This Bulletin is published at the direction of the Registrar and is for general information only. It is not to be used as evidence of its content, which, if required, should be proved by Certificate of the Registrar under the Seal of the Court. While every effort is made to ensure accuracy, no responsibility is assumed for errors or omissions. |
|
Ce Bulletin, publié sous l'autorité du registraire, ne vise qu'à fournir des renseignements d'ordre général. Il ne peut servir de preuve de son contenu. Celle‐ci s'établit par un certificat du registraire donné sous le sceau de la Cour. Rien n'est négligé pour assurer l'exactitude du contenu, mais la Cour décline toute responsabilité pour les erreurs ou omissions. |
|
|
|
Subscriptions may be had at $200 per year, payable in advance, in accordance with the Court tariff. During Court sessions it is usually issued weekly. |
|
Le prix de l'abonnement, fixé dans le tarif de la Cour, est de 200 $ l'an, payable d'avance. Le Bulletin paraît en principe toutes les semaines pendant les sessions de la Cour. |
|
|
|
The Bulletin, being a factual report of recorded proceedings, is produced in the language of record. Where a judgment has been rendered, requests for copies should be made to the Registrar, with a remittance of $10 for each set of reasons. All remittances should be made payable to the Receiver General for Canada. |
|
Le Bulletin rassemble les procédures devant la Cour dans la langue du dossier. Quand un arrêt est rendu, on peut se procurer les motifs de jugement en adressant sa demande au registraire, accompagnée de 10 $ par exemplaire. Le paiement doit être fait à l'ordre du Receveur général du Canada. |
|
|
|
CONTENTS TABLE DES MATIÈRES
Applications for leave to appeal filed
Applications for leave submitted to Court since last issue
Oral hearing ordered
Oral hearing on applications for leave
Judgments on applications for leave
Judgment on motion
Motions
Notices of appeal filed since last issue
Notices of intervention filed since last issue
Notices of discontinuance filed since last issue
Appeals heard since last issue and disposition
Pronouncements of appeals reserved
Rehearing
Headnotes of recent judgments
Agenda
Summaries of the cases
Appeals inscribed ‐ Session beginning
Notices to the Profession and Press Release
Deadlines: Motions before the Court
Deadlines: Appeals
Judgments reported in S.C.R. |
875 - 877
878 - 888
-
-
889 - 891
-
892 - 898
899
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
900
901
- |
Demandes d'autorisation d'appel déposées
Demandes soumises à la Cour depuis la dernière parution
Audience ordonnée
Audience sur les demandes d'autorisation
Jugements rendus sur les demandes d'autorisation
Jugement sur requête
Requêtes
Avis d'appel déposés depuis la dernière parution
Avis d'intervention déposés depuis la dernière parution
Avis de désistement déposés depuis la dernière parution
Appels entendus depuis la dernière parution et résultat
Jugements rendus sur les appels en délibéré
Nouvelle audition
Sommaires des arrêts récents
Calendrier
Résumés des affaires
Appels inscrits ‐ Session commençant le
Avis aux avocats et communiqué de presse
Délais: Requêtes devant la Cour
Délais: Appels
Jugements publiés au R.C.S. |
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FILED |
|
DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION D'APPEL DÉPOSÉES |
Jada Fishing Co. Ltd. and Evco Fishing Ltd.
Murray L. Smith
Campney & Murphy
v. (29210)
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Pacific Licence Appeal Board - Groundfish Panel (F.C.)
Harry J. Wruck, Q.C.
A.G. of Canada
FILING DATE 14.5.2002
Scott Byron Morrison
Balfour Q.H. Der, Q.C.
Batting, Der
v. (29212)
Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)
Goran Tomljanovic
A.G. of Alberta
FILING DATE 15.5.2002
Noël Ayangma
Noël Ayangma
v. (29168)
The P.E.I. Human Rights Commission, et al. (P.E.I.)
Paul D. Michael, Q.C.
FILING DATE 16.5.2002
Mark Anthony MacPhail, et al.
Tracey L. Clements
Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales
v. (29216)
Brenda MacKinnon, Katelyn MacKinnon, Jackson MacKinnon, and Brenda MacKinnon, Administratix of the Estate of Kent MacKinnon, and Litigation Guardian of Katelyn MacKinnon and Jackson MacKinnon, on behlaf of the Estate and Dependants of Kent MacKinnon, et al. (P.E.I.)
Kenneth L. Godfrey
Campbell, Lea, Michael, McConnell & Pigot
FILING DATE 17.5.200
Air Canada
Katherine L. Kay
Stikeman Elliott
v. (29202)
The Commissioner of Competition, et al. (F.C.)
Donald J. Rennie
A.G. of Canada
FILING DATE 21.5.2002
Sa Majesté la Reine
Michel Pennou
P.G. du Québec
c. (29217)
Etzer Myrthil (Qué.)
Gaétan Bourassa
DATE DE PRODUCTION 21.5.2002
G.S.
Philip Campbell
Sack Goldblatt Mitchell
v. (29203)
Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
Karen Shai
A.G. for Ontario
FILING DATE 23.5.2002
A.H.
A.H.
c. (29220)
Paul-André Lafleur (Qué.)
Michel Gagné
McCarthy Tétrault
DATE DE PRODUCTION 24.5.2002
David Bolingbroke
Daniel W. Monteith
Monteith, Baker & Johnston
v. (29197)
Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
Susan Magotiaux
A.G. for Ontario
FILING DATE 3.5.2002
Keyvan Nourhaghighi
Keyvan Nourhaghighi
v. (26982)
Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
W. Graeme Cameron
A.G. for Ontario
FILING DATE 14.5.2002
F.L.
Sylvie Schirm
v. (29211)
M.F., et al. (Qué.)
Miriam Grassby
FILING DATE 15.5.2002
Léo-Paul Roy
Léo-Paul Roy
c. (29219)
Me Louise Comeau, ès qualités de syndic du Barreau du Québec, et autre (Qué.)
Jean Pomminville
Lavery, de Billy
DATE DE PRODUCTION 24.5.2002
Alexander Henri Legault
Julius H. Grey
Grey Casgrain
v. (29221)
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.)
Normand Lemyre
Côté, Marcoux & Joyal
FILING DATE 27.5.2002
Norman Bert Guimond
Jay Prober
Prober Law Offices
v. (29222)
Her Majesty the Queen (Man.)
Robert H. Morrison, Q.C.
A.G. of Manitoba
FILING DATE 27.5.2002
Garaga Inc.
Michel C. Chabot
Ogilvy Renault
c. (29226)
Ernst & Young Inc., et autres (Qué.)
Gordon Levine
Kugler Kandestin
DATE DE PRODUCTION 27.5.2002
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE
|
|
DEMANDES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
JUNE 3, 2002 / LE 3 JUIN 2002
CORAM: Chief Justice McLachlin and Iacobucci and Arbour JJ. /
Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Arbour
George Sutherland
v. (29028)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter - Criminal - Criminal Law (Non Charter) - Whether Court of Appeal erred with respect to decision not to order disclosure - Whether Court of Appeal erred with respect to evidence of the complainant’s emotional state - Whether Court of Appeal erred with respect to applicant’s heritage in determining whether an indeterminate sentence was appropriate - Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that it would not consider the constitutionality of s. 761 of the Criminal Code - Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider fresh evidence.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 28, 1997 Ontario Court of Justice (Loukidelis J.) |
|
Application for production of records dismissed |
|
|
|
July 30, 1997 Ontario Court of Justice (Loukidelis J.) |
|
Convictions for assault, sexual assault, uttering a death threat, extortion; Acquittal on count of wilful attempt to obstruct justice by threats |
|
|
|
May 19, 1998 Ontario Court of Justice (Loukidelis J.) |
|
Declared dangerous offender, indeterminate sentence imposed |
|
|
|
May 29, 2001 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Finlayson, Labrosse and Laskin JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal from conviction and sentence dismissed |
|
|
|
January 15, 2002 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Applications for extension of time to apply for leave to appeal and for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Edward J. Nordquist and Domo Gasoline Corporation Ltd.
v. (28898)
Patricia Gurniak, Valerie Michelle Ross and Shannon Lee Ross,
by their guardian ad Litem, Patricia Gurniak (B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial Law - Insurance - Automobile accident insurance - Spouse and dependent children of victim killed in automobile accident in British Columbia commence claim under Family Compensation Act - Whether no-fault benefits paid in Quebec deductible from any award - Proper approach to determining whether no-fault accident benefits paid under a legislative scheme of one province should be deducted from a subsequent damage award recovered in another province so as to avoid double recovery - Characterization of benefits paid under a complete or pure no-fault scheme - Whether there is a need to pronounce definitively on answer by the British Columbia courts to interpretive questions relating to Quebec’s no-fault scheme.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 12, 1997 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Bauman J.) |
|
SAAQ benefits to Respondent Patricia Gurniak declared benefits under the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act; SAAQ benefits to Valerie Michelle and Shannon Lee Ross declared not benefits under the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act |
|
|
|
June 22, 1999 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Bauman J.) |
|
Application to reduce liability to Patricia Gurniak by amount of SAAQ benefits dismissed |
|
|
|
September 7, 2001 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Newbury, Braidwood and Hall JJ.A.) |
|
Appeals dismissed |
|
|
|
November 5, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Olympia Interiors Ltd., et al
v. (29024)
Her Majesty the Queen, et al (F.C.A)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter - Civil - Civil Procedure - Procedural Law - Application for declaration dismissed because commenced after statutory time limit - Whether public authorities should exercise a statutory discretion absolutely - The statutory correctness of Certificates - Sections 1, 7, 9, 12, 15 and 32(1) of the Charter and 2(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights - Whether power to detain is lawful - Whether damages of irreparable harm were foreseeable - Whether Her Majesty The Queen may rely on statutory defence.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
October 27, 2000 Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (Blais J.) |
|
Application for a declaration that a certificate was without force and effect dismissed
|
|
|
|
November 22, 2001 Federal Court of Appeal (Stone, Evans and Malone JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
January 21, 2002 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Olympia Interiors Ltd. and Mary David
v. (29023)
Her Majesty the Queen and Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter - Civil - Civil Rights - Procedural Law - Application for extension of time to appeal denied - Whether public authorities should exercise a statutory discretion absolutely - The statutory correctness of Certificates - Sections 1, 7, 9, 12, 15 and 32(1) of the Charter and 2(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights - Whether power to detain is lawful - Whether damages of irreparable harm were foreseeable - Whether Her Majesty The Queen may rely on statutory defence.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 1, 1998 Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (MacKay J.) |
|
Applicants’ action dismissed |
|
|
|
April 25, 2001 Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (Tremblay-Lamer J.) |
|
Applicant’s motion for extension of time dismissed |
|
|
|
November 22, 2001 Federal Court of Appeal (Stone, Evans and Malone JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
January 21, 2002 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Rochelle Leah Moss and Danny Moss
v. (28973)
Attorney General of Canada (F.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Income tax - Assessments - Evidence - The determination of evidence presented at trial by expert witness and qualified witnesses ought not to be ignored by the court and is a matter of public importance - Whether the lower courts erred in failing to find that certain residences were principal residences - Whether the lower courts erred in rejecting witnesses’ evidence - Whether there are issues of public importance raised.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
October 8, 1999
Tax Court of Canada
(Sarchuk J.T.C.C.)
Applicant Danny Moss’s appeals from tax assessments for tax years 1991, 1992 and 1994 allowed in part: assessments referred back to Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment
December 15, 1999
Tax Court of Canada
(Sarchuk J.T.C.C.)
Applicant Rochelle Moss’s appeals from tax assessment for tax years 1987 to 1994 allowed in part: assessments referred back to Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment
November 21, 2001
Federal Court of Appeal
(Strayer, Linden and Sharlow JJ.A.)
Applicants’ appeals and applications for judicial review dismissed with costs
December 13, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
February 19, 2002 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal and motion for an extension of time filed |
|
|
|
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache and Binnie JJ. /
Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache et Binnie
Richard Poirier
c. (29007)
Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.) (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - Droit criminel - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en jugeant qu’il n’y a pas eu violation des art. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 et 24 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré dans son interprétation des art. 16, 367, 368 et 380 du Code criminel, L.R.C. 1985, ch. - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré dans l’évaluation des principes de la détermination de la peine en confirmant une peine trop sévère alors que les critères de l’art. 742.1 du Code criminel étaient réunis - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en jugeant qu’il n’y a pas eu violation du droit du demandeur à la divulgation de la preuve - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en jugeant qu’il n’y a pas eu violation du droit d’être jugé dans un délai déraisonnable - Le dépôt tardif d’un acte d’accusation modifié devait-il mener à un ajournement ou un arrêt des procédures?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 26 juin 1998
Cour du Québec
(Dufour j.c.q.)
Demandeur déclaré coupable d’avoir fait des faux documents, de s’être servi de documents contrefaits, de fraude et de complot contrairement aux art. 367, 368(1)a), 380(1)a), 465(1) du Code criminel
Le 22 mars 1999 Cour du Québec (Dufour j.c.q.) |
|
Demandeur condamné à 3 ans d’emprisonnement |
|
|
|
Le 16 novembre 2001 Cour d'appel du Québec (Beauregard, Baudouin et Rochette jj.c.a.) |
|
Appels contre les déclarations de culpabilité et la sentence rejetés |
|
|
|
Le 14 janvier 2002 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée |
|
|
|
Andrew Scott Haydon
v. (29018)
Her Majesty the Queen Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A)
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
February 24, 2000 Tax Court of Canada (O’Connor J.) |
|
Applicant’s appeal from the reassessment made under the Income Tax Act for the 1997 taxation year dismissed. |
|
|
|
November 13, 2001 Federal Court of Appeal (Stone, Décary and Noël JJ.A.) |
|
Application dismissed. |
|
|
|
January 14, 2002 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed. |
|
|
|
Wayne Russel Norris, Sylvia Crowell‐Norris, Susan Catherine McNab,
Shannon Elizabeth McNab, Eileen Clare Norris and Catherine Alice Daisy Giffin
v. (29054)
Constable Mark Gatien and The City of Nepean (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Torts - Police officers - Investigation - Duty of care - Is a private law duty of care owed by a police officer to the victims of a crime to properly investigate the crime?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 7, 2000 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Cunningham J.) |
|
Respondents Mark Gatien and City of Nepean’s motion striking amended statement of claim, granted |
|
|
|
November 15, 2001 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Osborne A.C.J.O., Austin and Laskin JJ.A.) |
|
Applicants’ appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
February 4, 2002 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Motion to extend time and application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Maria Sokolowska, Elwira Sokolowska and Maria Sokolowska,
personal representative of the Estate of Henry Sokolowska
v. (28944)
Notre Dame Cemetery (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Torts - Damages - Applicants claim damages against respondent for fraud and deception concerning burial of husband/father - Whether the lower courts erred in their decision to dismiss the action of the applicants and erred in the award of costs?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 18, 2000 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Cunningham J.) |
|
Applicants’ action for damages dismissed. |
|
|
|
May 28, 2001 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Southey, Matlow and Kozak JJ)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeal dismissed.August 17, 2001 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Power J.)
October 1, 2001 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Morden, Laskin and Rosenberg JJ.A.)
November 29, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Motion to stay enforcement of judgment dated May 28, 2001 and judgment dated July 18, 2000 dismissed.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed.
Application for leave to appeal filed. |
|
|
|
University Health Network (formerly Toronto General Hospital, Toronto Western Hospital and
Ontario Cancer Institute, c.o.b. as Princess Margaret Hospital)
v. (29027)
Her Majesty in right of Ontario (by her representative, the Minister of Finance) (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Taxation - Retail sales tax - Tax exemption - Public hospitals - Statutes - Interpretation - Enabling statutes of three individual hospitals each containing express tax exemption - Whether tax exemptions continued in amalgamated entities by virtue of “continuation of rights” clauses in amalgamating statutes.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 17, 2001 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Rivard J.) |
|
Application for declaration that the 1986 and the 1997 amalgamation did not nullify the tax exempt status of the Toronto General Hospital, the Toronto Western Hospital and the Ontario Cancer Institute granted |
|
|
|
November 20, 2001 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Laskin, Feldman and Simmons JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed; application dismissed |
|
|
|
January 18, 2002 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
CORAM: Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ. /
Les juges Gonthier, Major et LeBel
B.H., By her next friend, A.H., A.H.
v. (29174)
The Director of Child Welfare for the Province of Alberta (Alta.)
AND BETWEEN:
B.H., By her next friend, A.H.
v.
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta (as represented by the Director of Child Welfare), Alberta Children's Hospital, Attorney General for Alberta, L.H. (Alta.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Civil – Child welfare – Child in need of protection – Freedom of religion – Right to security of the person – Right to equality – Age discrimination – “Mature minor” – 16 year old Jehovah’s Witness diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia refusing blood transfusions and administration of blood products because of religious beliefs – Treatment considered essential by medical experts – Director of Child Welfare obtaining apprehension and treatment orders – Ongoing administering of unwanted treatment using sedation and restraints – Capacity at time of orders determined to be that of mature minor which was later lost because of undue influence – Whether applicant a “mature minor” – If so, whether “mature minor” has right to refuse treatment under Alberta Child Welfare legislation or whether legislation a “complete code” – Whether granting apprehension and treatment orders and ongoing imposed treatment violates mature minor’s Charter right to security of the person, freedom of religion or right to equality – If so, whether imposed medical treatment was reasonable limitation under s. 1 of the Charter – Alberta Child Welfare Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. C-12, ss. 1(1)(d), 1(2), 2, 22(2), 22(5) – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 2(a), 7, 15(1).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 18, 2002 Alberta Provincial Court (Jordan, Prov. Ct. J.) |
|
Application of respondent, Director of Child Welfare, for apprehension and treatment orders, granted |
|
|
|
February 20, 2002 Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (Rooke J.) March 13, 2002 (Supplementary reasons of Rooke J.) |
|
Applicants’ application for stay of proceedings dismissed
|
|
|
|
April 10, 2002 Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (Kent J.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Applicants’ appeal from judgment of Prov. Ct., and applications to adduce new evidence and for habeas corpus, dismissedApril 26, 2002 Alberta Court of Appeal (Côté, McFadyen and Costigan JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed
|
|
|
|
May 6, 2002 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal and motions to expedite application for leave to appeal and hearing of appeal, if leave granted, and for stay of execution, filed |
|
|
|
May 21, 2002 Supreme Court of Canada Major J.S.C.C. |
|
Motion to expedite application for leave to appeal and to abbreviate time for filing responses and reply, granted; motion for stay of execution referred to panel seized of application for leave to appeal |
|
|
|
May 23, 2002 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Motion for interim interim stay of execution, filed |
|
|
|
May 24, 2002 Supreme Court of Canada (Binnie J.) |
|
Motion for interim interim stay of execution, dismissed |
|
|
|
Chateau LaFleur Development Corporation and Can‐Euro Investments Limited
v. (29020)
Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company Limited and Maritime Tel & Tel Limited (N.S.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Property law - Real property - Easements - Express grant of easement - Equitable easements - Remedies - Entitlement to damages - Respondents seeking declaration of easement and damages for wrongful interference with contractual relations - Declaration of an equitable easement in the Respondents’ favour which the Applicants must maintain granted - Claim for damages arising from the lost sale of land dismissed - What is the legal definition of notice - What is the purchaser’s duty of inquiry - Constructive notice of facts which were not disclosed - Whether there are issues of public importance raised.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 24, 2001 Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Trial Division (Kelly J.) |
|
Respondents’ action for declaration recognizing their easement over the Applicants’ land, allowed; Respondents’ action for damages dismissed |
|
|
|
November 27, 2001 Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (Cromwell, Roscoe and Saunders JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal and cross appeal dismissed without costs |
|
|
|
January 11, 2002 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Constantine Bassis
v. (28986)
Century 21 Parkland Ltd. (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Contracts - Property law - Real property - Respondent claiming six percent commission on sale of commercial property by Applicant - Trial judge finding that Respondent introduced purchaser to property within meaning of listing agreement and granting claim for payment - Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding decision.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 2, 2000
Superior Court of Justice
(Wright J.)
Respondent’s claim for payment of commission granted
May 15, 2001 Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) (MacFarland, Then and Flinn JJ.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
October 29, 2001
Court of Appeal for Ontario
(Catzman, Abella and Moldaver JJ.A.)
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed
December 28, 2001
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
Noël Ayangma
v. (29002)
Government of Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Civil rights - Equality - Discrimination - Employment - Whether the Applicant’s s. 15 rights were infringed by the manner in which the Respondent’s position of Race Relations Consultant was filled - Whether the appellate court erred in its application of the law when it allowed the Respondent’s cross-appeal - Whether the trial judged erred in the remedy granted.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
September 22, 2000 Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island, Trial Division (Webber J.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Applicant’s action for damages for discrimination on the basis of race or colour granted: Applicant awarded general damages in the amount of $7,500
|
|
October 22, 2001 Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island, Appeal Division (Mitchell C.J.P.E.I., McQuaid and Carruthers JJ.A.) |
|
Applicant’s appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed, action dismissed |
|
|
|
November 19, 2001
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION / DEMANDE DE RÉEXAMEN
CORAM: Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ. /
Les juges Gonthier, Major et LeBel
Noël Ayangma v. NAV Canada, et al. (P.E.I.) (28426)
JUDGMENTS ON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE |
|
JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION |
JUNE 6, 2002 / LE 6 JUIN 2002
28811 Peter Randy Reifel ‐ v. ‐ John Halagan (B.C.) (Civil)
CORAM: The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Arbour JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Evidence - Escrow shares - Resulting trust - What are the substantive requirements to be met in order to rebut the presumption of resulting trust - Where no gift by the transferor can be established, whether the recipient of property can rebut the presumption of resulting trust by showing that the recipient provided “value” outside the context of a contract to transfer beneficial title to the recipient.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
October 1, 1998
Supreme Court of British Columbia
(Satanove J.)
Respondent declared beneficial owner of 375,000 shares of Francisco Gold Corp.; Applicant’s counterclaim dismissed
June 26, 2001 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Rowles, Prowse and Mackenzie JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
September 24, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
28972 AstraZeneca AB ‐ v. ‐ Novopharm Limited and Registrar of Trade‐Marks ‐ and between ‐ Ciba‐Geigy Canada Ltd. ‐ v. ‐ Apotex Inc. and Registrar of Trade‐Marks ‐ and between ‐ Ciba‐Geigy Canada Ltd. ‐ v. ‐ Novopharm Limited and Registrar of Trade‐Marks (FC) (Civil)
CORAM: The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Arbour JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents Apotex Inc. and Novopharm Limited.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimées Apotex Inc. et Novopharm Limited.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Property law - Trade-marks - Pharmaceutical preparations - Application for trade-mark in colour applied to surface of tablet or capsule - Whether the lower courts correctly applied the standard of review - Whether the lower courts applied the correct test for distinctiveness.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
September 17, 1997
Trade Marks Opposition Board
(M. Herzig)
Oppositions to Applicant Ciba-Geigy Canada Limited’s application to register trade-marks dismissed
December 9, 1997
Trade Marks Opposition Board
(M. Herzig)
Opposition to Applicant Astra Aktiebolag’s application to register trade-mark dismissed
April 14, 2000 Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (Rouleau J.) |
|
In three separate decisions, Respondents’ appeals allowed |
|
|
|
October 18, 2001 Federal Court of Appeal (Desjardins, Sexton and Sharlow JJ.A.) |
|
Applicants’ appeals dismissed |
|
|
|
December 17, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
29135 Ontario Public Service Employees Union ‐ v. ‐ Attorney General for Ontario (Ont.) (Civil)
CORAM: The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Arbour JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural law - Courts - Contempt of court - Labour law - Labour relations - Lawful strike - Picketing of courthouses during lawful strike - Ex parte injunction restraining Applicant’s members from gathering, congregating or picketing within precincts of the courts granted on court’s own motion - Whether the Court of Appeal decision unjustifiably limits the freedoms of expression, assembly and association of the Applicant’s members contrary to subsection 2(b), (c) and (d) of the Charter - Whether the lower courts applied the wrong test - Whether the terms of the order are broader than necessary to safeguard the legitimate interest in preserving access to justice - Whether a “signalling effect” of picketing can be presumed - What evidence is necessary to raise a presumption of signalling - Whether the decision of the Court of Appeal and the decisions of this Court conflict on the intent required for the common law offence of criminal contempt.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
March 13, 2002 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Sills J.) |
|
Ex parte injunction restraining Applicant’s members from gathering, congregating or picketing within precincts of the courts granted |
|
|
|
March 14, 2002 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Sills J.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Applicant’s motion to vary dismissedMarch 22, 2002 Court of Appeal for Ontario (MacPherson, Sharpe and Simmons JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal granted in part |
|
|
|
April 4, 2002 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
April 19, 2002 Supreme Court of Canada (Arbour J.) |
|
Motion to expedite application for leave dismissed |
|
|
|
April 29, 2002 Supreme Court of Canada (Arbour J.) |
|
Respondent’s motion to strike out affidavits of Eugene Roy Swimmer, dated April 4, 2002, and Pauline Tapping, dated April 3, 2002, dismissed. |
|
|
|
MOTIONS |
|
REQUÊTES
|
28.5.2002
Before / Devant: ARBOUR J.
Further order on motions for leave to intervene
BY/PAR: Attorney General of Ontario
Procureur général du Québec
Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario)
IN/DANS: Chee K. Ling
v. (28315)
Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)
and
Warren James Jarvis
v. (28378)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Alta.)
Autre ordonnance sur des requêtes en autorisation d'intervention
GRANTED / ACCORDÉES
UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General for Ontario, the Attorney General of Québec and the Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario) for leave to intervene in the above appeals and pursuant to the orders of September 18, 2001, October 25, 2001, March 14, 2002 and April 25, 2002;
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said interveners are each granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding fifteeen (15) minutes in total at the hearing of the appeals.
À LA SUITE DE DEMANDES du procureur général de l’Ontario, du procureur général du Québec et de la Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario) visant à obtenir l’autorisation d’intervenir dans les appels susmentionnés et suite aux ordonnances du 18 septembre 2001, 25 octobre 2001, 14 mars 2002 et 25 avril 2002;
IL EST EN OUTRE ORDONNÉ que la plaidoirie des intervenants soit limitée en tout à quinze (15) minutes chacun lors de l’audition des appels.
28.5.2002
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum of the intervener Canadian Labour Congress
Donald Martin
v. (28372)
Workers’ Compensation Board of Nova Scotia, et al. (NS.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire de l’intervenant le Canadian Labour Congress
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to May 24, 2002.
28.5.2002
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum of the intervener Canadian Labour Congress
Ruth A. Laseur
v. (28370)
Workers’ Compensation Board of Nova Scotia, et al. (NS.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le mémoire de l’intervenant le Canadian Labour Congress
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to May 24, 2002.
29.5.2002
Before / Devant: LEBEL J.
Motion for extension of time and leave to intervene
BY/PAR: Conseil scolaire acadien provincial
IN/DANS: Glenda Doucet-Boudreau, et al.
v. (28807)
Attorney General of Nova Scotia (N.S.)
Requête visant à obtenir une prorogation de délai et l’autorisation d'intervenir
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
UPON APPLICATION by the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial for an extension of time and for leave to intervene in the above appeal;
AND HAVING READ the material filed ;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The motion for an extension of time and for leave to intervene of the applicant Conseil scolaire acadien provincial is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.
The request to present oral argument is deferred to a date following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the interveners.
The intervener shall not be entitled to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties.
Pursuant to Rule 18(6) the intervener shall pay to the appellants and respondent any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellants and respondent by the intervention.
29.5.2002
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion for substitutional service
Ed Dick, also known as Edward Dick, also known as Edward : Dick
v. (29128)
Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)
Requête en substitution de signification
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE The motion by the respondent for substitutional service upon the applicant of the respondent’s response is granted.
30.5.2002
Before / Devant: MAJOR J.
Motion for leave to intervene
BY/PAR: Attorney General of Alberta
IN/DANS: Her Majesty the Queen
v. (28946)
Daniel George Edgar (Crim.)(B.C.)
Requête en autorisation d'intervention
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General of Alberta for leave to intervene in the above appeal;
AND HAVING READ the material filed ;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Attorney General of Alberta is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.
The request to present oral argument is deferred to a date following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the interveners.
The intervener shall not be entitled to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties.
Pursuant to Rule 18(6) the intervener shall pay to the appellant and respondent any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondent by the intervention.
30.5.2002
Before / Devant: MAJOR J.
Motions for leave to intervene
BY/PAR: Attorney General of Alberta
Attorney General for the Province of Ontario
IN/DANS: Her Majesty the Queen
v. (28945)
Jerimiah Josia Johnson (Crim.)(B.C.)
Requêtes en autorisation d'intervention
GRANTED / ACCORDÉES
UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General of Alberta and the Attorney General for the Province of Ontario 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 Attorney General of Alberta 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 applicant Attorney General of the Province of Ontario is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.
The request to present oral argument is deferred to a date following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the interveners.
The interveners shall not be entitled to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties.
Pursuant to Rule 18(6) the interveners shall pay to the appellant and respondent any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondent by the interventions.
31.5.2002
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondent’s record, factum and book of authorities
R.R.
v. (28933)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)
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 August 9, 2002.
31.5.2002
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
Chee K. Ling
v. (28315)
Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)
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 May 22, 2002.
31.5.2002
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
Warren James Jarvis
v. (28378)
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 May 22, 2002.
31.5.2002
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Miscellaneous motion
David Scott Hall
v. (28223)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)
Autre requête
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE The motion to serve and file the respondent’s supplementary book of authorities on May 14, 2002 is granted.
31.5.2002
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to file a lengthy factum
Hugues Duguay
c. (28903)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Qué.)
Requête visant le dépôt d’un long mémoire
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE La requête visant le dépôt d’un mémoire plus de quarante pages mais ne dépassant pas soixante pages est accordée.
3.6.2002
Before / Devant: LEBEL J.
Miscellaneous motion
Glenda Doucet-Boudreau, et al.
v. (28807)
Attorney General of Nova Scotia (N.S.)
Autre requête
DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS / REJETÉE SANS DÉPENS
La requérante, la Commission Nationale des Parents Francophones soumet une requête en réexamen de la décision rejetant sa demande d’intervention. Les motifs et l’opportunité de cette demande d’intervention ont été examinés à l’occasion de sa présentation à la Cour. La demande de réexamen n’établit aucun motif exceptionnel justifiant la révision de la décision rendue au sujet de l’intervention proposée, dans la mesure même où le par. 51(12) des règles de la Cour suprême du Canada l’autorise. La requête en réexamen est rejetée sans frais.
NOTICES OF APPEAL FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
|
AVIS D’APPEL DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
24.5.2002
In the matter of Earth Future Lottery: Attorney General for the Province of Prince Edward Island, et al. (P.E.I.) (29213)
(Reference)
16.5.2002
La Compagnie Pétrolière Impériale Limitée
c. (28835)
Le Procureur général du Québec pour et au nom du ministre de l’Environnement, Monsieur André Boisclair (anciennement Monsieur Paul Bégin) (Qué.)
17.5.2002
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79
v. (28840)
City of Toronto, et al. (Ont.)
17.5.2002
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
v. (28849)
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by The Ministry of Community & Social Services, et al. (Ont.)
21.5.2002
Her Majesty the Queen
v. (29083)
Steven Keith Mitchell (B.C.)
21.5.2002
Her Majesty the Queen
v. (29140)
Michael Edward Kelly (B.C.)
DEADLINES: MOTIONS
|
|
DÉLAIS: REQUÊTES
|
BEFORE THE COURT:
Pursuant to Rule 23.1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, the following deadlines must be met before a motion before the Court can be heard: |
|
DEVANT LA COUR:
Conformément à l'article 23.1 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada, les délais suivants doivent être respectés pour qu'une requête soit entendue par la Cour : |
Motion day : September 30, 2002
Service : September 9, 2002
Filing : September 13, 2002
Respondent : September 20, 2002
Audience du : 30 septembre 2002
Signification : 9 septembre 2002
Dépôt : 13 septembre 2002
Intimé : 20 septembre 2002
Motion day : November 4, 2002
Service : October 11, 2002
Filing : October 18, 2002
Respondent : October 25, 2002
Audience du : 4 novembre 2002
Signification : 11 octobre 2002
Dépôt : 18 octobre 2002
Intimé : 25 octobre 2002
Motion day : December 2, 2002
Service : November 8, 2002
Filing : November 15, 2002
Respondent : November 22, 2002
Audience du : 2 décembre 2002
Signification : 8 novembre 2002
Dépôt : 15 novembre 2002
Intimé : 22 novembre 2002
Note: These motion dates apply only where the notice of appeal will be filed before June 28, 2002
Note: Ces dates de requête s’appliquent seulement où l’avis d’appel sera déposé avant le 28 juin 2002.
DEADLINES: APPEALS
|
|
DÉLAIS: APPELS |
Pursuant to the Supreme Court Act and Rules, the following requirements for filing must be complied with before an appeal can be inscribed for hearing:
Appellant’s record; appellant’s factum; and appellant’s book(s) of authorities must be filed within four months of the filing of the notice of appeal.
Respondent’s record (if any); respondent’s factum; and respondent’s book(s) of authorities must be filed within eight weeks of the date of service of the appellant's factum.
Intervener's factum and intervener’s book(s) of authorities, if any, must be filed within four weeks of the date of service of the respondent's factum, unless otherwise ordered.
Parties’ condensed book, if required, must be filed on or before the day of hearing of the appeal.
The Supreme Court of Canada has enacted new rules that will come into force on June 28, 2002.
Please consult the Notice to the Profession of April 2002 for further information.
The Registrar shall inscribe the appeal for hearing upon the filing of the respondent's factum or after the expiry of the time for filing the respondent's factum.
|
|
Conformément à la Loi sur la Cour suprême et aux Règles, il faut se conformer aux exigences suivantes avant qu'un appel puisse être inscrit pour audition:
Le dossier de l’appelant, son mémoire et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine doivent être déposés dans les quatre mois du dépôt de l’avis d’appel.
Le dossier de l’intimé (le cas échéant), son mémoire et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine doivent être déposés dans les huit semaines suivant la signification du mémoire de l’appelant.
Le mémoire de l'intervenant et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine, le cas échéant, doivent être déposés dans les quatre semaines suivant la signification du mémoire de l'intimé, sauf ordonnance contraire.
Le recueil condensé des parties, le cas échéant, doivent être déposés au plus tard le jour de l’audition de l’appel.
La Cour suprême du Canada a adopté de nouvelles règles qui entreront en vigueur le 28 juin 2002.
Veuillez consulter l’avis aux avocats du mois d’avril 2002 pour plus de renseignements.
Le registraire inscrit l'appel pour audition après le dépôt du mémoire de l'intimé ou à l'expiration du délai pour le dépôt du mémoire de l'intimé. |
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE
CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME
- 2001 -
OCTOBER - OCTOBRE |
|
NOVEMBER - NOVEMBRE |
|
DECEMBER - DECEMBRE |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
M 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
7 |
H 8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
|
4 |
M 5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
2 |
M 3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
|
11 |
H 12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
|
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
|
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
|
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
23 |
24 |
H 25 |
H 26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
- 2002 -
JANUARY - JANVIER |
|
FEBRUARY - FÉVRIER |
|
MARCH - MARS |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
|
H 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
|
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
13 |
M 14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
|
10 |
M 11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
|
10 |
M 11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
|
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
|
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
|
|
|
24 31 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
H 29 |
30 |
APRIL - AVRIL |
|
MAY - MAI |
|
JUNE - JUIN |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
H 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
|
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
|
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
14 |
M 15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
|
12 |
M 13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
|
9 |
M 10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
|
19 |
H 20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
|
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
23 30 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
Sittings of the court: Séances de la cour: |
|
18 sitting weeks / semaines séances de la cour 79 sitting days / journées séances de la cour 9 motion and conference days / journées requêtes, conférences 2 holidays during sitting days / jours fériés durant les sessions |
|
Motions: Requêtes: |
M |
||
Holidays: Jours fériés: |
H |
||
|
|
|