Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

October 18, 2002 1404 - 1463                                                             le 18 octobre 2002

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters (“O.F.A.H.”), et al.

Timothy S.B. Danson

Danson, Recht & Freedman

v. (29237)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Natural Resources, et al. (Ont.)

Robert Earl Charney

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 6.9.2002

Russell Deigan

Russell Deigan

v. (29404)

Attorney General of Canada (Industry Canada) (F.C.)

Richard Fader

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 1.10.2002

Michael Bogart

Robert B, McGee, Q.C.

v. (29310)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Gregory J. Tweney

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 7.10.2002

John Schaefler

James Lockyer

Pinkofsky Lockyer

v. (29409)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

W. Graeme Cameron

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 8.10.2002

OCTOBER 15, 2002 / LE 15 OCTOBRE 2002

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Bastarache et Deschamps

Serge Daniel Fournier

c. (29165)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.) (Ont.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Procès - Juge et jury bilingues -  Droit à un procès devant un juge et un jury parlant la langue de l’accusé  - Interprétation de l’article 530(4)  du Code criminel  - Est-ce-qu’un accusé, dont la langue maternelle est le français, a droit à un procès entièrement en français, et ce en conformité avec l’article 16 et/ou l’article 7  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés , malgré le fait qu’il soit co-accusé en présence d’un anglophone qui exige de subir son procès en anglais? - Code criminel , L.R.C. (1985), ch.c-46, art. 530(4) .

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Paul Thomas Bryntwick

v. (29165)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law - Trial - Bilingual judge and jury - Right to a trial before a judge and jury speaking the language of the accused - Interpretation of s.530(4)  of the Criminal Code  - Whether an accused, whose mother tongue is English and who has duly elected and been duly cited to stand trial in English, is sheltered under s. 16 and/or s. 7  of the Charter  from a subsequent Superior Court order directing that a bilingual trial be held by reason that he has been jointly indicted with a French speaking co-accused? - Criminal Code, R.C.S. 1985, c. C-46, s.530(4).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Alliance des infirmières de Montréal

c. (28960)

Hôpital du Sacré‐Coeur de Montréal

- et -

Marcel Guilbert, Daniel David, Me Jean-Marc Brodeur et Reine Petitclerc (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail - Arbitrage - Contrôle judiciaire - Interprétation et application de la convention collective - Droit d’un salarié à prestations d’assurance-salaire où le lien d’emploi est rompt avant la fin de la période de probation de ce salarié - Est-ce-que le paiement de prestations d’assurance invalidité par un employeur, dans le cadre d’un régime auto-assuré, survit à la rupture du lien d’emploi du bénéficiaire lorsque l’invalidité a débuté avant cette fin d’emploi? - Quelle est la qualification juridique des droits et obligations des parties à un contrat de travail pendant la durée de la probation de la personne salariée, à savoir, s’il s’agit d’un contrat de travail sous condition suspensive?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 30 janvier 1998

(Guilbert, arbitre)

Grief accueilli en partie; l’intimé doit payer à Mme Petitclerc l’assurance-salaire pour la période du 24 août au 15 septembre 1994 seulement et non au-delà du 15 septembre 1994

Norm Ringstad, in his capacity as the Project Assessment Director of the

Tulsequah Chief Mine Project, Sheila Wynn, in her capacity as the Executive Director,

Environmental Assessment Office, The Minister of the Environment, Lands and Parks and the

Minister of Energy and Mines and the Minister Responsible for Northern Development

v. (29146)

The Taku River Tlingit First Nation and Melvin Jack, on behalf of his himself and all other

members of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation and Redfern Resources Ltd. (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Native law - Judicial review - Environmental review process - Decision of Ministers to permit road to be built through traditional First Nations area - Order quashing decision of Minister  - Whether Ministers of the Crown owe constitutional and fiduciary duty to consult with First Nations band in order to address their concerns prior to the establishment of their contested asserted aboriginal rights - Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that if such a duty exists, it was not fulfilled

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Arbour

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse agissant en faveur de Caroline Charrette

c. (29187)

Le procureur général du Québec en sa qualité de représentant du Ministère de la sécurité du revenu et le Procureur général du Québec

- et -

Tribunal des droits de la personne, l’Honorable Simon Brossard, M^e Caroline Gendreau et M^e Stéphane Bernstein (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Législation - Interprétation - Compétence - La clause d’exclusivité de recours prévu à l’article 21 de la Loi sur la commission des affaires sociales, L.R.Q., c. C-34, a-t-elle pour effet de retirer au Tribunal des droits de la personne la compétence ratione materiae de se prononcer sur le caractère discriminatoire de dispositions législatives de la Loi sur la sécurité du revenu, L.R.Q., c. S-3.1.1.?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse en faveur de Normand Morin,

Jocelyne Fortin, Chantal Douesnard, Josée Thomassin, Claude Dufour et al.

c. (29188)

Le procureur général du Québec, la Centrale de l’enseignement du Québec désormais la

Centrale des syndicats du Québec et la Fédération des syndicats de l’enseignement (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail - Législation - Interprétation - Compétence - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en écartant la compétence ratione materiae du Tribunal des droits de la personne d’entendre et de disposer de toute demande ayant trait à une situation de discrimination en emploi au seul motif de l’existence d’une clause d’arbitrage obligatoire prévue à l’article 100 du Code du travail, L.R.Q., c. C-27?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

CORAM:  Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Major et Arbour

Simeon Hogan; Kevin Michael Mailman; Nathan Gionet

v. (29133)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Appeals - Evidence - Estoppel by res judicata - Can trial judge consider evidence that could have been called at an earlier stage of a voir dire? - Whether Court of Appeal erred in law when it determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal - Is the good faith of the police a necessary consideration in determining the admissibility of evidence under s. 24 (2)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Proper procedure to follow when a challenge is raised at trial to the authority of an agent to bring an application - Factors which must be considered in every determination of admissibility of evidence under 24(2) - Standard of appellate review where the Crown decides not to call evidence and invites a directed verdict.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Sandra Lee Keddy

v. (29206)

Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, Region 3 Hospital Corporation

and Anne Brown (N.B.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts ‐ Negligence ‐ Labour law ‐ Workers’ compensation - Appeals - Respondent Commission finding that Applicant was in the course of her employment when she sought medical assistance following an industrial accident and thus her action in negligence against the Respondent hospital and nurse was barred by s. 11(1) of the Workers’ Compensation Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. W-13 - Appeals Tribunal and Court of Appeal affirming decision - Whether Court of Appeal’s decision fails to take into account common law principle of novus actus interveniens and unjustifiably abrogates common law rights of recovery.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Kathleen Kufeldt

v. (29208)

Memorial University of Newfoundland (Nfld.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Labour relations - Collective agreement - Courts - Jurisdiction - Wrongful dismissal - Trial court dismissing Applicant’s action for damages for breach of pre-employment contract on ground that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate dispute since dispute arose out of collective agreement - Court of Appeal affirming decision - Whether trial court had jurisdiction to determine dispute.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Marvin A. Haggith

v. (29173)

33 Parliament Street Inc., Rothberg Kilbride Limited, Michael L. Kilbride, Norman A. Rothberg

and Hollace Wong (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence - Fiduciary Duty - Whether a cause of action in the tort of negligence accrues at a time when a plaintiff has knowledge of defendant’s negligent act or omission but has not yet suffered a loss - Whether it is wrong for Court of Appeal to decide an appeal on the basis of an evidentiary record that does not contain answers to questions that are relevant to a ground of appeal on a point of law that was not contested at the trial by the party who raised the issue on appeal - Whether appeal was decided on the issue of damages for pure economic loss - Whether issue of damages for pure economic loss was neither asserted as a defence nor made the subject matter of evidence at trial.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                  CORAM:  Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ. /

Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et LeBel

Le Sous‐Ministre du revenu du Québec

c. (28959)

Lloyd Woodfine

- et -

La Banque nationale du Canada (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Législation - Droit commercial - Faillite - Interprétation - L’article 70  de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité , L.R.C. 1985, ch. B-3 , s’applique-t-il à un avis du ministre du revenu à un tiers délivré en vertu des articles 15 à 15.8 de la Loi sur le ministère du Revenu du Québec, L.R.Q., c. M-31, lorsque le tiers qui a reçu l’avis fait défaut de remettre à la Couronne, avant la faillite, les sommes qu’il détient? - L’avis du ministre du revenu s’applique-t-il à tous les débiteurs fiscaux ou seulement à ceux en défaut de remettre au ministre des sommes qu’ils détenaient pour ce dernier à titre de mandataires de la Couronne? - La banque avait-elle, nonobstant la convention de renouvellement des dépôts à terme intervenue avec le débiteur, l’obligation de verser au ministre les montants devenus disponibles à la suite de l’échéance des placements?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Neles Controls Ltd.

v. (29186)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.A)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Customs and Excise - Remedies - Unjust enrichment - Applicant seeking refund of custom duties paid - Applicant alleging that Crown has been unjustly enriched - Whether the Customs Tariff Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 41 (3^rd Supp.) is a complete code - Whether the Applicant is entitled to equitable relief - Whether the “passing on” defence should be available to public authorities in order to defeat claims of unjust enrichment in cases of overpayment of taxes and duties - Whether the Applicant has access to the courts to remedy the unjust enrichment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Alexander Henri Legault

v. (29221)

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Immigration- Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Whether the mere mention of the children of an applicant under s.114(2) of the Immigration Act in the decision of an immigration officer can satisfy the requirement set out in Baker v. Canada, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 818  to consider and weigh the interests of the children? - Whether the obligation of the immigration officer to be “sensitive and alert” to the children’s interest can be satisfied where that officer makes what the Applicant characterises as disparaging, irrelevant and incorrect remarks? - Whether the determination of the weight to be given to the children’s interests is a purely discretionary matter?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

OCTOBER 17, 2002 / LE 17 OCTOBRE 2002

28981                    Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia, as represented by the Minister of Forests v. 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, 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 and the Neskonlith Indian Band, and all other persons engaged in the cutting, damaging or destroying of Crown Timber at Timber Sale Licence A38029, Block 2 (B.C.) (Civil)

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

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA27594, dated November 5, 2001, is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA27594, daté du 5 novembre 2001, est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Costs - Whether the appellate court erred in holding that, in the absence of any constitutional right, the Applicant should be required to pay the Respondents’ legal costs, in any event of the cause, on an interim and ongoing basis and in advance of any final order.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28988                    Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia, as represented by the Minister of Forests v. 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 (B.C.) (Civil)

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

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA27595, dated November 5, 2001, is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA27595, daté du 5 novembre 2001, est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Costs - Whether the appellate court erred in holding that, in the absence of any constitutional right, the Applicant should be required to pay the Respondents’ legal costs, in any event of the cause, on an interim and ongoing basis and in advance of any final order.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29113                    Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Attorney General in Right of Canada (Ont.) (Criminal)

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

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C34749, dated January 15, 2002, is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C34749, daté du 15 janvier 2002, est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Defence - Justification of use of reasonable force for correction by teachers and parents on children - Whether s. 43 of the Criminal Code,  R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 , as amended, violates a child’s rights under sections 7,12 and/or 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Whether any such violation is justified under s. 1  of the Charter .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29095                    Pertti Tulikorpi v. The Administrator of the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre, The Administrator of the Whitby Mental Health Centre and The Attorney General for Ontario (Ont.) (Criminal)

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

The application for an extension of time and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C34987, dated May 31, 2001, are granted.

La demande de prorogation de délai et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C34987, daté du 31 mai 2001, sont accordées.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non Charter) - Custodial Dispositions - Ontario Review Board decided applicant should be transferred from a maximum security hospital to a medium security hospital as a condition of his continued hospitalization under s. 672.54 (c) of the Criminal Code  - Whether Ontario Review Board applied the wrong legal test - Interpretation of s. 672.54  of the Criminal Code  as it applies to conditions imposed on custodial dispositions.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28901                    Serge Giguère, ès qualités c. La Chambre des notaires du Québec et Comité administratif de la Chambre des notaires du Québec (Qué.) (Civile

Coram :                   Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Arbour

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐004818‐977, daté du 7 septembre 2001, est accordée avec dépens en faveur du demandeur Serge Giguère, ès qualités quelle que soit l’issue de l’appel.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐004818‐977, dated September 7, 2001, is granted with costs to the applicant Serge Giguère, ès qualités in any event of the cause.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail - Droit administratif - Droit des professions - Contrôle judiciaire - Fonds d’indemnisation de la Chambre de notaires du Québec - Exercice de la profession de notaire - Pour des fins d’indemnisation en vertu de l’article 89 du Code des professions, L.R.Q., c. C-26, et de l’article 2.01 du Règlement sur le fonds d’indemnisation de la Chambre des notaires du Québec, R.R.Q. 1981, c. N-2, r.8, les Comités de la Chambre de notaires du Québec ont-ils erré dans l’exercice de leur pouvoir discrétionnaire?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 3 mai 1996

Comité administratif de la Chambre des notaires du Québec

(Poulin, notaire secrétaire)

Recommandations du Comité du fonds d’indemnisation datant du 3 et 4 avril 1996 entérinées avec modifications

29110                    Chun Quan Duong and Yen Thi Tran v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Criminal)

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

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia (Vancouver), Numbers CA 028177 and CA 028178, dated January 22, 2002, is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéros CA 028177 et CA 028178, daté du 22 janvier 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Sections 8  and 24(2)  of the Charter  -Warrantless arrest in and search of dwelling house following accidental discovery of marihuana grow operation -  What is the correct standard or test in applying s. 529.3 (2) (b) of the Criminal Code  which defines exigent circumstances for a warrantless arrest in a dwelling house to include circumstances where entry is necessary to prevent the “imminent loss or imminent destruction of evidence”? - What is the correct standard or test in applying s. 11(7) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act which authorizes a warrantless search of a dwelling house if the grounds for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it is impracticable to do so?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29057                    Riccardo DiGiuseppe v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal)

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

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C34672, dated January 17, 2002, is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C34672, daté du 17 janvier 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal - Criminal Law - Whether  s. 210 and s. 197(1) of the Criminal Code  comply with s. 7  of the Charter 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29059                    Ontario Corporate Number 102856, operating as The Brass Rail Tavern Limited and Michael Cooper v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal)

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

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Numbers C35935 and C33840, dated January 17, 2002, is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéros C35935 et C33840, daté du 17 janvier 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal - Criminal Law - Whether  s. 210 and s. 197(1) of the Criminal Code  comply with s. 7  of the Charter 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

March 15, 2002

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

29053                    Her Majesty the Queen v. Yu Wu (Ont.) (Criminal)

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

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C35987, dated December 12, 2001, is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C35987, daté du 12 décembre 2001, est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sentencing - Statutes - Interpretation - Does section 742.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada  permit a conditional sentence to be imposed in default of payment of a fine?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29052                    Gordon Garland v. The Consumers' Gas Company Limited (Ont.) (Civil)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C34248, dated December 3, 2001, is granted with costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C34248, daté du 3 décembre 2001, est accordée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Unjust enrichment - Criminal rate of interest charged by Respondent to Applicant and the class of plaintiffs he proposes to represent - Whether the amounts charged constituted unjust enrichment for the Respondent - Whether the Respondent benefited from the amounts charged - Whether the Respondent had a juristic reason for making the charges - Whether restitution was appropriate in the circumstances - Whether a preservation order was appropriate in the circumstances.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28975                    H & R Block Canada Inc. v. National Trust Company (Ont.) (Civil)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to cross-appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C28654, dated October 26, 2001, is granted with costs in any event of the cause.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel incident est rejetée sans ordonnance quant aux  dépens et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C28654, daté du 26 octobre 2001, est accordée avec dépens quelle que soit l’issue de l’appel.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Creditor and debtor- Bulk sales - Whether purchaser who fails to comply with provisions of the Act is liable to seller’s creditors on a sale in bulk - Whether purchaser’s liability to “account to the creditors” is intended to impose substantial penalties on purchaser and put creditors in a better position than they would have been in had the purchaser complied with the Act - Whether a creditor of a seller is entitled to recover from a purchaser who acquires stock in bulk without compliance with the Act, post sale indebtedness owed at the date of sale up to the value of the stock in bulk received by the purchaser - Bulk Sales Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.14, s. 16(2) - Procedural law - Judgments and orders - Rate of interest - Whether it is lawful for a court of equal jurisdiction to substitute a different rate of post-judgment interest on a judgment obtained in a separate proceeding in which the post-judgment rate of interest has been determined

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

November 6^th, 1997

Ontario Court of Justice

(Spence J.)

Order declaring  void asset sale from Tax Time Services to Applicant; Applicant ordered to pay to Respondent  $740,743 for  the value of the stock in bulk

October 26, 2001

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(McMurtry C.J.O., Borins [dissenting] and MacPherson JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed in part; sum of judgment varied to $422,536.44; cross-appeal dismissed

December 27, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

January 23, 2002

Supreme Court of Canada

Cross-application for leave to appeal filed

29142                    Kenmont Management Inc. v. Saint John Port Authority, Service New Brunswick and the Province of New Brunswick (N.B.) (Civil)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick, Number 20/01/CA, dated January 31, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Nouveau‐Brunswick, numéro 20/01/CA, daté du 31 janvier 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes - Interpretation - Procedural Law - Limitation of actions - Whether Court of Appeal erred in setting a limitation period as six years by holding that the contract under seal was not a “specialty”; Whether there is conflicting jurisprudence in the Courts below and across Canada as to whether a contract under seal is a “specialty”; Whether Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s. 2 of the Limitations of Actions Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. L-8.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28942                    Chief Miles Venne and all of the Councillors of the Lac La Ronge Indian Band, representing themselves and all other members of the Lac La Ronge Indian Band, and all members of the James Roberts Band of Cree Indians and Amos Charles Band of Cree Indians and all of the lawful successors of those two Bands v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Saskatchewan (Sask.) (Civil)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ.

The motion to file a lengthy memorandum of argument is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan, Number 3473, dated October 23, 2001, is dismissed with costs to Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Saskatchewan.

La requête visant le dépôt d’un long mémoire des arguments est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Saskatchewan, numéro 3473, daté du 23 octobre 2001, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de Sa Majesté la Reine du chef de la province de la Saskatchewan.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Native law - Indians - Reserves - Treaty land entitlement - Applicant Indian Band adhering to Treaty No. 6 in 1889 - Reserve clause in Treaty not stipulating date at which a band’s population is to be ascertained for purposes of determining treaty land entitlement - Whether Band entitled to treaty land entitlement of 128 acres per Indian based on present population of Band rather than on population of Band at time of first survey - Whether courts below erred in finding that certain lands were not set apart as an Indian Reserve.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

November 30, 1999

Court of Queen’s Bench of Saskatchewan

(Gerein J.)             

Applicants’ claims relating to Treaty 6 allowed in part: “current population formula” to be used  to determine treaty land entitlement

December 18, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

(LeBel J.)

Application for extension of time granted

January 31, 2002

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

29207                    Attorney General of Canada v. Joseph Patrick Authorson, deceased, by his Litigation Administrator, Peter Mountney (Ont.) (Civil)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The motion to expedite the application is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Numbers C35254 and  C35835, dated March 13, 2002, is granted with costs to the Respondent in any event of the cause.

La requête pour accélérer la demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéros C35254 et  C35835, daté du 13 mars 2002, est accordée avec dépens en faveur de l’intimé quelle que soit l’issue de l’appel.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional law - Civil rights - Canadian Bill of Rights - Veterans - Pensions - Crown - Fiduciary duty - Government administering pensions and allowances for war veterans and failing to invest funds and to pay interest -  Whether the parliamentary legislative process constitutes “due process” for the purposes of section 1(a) of the Bill of Rights? - Whether in the enactment of legislation that may affect property rights, Parliament is required to provide “a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice” to those potentially affected by the legislation in accordance with section 2(e) of the Bill of Rights?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29060                    Eric Squires v. Her Majesty the Queen (Nfld.) (Criminal)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador, Number 98/70, dated January 24, 2002, is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel de Terre‐Neuve et Labrador, numéro 98/70, daté du 24 janvier 2002, est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - First degree murder - Post-offence conduct - Whether  the Court of Appeal erred in ruling that no instruction was necessary to the effect that the Applicant’s post-offence conduct was equally attributable to the offences of first degree and second degree murder.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29065                    Richard Wayne Gillingham v. The United States of America (B.C.) (Criminal)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ.

In view of the decisions in United States of America v. Kwok, 2001 1 S.C.R. 532, 2001 SCC 18 and United States of America v. Cobb, 2001 1 S.C.R. 587, 2001 SCC 19, the case is remanded to the British Columbia Court of Appeal to be decided having regard to the reasons in the said decisions including a consideration of the Applicant’s Charter  rights.

À la lumière des arrêts États-Unis d'Amérique c. Kwok, [2001] 1 R.C.S. 532, 2001 CSC 18 et États-Unis d'Amérique c. Cobb, [2001] 1 R.C.S. 587, 2001 CSC 19, le dossier est renvoyé à la Cour d'appel de la Colombie-Britannique pour qu'elle statue sur celui-ci eu égard aux motifs exposés dans les arrêts susmentionnés  et aux droits garantis au demandeur par la Charte .

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal law - Administrative Law - Jurisdiction - Extradition - Whether judge presiding over extradition hearing correctly declined to adjudicate an application for relief under the Charter .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28957                    Christopher George Phillips v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ.

The motion 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 C27456, dated January 16, 2001, 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 C27456, daté du 16 janvier 2001, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law - Reasonable doubt - Jury instructions - Whether the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury in accordance with the principles in R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 - Whether the trial judge erred by instructing the jury that they could acquit the Applicant if they “found” that exculpatory evidence “might reasonably be true” - Whether the trial judge failed to instruct the jury on reasonable doubt in a manner that substantially complied with this Court’s decisions in R. v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320 and R. v. Starr, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29035                    Byron Cory Baker v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ.

The motion 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 C27460, dated January 16, 2001, 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 C27460, daté du 16 janvier 2001, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law - Unreasonable verdict - Reasonable doubt - Jury instructions - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by concluding that the verdict was reasonable on the basis of factors that the trier of fact would not have been permitted to consider - Whether the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury respecting the standard of proof?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29129                    Kenneth C.L. Wu v. Greta Holsten (B.C.) (Civil)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA026607, dated January 24, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA026607, daté du 24 janvier 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Appeal - Standard of appellate court review - Torts - Negligence - Dental malpractice claim- Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Toneguzzo-Norvell (guardian ad litem of) v. Burnaby Hospital, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 114 - Whether the Court of Appeal made its own findings of fact not supported by the evidence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29018                    Andrew Scott Haydon v. Her Majesty the Queen, Attorney General of Canada (FC) (Civil)

Coram:                    L'Heureux‐Dubé, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐206‐00, dated November 13, 2001, is dismissed with costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‐206‐00, daté du 13 novembre 2001, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Estoppel - In assessing applicant for 1997 taxation year Minister of National Revenue disallowed deduction for undeducted RRSP premiums paid in 1993 taxation year - Whether the courts below erred in holding that there is no liability on the part of the Crown for negligently given advice where the Crown relies upon the letter of the law to defend its decision?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28910                    Association des juges administratifs du Tribunal administratif du Québec c. Barreau de Montréal, Procureur général du Québec et Barreau du Québec (Qué.) (Civile)

Coram :                   Les juges Bastarache, Binnie et LeBel

ATTENDU QU’une erreur s’est glissée dans la transcription du jugement de la Cour sur la demande d’autorisation d’appel;

ATTENDU QUE la décision de la Cour est de rejeter la demande d’autorisation d’appel.

EN CONSÉQUENCE, le jugement de la Cour sur la demande d’autorisation d’appel est corrigé et se lit comme suit:

« La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500-09-009146-002, daté du 5 septembre 2001, est rejetée. »

WHEREAS there has been an error in the transcription of the Court’s judgment on the application for leave to appeal;

WHEREAS the Court’s decision is to dismiss the application for leave to appeal.

ACCORDINGLY, the judgment of the Court on the application for leave to appeal is corrected and reads as follows:

“The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500-09-009146-002, dated September 5, 2001, is dismissed.”

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Libertés publiques - Indépendance institutionnelle des membres du Tribunal administratif du Québec créé en vertu de la Loi sur la justice administrative, L.R.Q., ch. J-3 - Les tribunaux inférieurs purement judiciaires et, en particulier, le Tribunal administratif du Québec sont-ils des cours de justice au sens du par. 92(14) auxquelles s’appliquent les garanties d’indépendance du Préambule de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 ? - Si oui, quelle est l’étendue des exigences d’indépendance de la magistrature imposées par la Constitution à de tels organismes et, en particulier, au Tribunal administratif du Québec? - Si non, quelle est l’étendue des exigences d’indépendance imposées par l’art. 23 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., ch. C-12, au Tribunal administratif du Québec?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 16 décembre 1999

Cour supérieure du Québec

(Rochon j.c.s.)

Requête pour jugement déclaratoire du  Barreau de Montréal accueillie en partie; requête en irrecevabilité du Procureur général du Québec rejetée; art. 46, 48, 49 et 56 par. 1 de la Loi sur la justice administrative déclarés nuls, inopérants et sans effet

29073                    Mike Naraine and Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Ford Motor Company of Canada Ltd. - and - Ontario Human Rights Commission and Mike Naraine v. Ford Motor Company of Canada Ltd. (Ont.) (Civil)

Coram:                    Bastarache, Binnie and LeBel JJ.

The application for cross-appeal is dismissed and the applications for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C32965, dated December 14, 2001, are dismissed with costs.

La demande d’appel incident est rejetée et les demandes d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C32965, daté du 14 décembre 2001, sont rejetées avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Civil rights - Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 - Administrative law - Labour law - Jurisdiction - Board of Inquiry - Arbitrator - Standard of review - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in improperly interfering with the exercise of remedial discretion by a Human Rights Board of Inquiry - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Board of Inquiry should have accorded more serious weight and consideration to a prior arbitral decision - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in addressing an issue upon which leave to appeal had not been granted without affording notice to the parties and an opportunity to respond.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29096                    Mark Harding v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal)

Coram:                    Bastarache, Binnie and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C35767, dated December 17, 2001, is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C35767, daté du 17 décembre 2001, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal - Criminal Law - Wilful promotion of hatred - Mens rea - Defences - Whether mens rea for wilful promotion of hatred includes wilful blindness - Whether statutory defence of good faith construed narrowly and unconstitutionally - Whether good faith requirement of statutory defence protects against misuse of defence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29147                    The Council of Canadians, the Sierra Club of Canada and Greenpeace v. Attorney General of Canada and S.D. Myers Inc. (FC) (Civil)

Coram:                    Bastarache, 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 Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐252‐01, dated January 22, 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 fédérale, numéro A‐252‐01, daté du 22 janvier 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Environmental law – International law – Public interest intervener status –  Canada issuing order banning PCB exports to United States –  Tribunal convened pursuant to NAFTA making partial award against Canada finding obligations under NAFTA breached – Canada applying for judicial review of tribunal order – Application of public interest groups to intervene in judicial review application dismissed by Federal Court, because grounds on which intervener status sought were essentially “jurisprudential” in nature – Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in finding no error in principle committed in exercising discretion to deny application.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

7.10.2002

Before / Devant:   LEBEL J.

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

Franklin Godwin

v. (29348)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la demande d'autorisation

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by applicant Franklin Godwin for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal to January 31, 2003;

AND HAVING READ the material and the consent of the respondent;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The application on behalf of the applicant Franklin Godwin for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal to January 31, 2003 is granted.

7.10.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum and book of authorities of the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario to December 13, 2002

Global BC (also known as BCTV News) a division of Global Communications Limited, et al.

v. (28823)

Her Majesty the Queen, et al. (Crim.)(B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les mémoire et recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’intervenant le procureur général de l’Ontario jusqu’au 13 décembre 2002

GRANTED IN PART / ACCORDÉE EN PARTIE    Time extended to December 9, 2002.

7.10.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Global BC (also known as BCTV News) a division of Global Communications Limited, et al.

v. (28823)

Her Majesty the Queen, et al. (Crim.)(B.C.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to October 25, 2002.

7.10.2002

Before / Devant:   LEBEL J.

Motions for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Federation of Canadian

  Municipalities

Aliant Telecom Inc. et al.

Saskatchewan Power Corporation

GT Group Telecom Services Corp.

Attorney General of Canada

IN/DANS:              Canadian Cable Television Association

v. (28826)

Barrie Public Utilities, et al. (F.C.)

Requêtes en autorisation d'intervention

GRANTED /ACCORDÉES

UPON APPLICATION by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Aliant Telecom Inc. et al., the Saskatchewan Power Corporation, the GT Group Telecom Services Corp. and the Attorney General of Canada for an extension of time and for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1.         The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Federation of Canadian Municipalities is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

2.         The motion for leave to intervene of the applicants Aliant Telecom Inc., AT & T Canada, Bell Canada, Bell West Inc., MTS Communications Inc. and TELUS Communications Inc. is granted and the applicants shall be entitled to serve and file a joint factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

3.         The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Saskatchewan Power Corporation is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

4.         The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant GT Group Telecom Services Corp. is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

5.         The motion for an extension of time and for leave to intervene of the applicant Attorney General of Canada 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 interveners shall not be entitled to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties.

Pursuant to Rule 59(1)(a) the interveners shall pay to the appellant and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondents by the interventions.

7.10.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the record, factum and book of authorities of the respondent Michael Gareau

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

c. (28402)

Maksteel Québec Inc., et al. (Qué.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Délai prorogé au 4 novembre 2002.

7.10.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to substitute parties

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

c. (28402)

Maksteel Québec Inc., et al. (Qué.)

Requête en substitution de parties

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    La requête de l’appelante pour obtenir une ordonnance permettant la modification de la dénomination de la partie intimé Maksteel Québec Inc. pour la dénomination suivante: MAKSTEEL INC., a Company in receivership under its Court-Appointed Interim Receiver, Ernst & Young Inc. and Michael Gareau est accordée.

9.10.2002

Before / Devant:   ARBOUR J.

Motions for extensions of time and leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communcation,

Canada Post Corporation

IN/DANS:              Bell Canada

v. (28743)

Canadian Telephone Employees Association, et al. (F.C.)

Requêtes visant à obtenir des prorogations de délai et l’autorisation d'intervenir

UPON APPLICATION by the Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communcation and Canada Post Corporation for extensions of time and for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1.             I am not persuaded that there is a foundation to grant an extension of time in this case.  More importantly the submissions that the proposed intervener intends to make are either repetitive of that of the appellant or, to the extent that they differ, they raise issues that are not sufficiently relevant to the issues under appeal to be of assistance to the Court in the disposition of the case.

The motion for an extension of time and for leave to intervene of the applicant Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communication is denied.

2.         The motion for an extension of time and for leave to intervene of the applicant Canada Post Corporation is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length to be served and filed on or before November 8, 2002.

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 59(1)(a) the intervener shall pay to the appellant and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondents by the intervention. 

9.10.2002

Before / Devant:   BASTARACHE J.

Further order on motions for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Canada

Nishnawbe Aski Nation

Patrick Dennis Stewart, F.L.B., R.A.F., R.R.J., M.L.J., M.W., Victor Brown, Benny Ryan Clappis, Danny Louie Daniels, Robert Daniels, Charlotte (Wilson) Guest, Daisy (Wilson) Hayman, Irene (Wilson) Starr, Pearl (Wilson) Stelmacher, Frances Tait, James Wilfrid White, Allan George Wilson, Donna Wilson, John Hugh Wilson, Terry Aleck, Gilbert Spinks, Ernie James and Ernie Michell

IN/DANS:              K.L.B., et al.

v. (28612)

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

and

E.D.G.

v. (28613)

The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 44 (North Vancouver) (B.C.)

Autre ordonnance sur des requêtes en autorisation d'intervention

and

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

v. (28616)

M.B. (B.C.)

UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General of Canada, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation and Patrick Dennis Stewart, F.L.B., R.A.F., R.R.J., M.L.J., M.W., Victor Brown, Benny Ryan Clappis, Danny Louie Daniels, Robert Daniels, Charlotte (Wilson) Guest, Daisy (Wilson) Hayman, Irene (Wilson) Starr, Pearl (Wilson) Stelmacher, Frances Tait, James Wilfrid White, Allan George Wilson, Donna Wilson, John Hugh Wilson, Terry Aleck, Gilbert Spinks, Ernie James and Ernie Michell for leave to intervene in the above appels and pursuant to the orders of March 11, 2002 and May 16, 2002;

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

10.10.2002

Before / Devant:   LEBEL J.

Motion by the respondent to expedite the decision on the application for leave to appeal

Deloitte & Touche LLP

v. (29300)

Ontario Securities Commission (Ont.)

Requête de l’intimée visant à obtenir rapidement une décision sur la demande d’autorisation d’appel

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the respondent Ontario Securities Commission for an order expediting the determination of the application for leave to appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:  

Given the urgency of the matter, the application for leave to appeal be referred to the Court as soon as possible and decided on an expedited basis.

10.10.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum and book of authorities of the respondents on cross-appeal

The Estate of Manish Odhavji, Deceased, et al.

v. (28425)

Detective Martin Woodhouse, et al. (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les mémoire et recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine des intimés sur le pourvoi incident

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to September 6, 2002.

11.10.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Michael Pelletier

v. (29062)

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

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to October 31, 2002.

16.10.2002

Mr. R.

v. (29224)

Mrs. R. (Ont.)

(leave)

AGENDA for the weeks of October 28 and November 4, 2002.

CALENDRIER de la semaine du 28 octobre et de celle du 4 novembre 2002.

The Court will not be sitting during the weeks of October 21 and November 11, 18 and 25, 2002.

La Cour ne siègera pas pendant les semaines du 21 octobre et celles du 11, 18 et 25 novembre 2002.

Date of Hearing/                     Case Number and Name/

Date d'audition                        Numéro et nom de la cause

2002/10/28                                American International Assurance Life Company Ltd., et al. v. Dorothy Martin (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave) (28540)

2002/10/29                                Eric Juri Miglin v. Linda Susan Miglin (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave) (28670)

2002/10/29                                The Information Commissioner of Canada v. The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (FC) (Civil) (By Leave) (28601)

2002/10/31                                David Albert Siemens, et al. v. The Attorney General of Manitoba, et al.(Man.) (Civil) (By Leave) (28416)

2002/10/31                                William Christopher Wilson v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Criminal) (As of Right) (28703)

2002/11/01                                Mervyn Allen Buhay v. Her Majesty the Queen (Man.) (Criminal) (By Leave) (28667)

2002/11/04                                Motions / Requêtes

2002/11/05                                Miguel Figueroa v. The Attorney General of Canada (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave) (28194)

2002/11/06                                La Caisse Populaire Desjardins de Val‐Brillant c. Métivier & Associés Inc. (Qué.) (Civile) (Autorisation) (28483)

2002/11/06                                Les Éditions Chouette (1987) Inc., et al. c. Hélène Desputeaux (Qué.) (Civ.) (Autorisation) (28660)

2002/11/07                                Daniel Asante‐Mensah v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal) (As of Right/By Leave) (28867)

NOTE

This agenda is subject to change.  Hearings normally commence at 9:45 a.m. each day.  Where there are two cases scheduled on a given day, the second case may be heard immediately after the first case, or at 2:00 p.m.  Hearing dates and times should be confirmed with Registry staff at (613) 996-8666.

Ce calendrier est sujet à modification.  Les audiences débutent normalement à 9h45 chaque jour.  Lorsque deux affaires doivent être entendues le même jour, l’audition de la deuxième affaire peut avoir lieu immédiatement après celle de la première ou encore à 14h.  La date et l’heure d’une audience doivent être confirmées auprès du personnel du greffe au (613) 996-8666.

28540      American International Assurance Life Company Ltd. et al v. Dorothy Martin

Commercial law - Insurance - Whether an intentional and risky act on the part of the insured should affect the liability of the insurer under a policy of accidental death insurance benefits - Whether death caused by an overdose of self-injected demerol came within the accidental death benefit provision - Whether there is a distinction between accidental means and accidental result.

The insured was a 46 year old family practice physician.  In 1994, he completed a residential treatment program for a dependency on opiate medications first used during the treatment of a peptic ulcer.  He returned to practice in 1995, but began taking and over-using morphine and demerol in the spring of 1996 for pain management during an orthopaedic injury.  He was put on a program of gradual withdrawal from those drugs and returned to work on October 15, 1996.  At about midnight on October 29, 1996, the insured left his residence after telling his spouse that he was going for a drive in an attempt to relieve leg pain.  The trial judge found that he drove to his office, which had previously been emptied of all mood altering medications, and injected demerol and phenobarbital intravenously, which he had obtained from unknown sources. Death resulted.  Phenobarbital is said to have a significant additive effect on demerol so that the combination of the two drugs is particularly hazardous.  The insured’s lungs revealed evidence of “junkie’s lung”, a condition resulting from chronic intravenous abuse of drugs contaminated with foreign substances, often found in illicit drugs purchased on the street.

The Respondent made a claim against the Appellants as the beneficiary under the insured’s insurance policy, which included an accidental death benefit.  The Appellants refused to pay anything under the policy, claiming that the insured’s death was not accidental within the terms of the policy.  As later noted by the Court of Appeal, the Appellants did not suggest that there was evidence to support the exclusion of the risk from coverage, but argued that, while the insured’s death was not intended, it was not caused by accidental means, since the self-injection of a lethal dose of demerol was a deliberate voluntary act of which his death was a natural and direct, even probable, consequence.

The Respondent commenced an action for breach of contract against the Appellants claiming damages in the amount of $250,000.  The action was dismissed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, however the Court of Appeal for British Columbia allowed the appeal and ordered that the Respondent recover judgment against the Appellants in the amount of $250,000 plus interest and costs.

Origin of the case:                                British Columbia

File No.:                                                 28540

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:     February 23, 2001

Counsel:                                                                Peter H. Griffin/ Nina Bombier for the Appellants

Robert B. Kearl/David A. Critchley for the Respondent

28540      American International Assurance Life Company Ltd. et autres c. Dorothy Martin

Droit commercial - Assurance - Un acte intentionnel et risqué de la part de l’assuré devrait-il réduire la responsabilité de l’assureur au titre d’une police d’assurance pour décès accidentel? - Le décès entraîné par une surdose de démérol autoinjectée entrait-il dans la disposition prévoyant des prestations pour décès accidentel? - Y a-t-il une distinction entre un moyen accidentel et un résultat accidentel?

L’assuré était un médecin généraliste âgé de 46 ans. En 1994, il a suivi un programme de traitement en établissement pour une dépendance à des médications opiacées utilisées à l’origine pour le traitement d’un ulcère de l’estomac. Il est retourné à son cabinet en 1995, mais a commencé au printemps de 1996 à prendre et à abuser de la morphine et du démérol pour apaiser une douleur subie à la suite d’une blessure orthopédique. Il fut placé dans un programme d’abandon graduel de ces drogues et il est retourné au travail le 15 octobre 1996. Vers minuit le 29 octobre 1996, l’assuré a quitté son domicile après avoir dit à son épouse qu’il allait faire une promenade en voiture pour alléger sa douleur à la jambe. Le juge de première instance a conclu qu’il s’était rendu à son cabinet, lequel avait été auparavant vidé de tous les médicaments modifiant l’humeur, et qu’il s’était injecté du démérol et du phénobarbital par piqûre intraveineuse, substances qu’il avait obtenues de sources inconnues. Le décès s’ensuivit. Le phénobarbital produit apparemment un important effet additif sur le démérol de telle sorte que la combinaison des deux drogues est particulièrement dangereuse. Les poumons de l’assuré se sont révélés être des poumons de drogué, un état qui résulte de l’abus intraveineux chronique de drogues contaminées par des substances étrangères, que l’on trouve souvent dans les drogues illicites achetées sur la rue.

L’intimée a déposé une réclamation contre les appelants à titre de bénéficiaire selon la police d’assurance de l’assuré, laquelle renfermait une clause de prestation pour décès accidentel. Les appelants ont refusé de payer quoi que ce soit au titre de la police, affirmant que le décès de l’assuré n’était pas accidentel selon les termes de la police. Comme l’a noté plus tard la Cour d’appel, les appelants ne donnaient pas à entendre qu’il existait une preuve permettant d’exclure le risque de la garantie, mais ils ont soutenu que, bien que le décès de l’assuré n’ait pas été voulu, il n’avait pas été causé par des moyens accidentels puisque l’autoinjection d’une dose mortelle de démérol était un acte volontaire délibéré qui avait le décès pour conséquence naturelle et directe, voire probable.

L’intimée a introduit une action en rupture de contrat contre les appelants, en leur réclamant des dommages-intérêts de 250 000 $. L’action a été rejetée par la Cour suprême de la Colombie-Britannique, mais la Cour d’appel de la province a accueilli l’appel et ordonné que l’intimée obtienne jugement contre les appelants pour la somme de 250 000 $, avec intérêts et dépens.

Origine de la cause :                            Colombie-Britannique

Dossier n^o :                                            28540

Jugement de la Cour d’appel :            le 23 février 2001

Avocats :                                               Peter H. Griffin/ Nina Bombier, pour les appelants

Robert B. Kearl/David A. Critchley, pour l’intimée

28670      Eric Juri Miglin v. Linda Susan Miglin

Family law - Maintenance - Separation Agreements - Spousal support release - Former wife applying for spousal support despite having released entitlement to future support in separation agreement -  Application of Pelech trilogy to provisions of Divorce Act , 1985, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2 ^nd  supp .) - Procedural law - Courts - Reasonable apprehension of bias - Comments of trial judge - Whether Court of Appeal erred in declining to order new trial in light of interventions by trial judge.

The Appellant and Respondent were married on February 17, 1989, later separating in 1993.  During the course of the marriage, four children were born.  In 1981, the parties purchased the Killarney Lodge in Algonquin Park, each owning one half of the shares in the business.  The Appellant was responsible for managing the business, while the Respondent was responsible for housekeeping and administrative tasks. 

Following their separation in 1993, the parties signed three agreements on June 1, 1994: a separation agreement, a parenting agreement, and a consulting agreement between the Respondent and Killarney Lodge.  Pursuant to the separation agreement, the children were to reside primarily with the wife in the former matrimonial home.  Child support was fixed at $60,000 per annum.  The wife transferred her shares in the lodge in exchange for the Appellant’s share in the matrimonial home, both of which were valued at $250,000 in 1993. In addition, the parties agreed to release one another from any support obligations.  The parenting agreement provided for shared responsibility for bringing up the children and specified periods of access for the Appellant.  Over time, the parties deviated from the parenting agreement, and made their own ad hoc arrangements for the children.  Finally, the consulting agreement provided for annual consulting fees of $15,000 to be paid to the Respondent through the business, for a five year term.  This payment, like the child support, was subject to an annual cost of living increase, and the consulting agreement was stipulated to be renewable at the end of its term in 1999, at the option of the parties.

The divorce was finalized on January 23, 1997.  The amicable relationship between the parties deteriorated, and the Appellant refused to extend the consulting agreement after it expired.  Eventually, the eldest child went to live with the Appellant.  In June 1998, the Respondent applied for sole custody, spousal support and child support.  The Respondent has not worked outside the home since her work in the lodge business ceased.  At trial, the Appellant sought to have the children reside with him on alternate weeks.

After several days of trial, the parties agreed to joint custody with the three younger children residing primarily with the Respondent and the eldest with the Appellant.  The Respondent was awarded $4,400 per month in spousal support for a period of five years, and $3,000 in monthly child support, based upon the Appellant’s estimated annual income of $200,000. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant’s appeal, but granted the Respondent’s cross-appeal, eliminating the five year term from the award of spousal support.  Child support was reduced by agreement of the parties, based upon a more accurate determination of the Appellant’s income at $186,000 per annum. 

Origin of the case:                                Ontario

File No.:                                                 28670

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:     April 26, 2001

Counsel:                                                                Nicole Tellier/Kelly D. Jordan for the Appellant

Philip M. Epstein Q.C. for the Respondent

28670      Eric Juri Miglin c. Linda Susan Miglin

Droit de la famille - Aliments - Ententes de séparation - Libération de pension alimentaire - L’ex-épouse demande une pension alimentaire bien qu’elle ait renoncé à son droit à une pension future dans l’entente de séparation -  Application de la trilogie Pelech aux dispositions de la Loi sur le divorce , L.R.C. (1985) (2 ^e  suppl.), ch. 3  - Droit procédural - Tribunaux - Crainte raisonnable de partialité - Remarques du juge de première instance - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en refusant d’ordonner un nouveau procès,  compte tenu des interventions du juge de première instance?

L’appelant et l’intimée se sont mariés le 17 février 1989, puis ils se sont séparés en 1993. Quatre enfants sont nés au cours de leur union. En 1981, les parties ont acheté Killarney Lodge dans le parc provincial Algonquin. Chacune possédait la moitié des actions de l’entreprise. L’appelant gérait l’entreprise tandis que l’intimée était responsable des tâches administratives et domestiques. 

Après leur séparation en 1993, les parties ont signé trois ententes le 1^er juin 1994 : la première portait sur la séparation, la seconde sur le soin des enfants et la troisième sur les services de consultation qui seraient fournis par l’épouse à Killarney Lodge. Conformément à l’entente de séparation, les enfants devaient résider principalement avec l’épouse dans l’ancien foyer conjugal. La pension alimentaire pour les enfants a été fixée à 60 000 $ par année. L’épouse a cédé ses parts dans Killarney Lodge en échange de la part de l’appelant dans le foyer conjugal, les deux étant évaluées en 1993 à 250 000 $. De plus, les parties ont convenu de se libérer mutuellement de toute obligation alimentaire. L’entente de garde prévoyait que les parents partageraient la responsabilité d’élever les enfants et que l’appelant pourrait voir les enfants à des périodes précises. Avec le temps, les parties ont dérogé à l’entente de garde et elles ont conclu leurs propres ententes ad hoc concernant les enfants. Finalement, l’entente sur les services de consultation prévoyait que l’appelant convenait de verser à l’intimée pendant cinq ans des honoraires de consultation annuels de 15 000 $ par le biais de l’entreprise. Ce paiement, comme les aliments des enfants, était susceptible de majoration pour hausse annuelle du coût de la vie et il était prévu que l’entente sur les services de consultation serait renouvelable à son expiration en 1999, au choix des parties.

Le divorce a été prononcé le 23 janvier 1997. La relation amicale qui existait entre les parties n’a pas duré et l’appelant a refusé de prolonger l’entente sur les services de consultation après son expiration.  L’aînée des enfants a fini par emménager avec l’appelant. En juin 1998, l’intimée a demandé la garde exclusive des enfants et une pension alimentaire pour elle et ses enfants. L’intimée n’a pas travaillé à l’extérieur du foyer depuis la fin de son emploi dans l’entreprise d’hôtellerie. Au procès, l’appelant a tenté d’obtenir que les enfants vivent avec lui à toutes les deux semaines.

Après plusieurs jours d’audience, les parties ont conclu une entente de garde conjointe prévoyant que la résidence principale des trois cadets soit chez l’intimée et que la résidence principale de l’aînée soit chez l’appelant. L’intimée s’est vu accorder une pension alimentaire mensuelle de 4 400 $ pendant cinq ans et des aliments mensuels de 3 000 $ pour les enfants,  fondés sur le revenu annuel de l’appelant estimé à 200 000 $. La Cour d’appel a rejeté l’appel interjeté par l’appelant, mais elle a fait droit à l’appel reconventionnel interjeté par l’intimée et elle a éliminé la limite de cinq ans applicable à la pension alimentaire que l’appelant devait lui verser. Les parties ont convenu de réduire la pension alimentaire pour les enfants en se fondant sur une estimation plus précise du revenu annuel de l’appelant, c’est-à-dire 186 000 $. 

Origine :                                                 Ontario

N^o du greffe :                                         28670

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel :                   26 avril 2001

Avocats :                                               Nicole Tellier et Kelly D. Jordan pour l’appelant

Philip M. Epstein c.r. pour l’intimée

28601      The Information Commissioner of Canada v. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Statutes - Interpretation - Access to Information Act,  R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1  - Privacy Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21  - Review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police not to disclose records requested by a Canadian citizen - Whether the Court of Appeal’s decision undermines the careful balance established by Parliament between the right to privacy for public officials and the right of members of the public to obtain factual information about them - Whether the Court of Appeal adopted an overly narrow interpretation of the exception to the definition of personal information in subsection 3 (j) of the Privacy Act  based on a misapprehension of the decision in Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 403.

A Canadian citizen requested the information from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), relating to four members of that police force.

The Access to Information Coordinator at the RCMP alleged that the requested information was exempt from disclosure pursuant to subsection 19(1)  of the Access to Information Act  (AIA ) and refused to release it.  The citizen complained to the Information Commissioner and after discussions, the RCMP agreed to release the current postings and positions of four RCMP members as well as the last position and posting of the RCMP officer who served in Baddeck, Nova Scotia, prior to retirement in 1986.  However, they refused to release information as to the officers’ previous postings on the ground that the information related to the employment history of these individuals and therefore, was personal information exempt from disclosure. 

In the report of his investigative findings to the RCMP Commissioner, the Information Commissioner concluded that the information in issue was not protected from disclosure pursuant to paragraph 3 (j) of the Privacy Act  (PA ), and recommended that the RCMP release the following information with respect to the four officers:

(a) the list of historical postings, their status and date;

(b) the list of ranks, the dates they achieved these ranks, their effective date/year;

(c) their years of service; and

(d) their anniversary date of service.

The RCMP refused to follow the recommendation.  With the proper authorization of the complainant the Information Commissioner applied to the Trial Division of the Federal Court for a review of the refusal to disclose the requested information, as recommended.  It was decided at this level that the information sought was personal information exempt from disclosure.  However, the judge also determined that the RCMP Commissioner had failed to determine, pursuant to 19(2) of the AIA and 8(2)(m)(i) of the PA , if the requested information although personal information, should not be released in the public interest.  These sections permit the disclosure of the information if the public interest in disclosure outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure.  The matter was then sent back to the RCMP Commissioner ordering him to exercise the discretionary power conferred upon him by 19(2).  The appeal was dismissed by the Federal Court of Appeal.

Origin of the case:                                Federal Court of Appeal

File No.:                                                 28601

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:     March 13, 2001

Counsel:                                                                Daniel Brunet/Emily McCarthy for the Appellant

Brian J. Saunders/Christopher Rupar for the Respondent

28601      Le Commissaire à l’information du Canada c. La Gendarmerie royale du Canada

Lois - Interprétation - Loi sur l’accès à l’information,  L.R.C. (1985), ch. A-1  - Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels , L.R.C. (1985), ch. P-21  - Contrôle d’une décision du Commissaire de la Gendarmerie royale du Canada de ne pas divulguer des documents demandés par un citoyen canadien - La décision de la Cour d’appel compromet-elle l’équilibre minutieux établi par le législateur fédéral entre le droit des fonctionnaires à la vie privée et le droit des membres du public d’obtenir des renseignements les concernant? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle adopté une interprétation indûment étroite de l’exception à la définition de renseignements personnels, à l’alinéa 3 j )  de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels , en raison d’une incompréhension de l’arrêt Dagg c. Canada (Ministre des Finances), [1997] 2 R.C.S. 403.

Un citoyen canadien a demandé à la Gendarmerie royale du Canada (GRC) des renseignements concernant quatre membres de ce corps policier.

Le coordonnateur de l’accès à l’information de la GRC a prétendu que les renseignements demandés étaient soustraits à la communication conformément au paragraphe 19(1)  de la Loi sur l’accès à l’information  (la LAI ) et il a refusé de les communiquer. Le citoyen s’est plaint auprès du Commissaire à l’information, et après des pourparlers, la GRC a consenti à divulguer les affectations actuelles et les postes de quatre membres de la GRC, ainsi que le dernier poste et la dernière affectation de l’officier de la GRC qui avait servi à Baddeck, en Nouvelle-Écosse, avant de prendre sa retraite en 1986. Cependant, la GRC a refusé de communiquer des renseignements sur les affectations antérieures des officiers, au motif que les renseignements se rapportaient à leurs antécédents professionnels et qu’il s’agissait donc de renseignements personnels soustraits à la divulgation.

Dans son rapport d’enquête soumis au Commissaire de la GRC, le Commissaire à l’information a conclu que les renseignements en question n’étaient pas soustraits à la divulgation selon l’alinéa 3 j )  de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels  (la LPRP ) et il a recommandé à la GRC de communiquer les renseignements suivants relatifs aux quatre officiers :

a) la liste de leurs affectations antérieures, leur statut actuel et les dates;

b) la liste des grades, les dates où ils avaient obtenu ces grades, leur date/année de prise d’effet;

c) leurs états de service; et

d) la date anniversaire de leur entrée en fonction.

La GRC a refusé de suivre la recommandation. Avec l’autorisation du plaignant, le Commissaire à l’information a demandé à la Section de première instance de la Cour fédérale d’examiner le refus de divulguer les renseignements demandés, comme il l’avait recommandé. Il fut décidé à ce niveau que les renseignements demandés étaient des renseignements personnels soustraits à la divulgation. Cependant, le juge a aussi conclu que le Commissaire de la GRC avait négligé de décider, conformément au paragraphe 19(2) de la LAI et au sous-alinéa 8(2) m)(i) de la LPRP , si les renseignements demandés, bien que renseignements personnels, ne devraient pas être communiqués dans l’intérêt public. Ces dispositions autorisent la communication des renseignements lorsque des raisons d’intérêt public justifieraient nettement une éventuelle violation de la vie privée. L’affaire fut donc renvoyée au Commissaire de la GRC, avec obligation pour lui d’exercer le pouvoir discrétionnaire que lui conférait le paragraphe 19(2). L’appel a été rejeté par la Cour d’appel fédérale.

Origine de la cause :                            Cour d’appel fédérale

Dossier n^o :                                            28601

Jugement de la Cour d’appel :            le 13 mars 2001

Avocats :                                               Daniel Brunet/Emily McCarthy, pour l’appelant

Brian J. Saunders/Christopher Rupar, pour l’intimée

28416      David Albert Siemens et al v. The Attorney General of Manitoba et al

Canadian Charter  - Constitutional law - Division of powers - Statutes - Interpretation -Whether Gaming Control Local Option (VLT) Act within jurisdiction of Legislature pursuant to s. 92  of the Constitution Act, 1867  - Whether s. 16 of the Act violates ss. 2 (b), 7  or 15  of the Charter - If it does violate the Charter, whether it can justified by s. 1  of the Charter?

The Appellants, David and Eloisa Siemens, are the sole shareholders of the Appellant, Sie-Cor Properties Inc. which owns and operates The Winkler Inn in the town of Winkler, Manitoba.  The Siemens purchased the hotel business in 1993, and spent in excess of $1 million in renovating and expanding it, most of which was financed by way of a mortgage.  Upon purchasing the inn, the Siemens also arranged to increase the number of video lottery terminals (hereinafter “VLTs”) operated at the Inn, by way of a series of Video Lottery Terminal Siteholder Agreements with the Manitoba Lottery Commission (hereinafter “MLC”).  The revenues generated by the VLTs were sufficient to cover the Appellants’ monthly mortgage obligations.

During the October 1998 municipal elections, the Town held a plebiscite, in which the voters favoured a ban on VLTs.  By resolution of the town council, the results of the plebiscite were forwarded to the provincial government.  At the time, there was no provincial legislation in effect, authorizing the VLT plebiscite or the consequences of a vote to ban them.  Shortly thereafter, the Appellant, Sie-Cor, applied to have the resolution declared invalid and for an order of certiorari quashing it.  Before the matter was heard, in July of 1999, the Gaming Control Local Option (VLT)  Act, S.M. 1999, c. 44 (hereinafter the “VLT Act”) was passed by the Manitoba Legislature.  The Appellant, David Siemens, did not become aware of the new legislation until he was notified by letter from the MGCC that the siteholder agreement for the VLTs at the Winkler Inn would terminate effective December 1, 1999. Section 16 of the VLT Act specifically refers to the Winkler plebiscite, deeming it to have been a plebiscite within the meaning of the Act, and effecting a termination of the Appellants’ VLT licence.  Removal of the VLTs from the Winkler Inn has resulted in a significant loss of income for the Appellants’ business. 

The Appellants challenge the constitutionality of the legislation, and in particular, s. 16.  The only siteholder agreement in effect in Winkler was between Sie-Cor and the MLC. Pursuant to this agreement, which could be terminated at any time by the MLC, the terminals remained the property of the MLC, and could be removed at any time from the Appellants’ premises. The Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba upheld the legislation, and this decision was upheld on appeal.

Origin of the case:                                Manitoba

File No.:                                                 28416

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:     December 13, 2000

Counsel:                                                                Dave Hill/Curtis A. Knudson for the Appellant

Shawn Greenberg for the Respondent

28416      David Albert Siemens et autres c. Le Procureur général du Manitoba et autres

Charte canadienne  - Droit constitutionnel - Répartition des pouvoirs - Lois - Interprétation - Le Gaming Control Local Option (VLT) Act entrait-il dans la compétence législative du Parlement provincial en application de l’art. 92  de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 ? - L’art. 16 de la Loi contrevient-il aux art. 2 b ) , 7  ou 15  de la Charte? - Si l’art. 16  contrevient à la Charte, peut-il être validé par l’article premier de la Charte?

Les appelants, David et Eloisa Siemens, sont les uniques actionnaires de l’appelante, Sie-Cor Properties Inc., propriétaire et exploitant du Winkler Inn, dans la localité de Winkler (Manitoba). Les Siemens ont acheté l’hôtel en 1993 et ont dépensé plus de 1 million de dollars pour le rénover et l’agrandir, la plus grande partie de cette somme ayant été financée au moyen d’une hypothèque. À l’achat de l’hôtel, les Siemens avaient aussi pris des dispositions pour augmenter le nombre d’appareils de loterie vidéo (ci-après les « VLT ») exploités dans l’hôtel, et cela au moyen d’une série d’accords de gestion d’appareils de loterie vidéo conclus avec la Commission des loteries du Manitoba (la « MLC »). Les recettes générées par les VLT étaient suffisantes pour amortir les obligations hypothécaires mensuelles des appelants.

Durant les élections municipales d’octobre 1998, la localité a tenu un plébiscite au cours duquel les électeurs se sont prononcés en faveur d’une interdiction des VLT. Par résolution du conseil municipal, les résultats du plébiscite furent communiqués au gouvernement provincial. À l’époque, il n’y avait pas de loi provinciale en vigueur autorisant les plébiscites relatifs aux VLT ou donnant suite à un vote populaire en faveur de leur interdiction. Peu après, l’appelante, Sie-Cor, a demandé que la résolution soit déclarée invalide et qu’elle soit annulée par ordonnance de certiorari. Avant que l’affaire ne soit instruite, en juillet 1999, le Gaming Control Local Option (VLT) Act, S.M. 1999, ch. 44 (ci-après la « Loi VLT ») fut adopté par le Parlement du Manitoba. L’appelant, David Siemens, n’a eu connaissance de la nouvelle loi que lorsqu’il fut informé par une lettre du MGCC que l’accord de gestion des VLT au Winkler Inn serait résilié le 1^er décembre 1999. L’art. 16 de la Loi VLT parle expressément du plébiscite organisé à Winkler, en le considérant comme un plébiscite au sens de la Loi et en révoquant la licence VLT des appelants. L’enlèvement des VLT du Winkler Inn a entraîné une importante perte de revenus pour le commerce des appelants.

Les appelants contestent la constitutionnalité de la Loi, et en particulier de l’art. 16. Le seul accord de gestion de VLT qui était en vigueur à Winkler était un accord entre Sie-Cor et la MLC. Conformément à cet accord, qui pouvait être résilié n’importe quand par la MLC, les appareils demeuraient la propriété de la MLC et pouvaient être enlevés à tout moment des locaux des appelants. La Cour du banc de la Reine du Manitoba a confirmé la validité de la Loi, et cette décision a été maintenue en appel.

Origine de la cause :                            Manitoba

Dossier n^o :                                            28416

Jugement de la Cour d’appel :            le 13 décembre 2000

Avocats :                                               Dave Hill/Curtis A. Knudson, pour les appelants

Shawn Greenberg, pour l’intimé

28703      William Christopher Wilson v. Her Majesty The Queen

Criminal law - Second degree murder - Intoxication - Charge to jury - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial judge’s instruction on intoxication sufficiently communicated to the jury that the common sense inference of intention may not apply to an intoxicated person.

On 22 March 1997, Lawrence Charles was beaten to death by two young men in a home in Duncan B.C..  The two assailants were tried separately.  One was tried in youth court and convicted of second degree murder.  The deceased, his companion, the Appellant and the other assailant had all been drinking together earlier that night and an argument had developed over the last beer. 

The Crown’s evidence linking the Appellant to the crime consisted of blood-spattered clothing seized from him.  DNA analysis of the blood showed that it was that of the deceased.  There was also an admission, made in the Appellant’s presence, by the other assailant to a friend shortly after the event that they had just assaulted the deceased.  There was also the evidence of the three eyewitnesses that the Appellant was one of the assailants.  The evidence of one of the eyewitnesses was adduced in the form of a videotaped statement he gave to the police soon after the incident.  The position taken by the defence was that there was insufficient evidence of the Appellant’s participation in the beating and, in any event, the Appellant was too drunk to form the intention to commit murder.

At trial before a judge and jury, the Appellant was convicted of second degree murder.  On appeal, one of the grounds of appeal was the adequacy of the trial judge’s charge to the jury on the presumption of intent and intoxication.  The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.  Donald J.A. dissented on the question of whether the trial judge’s instruction on intoxication sufficiently communicated to the jury that the common sense inference of intention might not apply to an intoxicated person.

Origin of the case:                                British Columbia

File No.:                                                 28703

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:     June 8, 2001

Counsel:                                                                Bradley L. Hickford for the Appellant

Alexander Budlovsky for the Respondent

28703      William Christopher Wilson c. Sa Majesté la Reine

Droit criminel - Meurtre au deuxième degré - Intoxication - Exposé au jury - La Cour d’appel a‐t‐elle commis une erreur en concluant que, dans son exposé sur l’intoxication, le juge du procès avait suffisamment expliqué au jury que l’inférence fondée sur le bon sens quant à l’intention pouvait ne pas s’appliquer à une personne en état d’ivresse?

Le 22 mars 1997, Lawrence Charles a été battu à mort par deux jeunes hommes dans une résidence à Duncan (C.‐B.).  Les deux agresseurs ont subi leur procès séparément.  L’un d’eux a été jugé devant un tribunal pour adolescents, qui l’a déclaré coupable de meurtre au deuxième degré.  La victime, sa compagne, l’appelant et l’autre agresseur avaient bu ensemble un peu plus tôt au cours de la soirée et une dispute avait éclaté pendant qu’ils prenaient leur dernière bière. 

La preuve du ministère public rattachant l’appelant au crime consiste en des vêtements éclaboussés de sang qu’on lui a saisis.  L’analyse de l’ADN du sang montre qu’il s’agit de celui de la victime.  En outre, peu après l’incident, l’autre agresseur a, en présence de l’appelant, fait une admission à un ami selon laquelle l’appelant et lui venaient d’agresser la victime.  Trois témoins oculaires sont venus rapporter que l’appelant était l’un des agresseurs.  On a produit en preuve l’enregistrement magnétoscopique de la déclaration que l’un des témoins oculaires avait faite à la police peu après l’incident. La position prise par la défense est qu’il n’y avait pas suffisamment d’éléments de preuve quant à la participation de l’appelant à l’agression et que, quoi qu’il en soit, l’appelant était trop ivre pour former l’intention de commettre le meurtre.