deliberations carried out upon laying of Information - Section 508  of the Criminal Code , R.S.C., 1985 c. C-34 .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Douglas John Holtam

v. (29308)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal for British Columbia erred in law in not finding that the trial judge erred in failing to provide a limiting instruction in relation to significant bad character evidence called at trial.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Gregory Venn

v. (29233)

Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Statute - Interpretation - Sentencing - Preventative sentencing - Whether a fixed sentence, in place of a life sentence, motivated by dangerousness of offender, may circumvent substantive and procedural protections of Part XXIV of the Criminal Code , as discussed in R. v. M. (C.A.) (1996), 105 C.C.C. (3d) 327 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a crime sufficiently grave to merit a sentence of preventative detention  need not include violence, only one for which the maximum sentence of life is an available statutory penalty - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the sentencing judge did not have to give reasons for deciding on the length of sentence imposed - R. v. Hastings (1985), 19 C.C.C. (3d) 86 (AB C.A.)     

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

December 16, 1996

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta

(Moore J.)

Conviction:  break and enter

June 3, 1998

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta

(Moore J.)

Applicant declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of imprisonment

January 17, 2000

Court of Appeal of Alberta

(Côté, Fruman and LoVecchio JJ.A)

Appeal against sentence allowed; sentence set aside and matter remitted back to Court of Queen’s Bench for determination

September 1, 2000

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta

(Moore C.J.Q.B.)

Applicant sentenced to 16 years in prison

April 15, 2002

Court of Appeal for Alberta

(Russell, Lewis and Nation JJ.A)

Appeal dismissed

June 19, 2002

Supreme Court of Canada

(Binnie J.)

Motion to extend time to serve and file application for leave granted

August 30, 2002

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

(Brother) Kornelis Klevering

v. (29364)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.A.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Whether there are any issues of public importance raised - Applicant seeking to challenge the constitutionality of Industrial Hemp Regulations, para. 9(2)(g) - Whether the federal court of appeal breached s. 24(1)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  by denying the Applicant an opportunity to file his documents and argue his case in Court.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

February 3, 2000

Federal Court of Canada

(Gibson J.)

Applicant’s motion for extension of time and application for judicial review, dismissed

July 31, 2000

Federal Court of Canada

(Gibson J.)

Applicant’s motion seeking to rescind or vary the order dated February 3, 2000, dismissed

June 20, 2002

Federal Court of Appeal

(Richard C.J., Evans and Malone JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

September 18, 2002

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

2630‐3602 Québec Inc. et Denis Ferron

c. (29084)

Thrifty Canada Inc. (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Procédure civile - Preuve - La décision rendue en l’espèce donne-t-elle à l’art. 17 des Règles de pratique de la Cour supérieure en matière civile, R.R.Q. 1981, ch. C-25, r. 8, un effet illégal parce que contraire à la loi habilitante, à savoir l’art. 2 du Code de procédure civile, L.R.Q., ch. C-25? - La décision rendue en l’espèce donne-t-elle à l’art. 17 RPCS un effet rendant celui-ci contraire aux prescriptions de la Charte  canadienne  (préambule et art. 15(1)) ainsi qu’à celles de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., ch. C-12 (art. 10)?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Re/Max 2001 Inc.

c. (29017)

Jaymie Le Sabbagh (Qué.)

- et -

L’Officier de la publicité des droits de la circonscription foncière de Montréal

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Code civil - Interprétation - Action en inopposabilité (action paulienne) - Publicité des droits - Droits soumis à la publicité -  Effets de la publicité - Préinscription - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en imposant une interprétation stricte à l’article 2966 du Code civil du Québec, L.Q. 1991, c. 64? -

L’exercice d’un droit personnel dont l’action en inopposabilité, pour laquelle l’objet constitue un droit réel peut-il faire l’objet d’une préinscription sur le registre foncier en application de l’article 2966 du C.c.Q.?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Schokbéton Québec Inc.

c. (29064)

St‐Amour Building Inc. et Instow Holding S.A. (Qué.)

- et -

L’Officier de la publicité des droits de la circonscription foncière de Montréal

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Code civil - Interprétation - Action en inopposabilité (action paulienne) - Publicité des droits - Droits soumis à la publicité -  Effets de la publicité - Préinscription - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en imposant une interprétation stricte à l’article 2966 du Code civil du Québec, L.Q. 1991, c. 64? -

L’exercice d’un droit personnel dont l’action en inopposabilité, pour laquelle l’objet constitue un droit réel peut-il faire l’objet d’une préinscription sur le registre foncier en application de l’article 2966 du C.c.Q.?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

DECEMBER 19, 2002 / LE 19 DÉCEMBRE 2002

29212                    Scott Byron Morrison v. Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache and Deschamps JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Number 99‐18262, dated September 4, 2001, is dismissed.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Alberta (Calgary), numéro 99‐18262, daté du 4 septembre 2001, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non-Charter) - Defence - Jury Charge - Correctness of  jury charge on defence of not criminally responsible - Whether charge to the jury eliminated consideration of possibilities in an assessment of whether the standard of proof  for the defence was met - Whether curative proviso should have been applied on appeal to remedy entry of bad character evidence that went to a major issue in the case where the trial judge did not give limiting jury instructions.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29149                    Syndicat des travailleuses et travailleurs de Alfred Dallaire (CSN) c. Alfred Dallaire Inc., Gestion Hélène Maurice Inc. (Qué.) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram: Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Bastarache et Deschamps

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐007164‐981, daté du 6 février 2002, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de l'intimée Alfred Dallaire Inc.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐007164‐981, dated February 6, 2002, is dismissed with costs to the Respondent Alfred Dallaire Inc.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Norme de contrôle judiciaire - Erreur manifestement déraisonnable - Droit du travail - Accréditation - Cession partielle d’entreprise -  Est-il déraisonnable pour le Tribunal du travail d’appliquer la même interprétation de l’article 45 du Code du travail en matière de concession partielle d’entreprise que cette concession survienne en cours de procédure d’accréditation ou une fois l’accréditation décernée  - Code du travail du Québec, L.R.Q., c.C-27

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29047                    146207 Canada Inc. v. Placements Rebery Limitée, Gilles Turcotte and Pierre‐Yves Racicot (Que.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache and Deschamps JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐006419‐980, dated November 27, 2001, is dismissed with costs to the Respondents.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐006419‐980, daté du 27 novembre 2001, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimés.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law -Appeal - Judgments and orders - Did the appellate court judge fulfill his duties and obligations in failing to arrive at a decision on the matter before him - Can a litigant expect decisions from the number of judges before whom his case was pleaded.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29280                     Wind Power Inc., Dove Industries Inc. v. Saskatchewan Power Corporation (Sask.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache and Deschamps JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan, Number 3267, dated May 10, 2002, is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Saskatchewan, numéro 3267, daté du 10 mai 2002, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de l'intimée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Contracts - Breach of contract - Implied terms - Saskatchewan Power Corporation requesting proposals for wind power demonstration project and later cancelling project - Whether “privilege clauses” in tender documents allowed Corporation to reject all proposals in circumstances of case - Whether term can be implied in contract A that Corporation would enter into contract B if an acceptable bid were presented to it - Whether Corporation breached its duty of fairness - Guidelines for “unforeseen circumstances” in tender situation - Whether tender-calling authorities possess an absolute and unfettered discretion to reject all compliant proposals.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29268                    Weimin Wu v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram: Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

 The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA028062, dated April 17, 2002, is dismissed.

 La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA028062, daté du 17 avril 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Procedural law - Parole - Should Applicant’s appeal have been dismissed.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29236                    Keng Ting Lam v. Siu Man Chan (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

 The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C36319, dated March 26, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C36319, daté du 26 mars 2002, est  rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family Law - Divorce - Motion for judgment in terms of an offer to settle - Whether there had been agreement between the parties as to the essential terms of the settlement - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to conclude that where an offer to settle is made, such an offer is invalid where either of one of the parties disagree with anything contained in the offer - Whether the Motions Judge erred in law by allegedly varying the terms of the purported settlement on her own initiative - Whether the Motions Judge erred in law in allegedly allowing the Respondent to withdraw the funds held in a joint account without the Applicant’s consent 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29182                    Frederick Whitmore, Allan Whitmore v. Bernie Proznick (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

 The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA025890, dated February 27, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA025890, daté du 27 février 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Contracts - Equity - Forfeiture clause - Availability of relief from forfeiture in equity - Whether the Court of Appeal applied the wrong test with respect to the equitable remedy of relief against forfeiture - Whether the Court of Appeal erred substituting its exercise of discretion regarding the equitable remedy of relief against forfeiture for the trial judge’s absent any error in the trial judge’s approach to the matter.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29134                    Stephen M. Byer v. The Bar of Montréal (Que.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐10‐002255‐014, dated February 6, 2002, is dismissed with costs to the respondent and the mis‐en‐cause.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐10‐002255‐014, daté du 6 février 2002, est rejetée avec dépens à l'intimé et le mis‐en‐cause.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Writ of prohibition denied - Did lower courts err in disposition of case?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29181                    Frank Burchill v. The Commissioner of the Yukon Territory (Y.T.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Yukon Territory, Number 00‐YU 440, dated March 21, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Territoire du Yukon, numéro 00‐YU 440, daté du 21 mars 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Master and servant - Procedural law - Limitation of actions - Prescription -  Remedies - Equitable remedies - Laches - Reinstatement - Damages - Applicant dismissed for cause - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that laches may apply to an action filed within the limitation period - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluded that there were no fatal flaws in the procedural aspects of the dismissal - Whether there was just cause for dismissal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing the Applicant’s request to amend pleadings on appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in denying all remedies requested by the Applicant.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29209                    No‐Strings Enterprises Ltd., Robert‐Victor‐ MacPherson: Kennedy v. Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Revenue (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA027167, dated March 11, 2002, is dismissed.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA027167, daté du 11 mars 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Whether the Court of Appeal correctly refused to reinstate the Applicant’s appeal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29193                     The Honourable Robert H. Nelson, The Honourable Robert H. Nelson, Founder President of Public Defenders for himself and as representative of all those also improperly denied benefits v. Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Honourable Martin Cauchon, Minister of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (FC) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

 The applications for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐634‐01, dated July 29, 2002, are dismissed with costs.

 Les demandes d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‐634‐01, daté du 29 juillet 2002, sont rejetées avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing various motions brought by the Applicant.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29195                    The Honourable Robert H. Nelson, The Honourable Robert H. Nelson, Founder President of Public Defenders for himself and as representative of all those also improperly denied benefits v. Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Honourable Martin Cauchon, Minister of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (FC) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

 The applications for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐88‐02, dated August 1, 2002, are dismissed with costs.

 Les demandes d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‐88‐02, daté du 1 août 2002, sont rejetées avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing various motions brought by the Applicant.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29285                    Seymour Grey v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram: Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

 The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C30481, dated February 10, 2000, is dismissed.

 La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C30481, daté du 10 février 2000, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal - Criminal law - Whether s. 264 of the Criminal Code  violates ss. 1 , 2 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 15 , 26 , 27 , 28 , or 31  of the Charter.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29080                    Wendi Washburn Arnold v. Robert Peter Washburn (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C35085, dated December 19, 2001, is dismissed without costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C35085, daté du 19 décembre 2001, est rejetée sans dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family law - Child Support - Child Support Guidelines - Annual Income -  Income from exercise and sale of stock options -  Special or extraordinary expenses - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to consider the stated objectives of the Guidelines - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to consider the definition of “annual income” in the context of the stated objectives of the Guidelines  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by finding that the trial judge had properly characterized the stock option income as a “non-recurring” amount under s. 17 of the Guidelines - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to consider that the stock options are part of the respondent’s annual remuneration and not a “non-recurring” amount - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by finding that the decision of the trial judge to exclude the income from the sale of shares from the respondent’s “annual income” was an exercise of discretion that reveals no error in principle -Whether the Court of Appeal erred by finding that the trial judge, instead of awarding vacation expenses under s. 7 of the Guidelines, should have found that the amount of child support was inappropriately low and exercised his discretion under section 3(2)(b) by awarding an increased amount of child support - Whether the Court of Appeal failed to impute the respondent’s exercised stock options from 1999 to his annual income for child support in the three proceeding years.   

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29400                    Robert John Fenn v. The Registrar of Motor Vehicles and the Licence Appeal Tribunal (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number M28320, dated July 8, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro M28320, daté du 8 juillet 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial Review - Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal was acting in the exercise of its original (not appeal) jurisdiction when it dismissed the Applicant’s motion for leave to appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by using its leave to appeal requirement - Whether the Applicant’s rights were unduly restricted by the leave to appeal requirement.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

October 5, 2001

Licence Appeal Tribunal

(Aouad and Wallace, Members)                                            

Suspension of Applicant’s driver licence confirmed

February 18, 2002

Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court)

(Dunnet, Esptein and Crane JJ.)

Applicant’s application for judicial review, dismissed

July 8, 2002

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Labrosse, Simmons and Armstrong JJ.A.)

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed

September 30, 2002

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

29269                    James Donald Townsend v. Sault Ste. Marie Police Service, Bradley Clarida, Martin Rowe,, Jeffrey Broadbent and Tracy‐Lynn Broadbent (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C36850, dated April 25, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C36850, daté du 25 avril 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Whether the lower courts erred in granting summary judgment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29202                    Air Canada v. The Commissioner of Competition, I.M.P. Group Ltd. (Canjet Airlines) (FC) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐749‐00, dated March 22, 2002, is dismissed with costs to The Commissioner of Competition.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‐749‐00, daté du 22 mars 2002, est rejetée avec dépens au Commissaire de la concurrence.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative Law - Jurisdiction - Judicial Review - Competition Tribunal - Residual discretion of a judicial member of the Competition Tribunal in review of an ex parte administrative order to refuse to confirm order if not validly issued - Discretion to review statutory basis for  issuance of order - Right to timely and meaningful review of administrative injunction - Whether subject of an ex parte order must commence two separate proceedings to challenge order - Whether Commissioner met statutory precondition for the issuance of temporary order - Standard of review applicable to review of the issuance of a temporary order by the Commissioner of Competition - Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in law by refusing to address issue on the basis that it was a factual question and moot -  Whether threshold for harm of a significant loss of revenue must be greater than the natural result of legal competition.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29258                    Edward Stuart Walker v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram: Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ.

 The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia (Vancouver), Number V03537, dated February 8, 2002, is dismissed.

 La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro V03537, daté du 8 février 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non Charter) - Defence - Evidence - Admissibility of Evidence - Jury Charge - Conviction for second degree murder - Defence of not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder rejected by jury - Court-ordered assessment of the mental condition of accused ordered under s. 672.12  of the Criminal Code  - Whether the trial judge erred in ordering the accused to submit to an examination by the Crown’s psychiatrist pursuant to s. 672.12 of the Code - Whether the trial judge improperly admitted hearsay statements of the deceased - Whether the trial judge erred in admitting the disposition evidence of the accused through the testimony of previous girlfriends - Whether the trial judge failed to properly charge the jury on the treatment of expert evidence and circumstantial evidence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29242                    Robert Séguin c. Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.) (Criminelle) (Autorisation)

Coram: Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et LeBel

 La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐10‐001311‐982, daté du 20 novembre 2001, est rejetée.

 The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐10‐001311‐982, dated November 20, 2001, is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Directives au jury preuve relatives au comportement postérieur à l’infraction - Conscience coupable - Le fait pour le juge de première instance d’avoir donné des directives portant sur la “preuve relative au comportement postérieur à l’infraction” antérieurement aux renseignements du juge Major dans l’arrêt R. c. White, dans la mesure où elles ne sont pas entièrement conformes, peuvent-elles donner ouverture à la disposition réparatrice de l’article 686(1)b)iii) du Code criminel , en perspective des déficiences que pourrait comporter l’exposé du juge?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29046                    John Patrick MacAdam, The Birkenhead Group Inc. v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C30136, dated November 30, 2001, is dismissed without costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C30136, daté du 30 novembre 2001, est rejetée sans dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Tax evasion by an individual - Tax evasion by a corporation - Party to an offence as directing mind of a corporation - Provision in sentence for imprisonment in default of payment of fine - Whether the Applicant was denied his right to a speedy trial - Whether the Applicant’s counsels provided ineffective assistance and service - Whether the search and seizure were illegal - Whether this case raises Charter rights violations

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

11.12.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion by the appellant to file a reply factum on appeal

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (28945)

Jerimiah Josia Johnson (Crim.)(B.C.)

Requête de l’appelante pour le dépôt d'un mémoire en réplique lors de l'appel

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

11.12.2002

Before / Devant:   THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Motion to adjourn the hearing of the appeal

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (28533)

Steve Powley, et al. (Crim.)(Ont.)

Requête pour ajourner l'audition de l'appel

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the appellant for an order adjourning the hearing of the appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The application on behalf of the appellant for an order adjourning the hearing of this appeal scheduled for the 17^th and 18^th of March 2003 to the 9^th and 10^th of April 2003 is dismissed.

11.12.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Inspector David Jones

v. (28846)

Don Morrison, Police Complaint Commissioner, et al. (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire de l’appelante

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to January 3, 2003.

11.12.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (29251)

Matthew S. (Crim.)(Ont.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time to serve and file the appellant’s factum and record extended to November 20, 2002.  Time to serve and file the appellant’s book of authorities extended to November 27, 2002.

13.12.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

S.A.B.

v. (28862)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’intervenant le procureur général de l’Ontario

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to November 29, 2002.

13.12.2002

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Further order on motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Canada

IN/DANS:              Her Majesty the Queen

v. (28945)

Jerimiah Josia Johnson (Crim.)(B.C.)

and

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (28946)

Daniel George Edgar (Crim.)(B.C.)

and

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (29043)

Stewart James Smith (Crim.)(B.C.)

and

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (29083)

Steven Keith Mitchell (Crim.)(B.C.)

and

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (29140)

Michael Edward Kelly (Crim.)(B.C.)

Autre ordonnance sur une requête en autorisation d'intervention

UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General of Canada for leave to intervene in the above appeals and pursuant to the order of July 5, 2002;

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said intervener is granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding fifteen (15) minutes in total at the hearing of the appeals.

13.12.2002

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Further order on motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Ontario

IN/DANS:              Her Majesty the Queen

v. (28945)

Jerimiah Josia Johnson (Crim.)(B.C.)

Autre ordonnance sur une requête en autorisation d'intervention

UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General of Ontario for leave to intervene in the above appeal and pursuant to the order of May 30, 2002;

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

13.12.2002

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Further order on motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Alberta

IN/DANS:              Her Majesty the Queen

v. (28945)

Jerimiah Josia Johnson (Crim.)(B.C.)

and

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (28946)

Daniel George Edgar (Crim.)(B.C.)

Autre ordonnance sur une requête en autorisation d'intervention

UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General of Alberta for leave to intervene in the above appeals and pursuant to the orders of May 30, 2002;

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said intervener is granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding fifteen (15) minutes in total at the hearing of the appeals.

13.12.2002

Norm Ringstad, in his capacity as the Project Assessment Director for the Tulsequah Chief Mine Project, Sheila Wynn, in her capacity as the Executive Diretor, Environmental Assessment Office, et al.

v. (29146)

The Taku River Tlingit First Nation and Melvin Jack, on behalf of himself and all other members of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation, et al. (B.C.)

13.12.2002

Brian Joseph Smith

v. (29166)

Her Majesty the Queen (Nfld.)

13.12.2002

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

David Malmo‐Levine

v. (28026)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Criminal) (As of Right / By Leave)

David Malmo‐Levine appearing in person.

S. David Frankel Q. C., Kevin Wilson and W. Paul Riley for the respondent.

Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C. and Matthew Pollard for the intervener British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

Andrew K. Lokan and Andrew Lewis for the intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Milan Rupic for the intervener Attorney General for Ontario.

Victor Eugene Caine

v. (28148)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

John W. Conroy, Q.C. for the appellant.

S. David Frankel Q. C., Kevin Wilson and W. Paul Riley for the respondent.

Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C. and Matthew Pollard for the intervener British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

Andrew K. Lokan and Andrew Lewis for the intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Milan Rupic for the intervener Attorney General for Ontario.

Christopher James Clay

v. (28189)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave) (Motion To Adduce New Evidence)

Alan Young and Paul Burstein for the appellant.

S. David Frankel Q. C., Kevin Wilson and W. Paul Riley for the respondent.

Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C. and Matthew Pollard for the intervener British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

Andrew K. Lokan and Andrew Lewis for the intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Milan Rupic for the intervener Attorney General for Ontario.

ADJOURNED TO THE SPRING SESSION / AJOURNÉ À LA SESSION DU PRINTEMPS

The appeals from the judgments of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia (Vancouver), Numbers CA024517 and CA025287 dated June 2, 2000 and from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number CA28066, dated July 31, 2000, heard on December 13, 2002 are adjourned to the Spring Session.

The Chief Justice (orally):

In these appeals, the Court is being asked to determine the constitutionality of provisions of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1, prohibiting possession of marijuana.

According to the written submissions to the Court, a central question is whether harm to society or to any person by the use of marijuana is sufficient to permit criminalization.  The Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, who is the respondent in the three appeals before us, has announced his intention to introduce legislation in Parliament that would decriminalize in some way the present marijuana offences, and has made comments on the gravity of the existing offences.  The process announced by the Minister will inevitably involve a discussion of what harm comes from the conduct covered by these offences, and its proportionality to conviction and its consequences.  We may therefore expect that the underlying basis for the criminalization of marijuana possession and use will be taken up in Parliament and widely discussed in the months to come.

That examination and discussion may well prove to be of relevance to the case and of interest to the parties, and may provide guidance to the Court in deciding the present appeals.  Accordingly,  considering all these circumstances, particularly  the interest in a full and fair hearing on these issues, the Court will adjourn these appeals to the Spring term.  In adjourning these appeals, the Court expresses no view on the issues before us.

Les appels contre les arrêts de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéros CA024517 et CA025287 en date du 2 juin 2000 et contre l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro CA28066 en date du 31 juillet 2000, entendus le 13 décembre 2002, sont ajournés jusqu’à la session du printemps.

Le Juge en chef (oralement) :