Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

April 19, 2002 609 - 639                                                                        le 19 avril 2002

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Kenmont Management Inc.

Rodney J. Gillis, Q.C.

Gilbert, McGloan, Gillis

v. (29142)

Saint John Port Authority, et al. (N.B.)

Thomas B. Drummie, Q.C.

Clarke Drummie & Company

FILING DATE 22.3.2002

Sepp’s Gourmet Foods Ltd. and 622257 British Columbia Ltd.

Patrick G. Foy, Q.C.

Borden Ladner Gervais

v. (29143)

Lembit Janes, Karen Janes, Peter Pastewka, 514911 Alberta Inc. and Suncal Holdings Ltd., et al.   (B.C.)

Shayne P. Strukoff

Gowling Lafleur Henderson

FILING DATE 28.3.2002

Her Majesty the Queen

Stephen R. Dawson

A.G. of Newfoundland and Labrador

v. (29144)

Barry Shane Decker (Nfld.)

Geoffrey Spencer

Benson, Myles

FILING DATE 2.4.2002

The Corporation of the City of Hamilton

Mark D. Mills

Mathews, Dinsdale & Clark

v. (29145)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Labour) (Ont.)

Brian Blumenthal

Ministry of Labour

FILING DATE 2.4.2002

James Wakeford

Marie Henein

Greenspan, Henein and White

v. (29136)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (Ont.)

Rosyln J. Lavine, Q.C.

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 25.3.2002

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

Paul Pearlman, Q.C.

Fuller, Pearlman, McNeil

v. (29146)

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

Arthur C. Pape

Pape & Salter

FILING DATE 2.4.2002

The Council of Canadians, the Sierra Club of Canada and Greenpeace

Steven Shrybman

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell

v. (29147)

Attorney General of Canada, et al. (F.C.)

Brian R. Evernden

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 2.4.2002

Syndicat des travailleuses et travailleurs de Alfred Dallaire (CSN)

Guy Martin

Sauvé et Roy

c. (29149)

Alfred Dallaire Inc., et autres (Qué.)

Jean-Jacques Rainville

Dunton, Rainville

DATE DE PRODUCTION 5.4.2002

Canadian Photonic Labs

Robert Bélanger

c. (29131)

Simbol Test Systems Inc. (Qué.)

Pierre McMartin

Beaudry Bertrand

DATE DE PRODUCTION 21.3.2002

Her Majesty the Queen

John M. Gordon

A.G. of British Columbia

v. (29140)

Michael Edward Kelly (B.C.)

Jeffrey R. Ray

FILING DATE 26.3.2002

The Corporation of Delta

Barry S. Williamson

Lidstone Young Anderson

v. (29150)

Windset Greenhouses (Ladner) Ltd. (B.C.)

Jonathan Baker

Baker, Corson

FILING DATE 9.4.2002

Jean-Roch Massé

Jean-Roch Massé

c. (29153)

Le Receveur général du Canada (C.F.)

Valérie Tardif

P.G. du Canada

DATE DE PRODUCTION 9.4.2002

Dr. André Touchburn, et al.

Daniel M. Campbell, Q.C.

Cox Hanson O’Reilly Matheson

v. (29157)

Henry Joseph O’Brien, et al. (N.S.)

Mark S. Raftus

Wagner & Associates

FILING DATE 9.4.2002

Jeffrey Smith

Russell Silverstein

Pinkofsky Lockyer

v. (29041)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Kenneth L. Campbell

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 16.4.2002

APRIL 15, 2002 / LE 15 AVRIL 2002

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Arbour

Jeffrey Scott Schellenberg

v. (28788)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non-Charter) - Verdicts - Sentencing - Conditional sentences -Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that guilty verdict was not unreasonable or that sentence was not unfit.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Atmah Singh

v. (29044)

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Master and Servant - Wrongful dismissal - Whether the rules concerning notice under the British Columbia Employment Standards Act, RSBC 1996, c.113, were breached resulting in the wrongful termination of the applicant?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache et Binnie

Geoffrey Saldanha and Leueen Saldahna

v. (28829)

Frederick H. Beals, III, Patricia Beals (Ont.)

AND BETWEEN:

Dominic Thivy

v.

Frederick H. Beals, III, Patricia Beals (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms   - International law - Conflict of laws - Commercial law - Fraud - Procedural law - Default judgment - Public policy and natural justice - Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye (1991), 76 D.L.R. (4^TH) 256 (S.C.C.) - Whether the ability of foreign courts to take jurisdiction over Canadian residents under the “real and substantial” test in Morguard should be re-examined, in a situation where the possibility exists of fraud regarding the process by which the judgment was obtained - Whether Canadian courts should give a broader interpretation to the defences of public policy and natural justice, as raised in the Morguard judgment, which  referred to “fairness to the defendant through fair process” and remedies being available to foreign default judgments in certain cases where public policy issues are raised - Whether the failure of the defendants to appear in foreign proceedings estops them from seeking redress for failings in the processes of the foreign court, which ultimately results in a denial of fundamental justice.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

November 6, 1998

Ontario Court of Justice

(Jennings J.)

Respondents’ action seeking to enforce, in Ontario, a judgment obtained in Florida dismissed

June 29, 2001

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Catzman, Doherty and Weiler JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed; judgment for Respondents in the amount of $556,185. (U.S. funds)

September 27, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

First application for leave to appeal filed

September 28, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Second application for leave to appeal filed

Istvan Szebenyi Jr. and Gizella Szebenyi

v. (28902)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Res judicata - Whether the right of the Applicant Istvan Szebenyi Jr. to represent his mother was res judicata.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

June 3, 1998

Federal Court (Trial Division)

(Gibson J.)

Applicant Istvan Szebenyi Jr.’s permission to represent Gizella Szebenyi in action against Citizenship and Immigration officials, denied

August 18, 2000

Federal Court (Trial Division)

(Lafrenière, Prothonotary)

Applicant Istvan Szebenyi Jr.’s motion for leave to represent Gizella Szebenyi, dismissed

September 19, 2000

Federal Court (Trial Division)

(Blais J.)

Applicant Istvan Szebenyi Jr.’s motion to appeal prothonotary Lafrenière’s decision, dismissed

November 2, 2000

Federal Court (Trial Division)

(Blais J.)

Applicant Istvan Szebenyi Jr.’s motion to reconsider, dismissed

December 8, 2000

Federal Court (Trial Division)

(Blais J.)

Applicant Istvan Szebenyi Jr.’s motion to reconsider decision on reconsideration, dismissed

November 7, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

CORAM:   Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Major et LeBel

Philip Ofume

v. (28741)

Southwest Apartment Limited (N.S.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Residential Tenancies Board found applicant, a refugee from Nigeria, owed landlord arrears of three months rent - Decision upheld by trial and appeal courts - Applicant raising issue of discrimination on appeal - Discrimination not raised at tribunal or before trial court - Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding no manifest error creating substantial injustice made by Board.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

APRIL 11, 2002 / LE 11 AVRIL 2002

28923                               Procureur général du Québec ‐ c. ‐ R.C.  (Qué.) (Criminelle)

Le Juge en chef: –

L’audition de la demande d’autorisation d’appel est ajournée à une date ultérieure.

The oral hearing of this application for leave to appeal is adjourned to a date to be determined.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit criminel - Procédure - Appel - Compétence - Droit à l’avocat - Art. 7  et 11d)  de la Charte  -  La Cour supérieure a-t-elle erré en reconnaissant à l’intimé  un droit constitutionnel à la représentation par avocat aux frais de l’État à l’étape de l’enquête pour remise en liberté? - La Cour supérieure pouvait-elle ordonner à l’État de fournir les services d’un avocat à l’intimé en s’attardant uniquement aux intérêts de celui-ci et en ne tenant aucunement compte des intérêts de la société, notamment des limites à la capacité de l’État de payer? - La Cour supérieure pouvait-elle dicter au Gouvernement les mécanismes de prestation des services? - La décision de la Cour supérieure peut-elle faire l’objet d’un appel à la Cour suprême?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

APRIL 18, 2002 / LE 18 AVRIL 2002

28961                    Bell Globemedia Inc. carring on business as The Globe and Mail ‐ v. ‐ Her Majesty the Queen and Kai Sum Yeung (Ont.) (Criminal)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Arbour JJ.

The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

Les demandes d’autorisation d’appel sont rejetées.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Freedom of the press - Sealing orders - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the test for breaching the Applicant’s section 2(b) rights under the Charter  is satisfied when the Court has a mere concern that indirect forms of disclosure could compromise an ongoing criminal investigation as opposed to the “real and substantial test” enunciated by this Court in Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, [1994] 3 SCR 835 and the “serious risk to the proper administration of justice” test enunciated by this Honourable Court in R. v. Mentuck, [2001] SCC 76 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider reasonably available alternative measures by which the Applicant’s rights under section 2(b)  of the Charter  would be minimally impaired to achieve the objectives of the Crown - Whether  the Court of Appeal erred by invoking a procedure where the Applicant was deprived of its right to make informed submissions challenging the sealing order when the Court acknowledged that such a challenge could conceivably be successful.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

December 4, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal (no. 1) filed

December 18, 2001

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Doherty, Rosenberg, Moldaver JJ.A.)

Respondent Crown’s application for extension of sealing order granted.  Sealing order extended to June 13, 2002.  Applicant’s application requesting access to sealed affidavits dismissed.

February 5, 2002

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave (no. 2) to appeal filed

29043                    Her Majesty the Queen ‐ v. ‐ Stewart James Smith (B.C.) (Criminal)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sentencing - Dangerous offender - Long term offender - Retrospectivity - Whether the court of appeal erred by narrowing the definition of dangerous offender - Whether the court of appeal erred in holding that only offenders for whom there is no reasonable possibility of cure or control within the length of a determinate or long term offender sentence are to be designated dangerous offenders - Whether  the court of appeal erred in holding that the long term offender provisions constitute a lesser punishment - Whether the court of appeal erred in ordering a new hearing without considering whether the result would necessarily have been the same if the long term offender provisions had been applied

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28835                    La Compagnie Pétrolière Impériale Limitée ‐ c. ‐ Procureur général du Québec pour et au nom du ministre de l'Environnement André Boisclair ‐ et ‐ Tribunal Administratif du Québec, Ville de Lévis, et al., Ginette Tanguay, Marc Turgeon, Lucie Munger, Nicolas Pelletier, Christine Duhaime, Claude Maheux, Christine Bédard, Nancy Kidd, André Martin, Jacques Desmeules, Claude Nadeau, Brigitte Michaud, Lucien Bélanger, Carole Roseberry, Reynald Landry, Bernard Côté, Groupe B. Côté, Caisse Populaire Desjardins de Saint‐David, Les Entreprises Michel Verret Inc., André Blais, Sylvie Bourget, Céline Couture, Jacques Marquis, Normand Rodrigue, Chantale Jean, Jean‐Marc Bergeron, Jocelyne Giasson, Lini Fortin, Martine Ringuet, Marielle Vallières, Gilbert Caron, Rita Nolin, Renée‐Claude Gagné, Danny Garcez et Corporation Adélaîde Capitale Inc. (Qué.) (Civile)

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

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

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

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit de l’environnement — Sol contaminé par des hydrocarbures — Le ministre de l’Environnement ordonne la réalisation d’une étude de caractérisation du sol — Loi sur la qualité de l’environnement, L.R.Q., ch. Q-2, art. 31.42, 41.44, 96 et 115.1 — Droit administratif — Appel — Loi sur la justice administrative, L.R.Q., ch. J-3, art. 2, 15 et 137 — Le ministre était-il tenu à une obligation d’équité procédurale lui imposant d’agir avec impartialité? — Les faits au présent dossier démontrent-ils une crainte raisonnable de partialité? — Quelles sont les conditions d’application de la doctrine de la nécessité dans un contexte de révision judiciaire d’une décision administrative comportant l’exercice d’une discrétion et quelle est la portée exacte des exceptions à cette doctrine dans ce même contexte, le cas échéant? — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en appliquant l’exception de la doctrine de la nécessité et celle du chevauchement des fonctions? — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en voyant dans l’exception du chevauchement de fonctions une exception au devoir d’agir avec impartialité du Ministre applicable dans le cadre du présent dossier? — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en ce qu’elle ne pouvait ignorer les conclusions du juge de première instance portant sur la mauvaise foi du décideur et de l’« objet irrégulier » à moins d’intervenir dans les conclusions factuelles du juge a quo et d’établir qu’il avait commis une erreur manifeste dans l’appréciation de la preuve, ce que la Cour d’appel n’a pas fait et n’a pas cherché à démontrer?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

28831                    Siemens Westinghouse Inc. ‐ v. ‐ The Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, Mil Systems, a division of Davie Industries Inc., and Fleetway Inc. ‐ and ‐ The Canadian International Trade Tribunal (FC) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, Mil Systems, a division of Davie Industries Inc. and Fleetway Inc.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimés, Ministre des travaux publics et des services gouvernementaux, Mil Systems, a division of Davie Industries Inc. and Fleetway Inc.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Tribunals - Commercial Law - Contracts - Government Procurement - Winning bid on government Request for Proposal to procure services successfully challenged before Canadian International Trade Tribunal - Tribunal issues recommendations to be implemented during re-evaluation of bids - Bids re-evaluated without reference to first evaluation and contract awarded to different party - Bidder successful in original evaluation seeks judicial review - What is the extent of the government’s discretion to refuse to implement a determination of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal with respect to a procurement - Whether the Canadian International Trade Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the government’s implementation of a previous determination in the same procurement -  When implementing a tribunal recommendation to re-evaluate bids, is the government limited to correcting the errors found by the tribunal or at liberty to change elements of the first evaluation that were never in dispute before the tribunal - What is the nature of the government’s obligation to clearly identify bid evaluation criteria and weighting in an Request For Proposal - What is the appropriate standard of review on procurement complaints.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28702                    Harry Catarat (deceased) and James Albert Sylvestre ‐ v. ‐ Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Saskatchewan and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Government of Canada (Sask.) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Native law - Constitutional law - Criminal law - Treaty rights - Hunting on land owned by provincial Crown and leased to federal Crown - Whether Indians have right to hunt for food on lands ceded under treaty which are leased for military training purposes and as an air weapons range - Whether land is “unoccupied Crown land” - Whether hunting rights were extinguished or modified by Natural Resources Transfer Agreement ‐ Violations of Wildlife Act, S.S. 1979, c. W-13.1 and National Defence Act,  R.S.C. 1985, c. N-5  and Regulations - Violation of Charter  rights - R. v. Badger, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

August 26, 1998

Provincial Court of Saskatchewan

(Nightingale J.)

Applicants acquitted of unlawfully entering a controlled area contrary to s. 288  of the National Defence Act,  R.S.C. 1985, c. N-5  and its Regulations and  unlawful hunting contrary to section 28(1)(a) of the Wildlife Act

August 25, 1999

Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan

(Krueger J.)

Respondents’ appeals allowed; Applicants’ cross-appeal dismissed; acquittals set aside; matter referred back to trial judge on issue of an implied permission to hunt

28771                    Crédit Commercial de France ‐ c. ‐ Ville de Montréal (Qué.) (Civile)

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

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit fiscal - Procédure - Prescription - Législation - Interprétation - Contestation d’une inscription apparaissant au rôle de la valeur locative - Art. 134 de la Loi sur la fiscalité municipale, L.R.Q., ch. F-2.1, permettant le dépôt d’une plainte tardive en cas de force majeure - La Cour d’appel, à la majorité, a-t-elle erré dans l’interprétation de l’expression “cas de force majeure” ainsi que dans l’application de ce principe?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 25 février 1998

Bureau de révision de l’évaluation foncière du Québec

Requête en irrecevabilité de l’intimée accueillie: plainte de la demanderesse rejetée

en raison de sa tardiveté

Le 13 avril 1999

Cour du Québec, Chambre civile

(Barbe j.c.q.)

Appel accueilli: plainte de la demanderesse déclarée recevable et dossier retourné au Bureau de révision 

Le 22 octobre 1999

Tribunal administratif du Québec

Plainte de la demanderesse accueillie: valeur réelle du lieu d’affaires établie à 950 000$

28840                    Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 ‐ v. ‐ City of Toronto and Douglas Stanley (Ont.) (Civil)

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

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

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Labour law - Arbitration - Judicial review - Whether the Court erred in concluding that the applicable standard of review of the arbitrator’s decision was correctness rather than patent unreasonableness - Whether the Court erred in concluding that there was a new, independent “finality principle”, separate and different from the principles of issue estoppel and res judicata and the doctrine of abuse of process, rendering prior criminal convictions conclusive and binding in later arbitration proceedings.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28849                    Ontario Public Service Employees Union ‐ v. ‐ Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Correctional Services and Ontario Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board (Ont.) (Civil)

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

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

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Labour law - Arbitration - Judicial review - Is the proper standard of review of procedural and evidentiary decisions of Ontario Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board one of correctness - In the absence of issue estoppel, collateral attack and a clear finding of abuse of process, is it proper for a court on judicial review to set aside an arbitrator’s decision and apply a free-standing principle of judicial finality to restrict the evidence permitted in rebuttal of a criminal conviction - Did the Court err in critically assessing the nature and origin of the evidence before an arbitrator and in determining that rebuttal evidence should not have been heard?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29071                    James Wakeford ‐ v. ‐ Attorney General of Canada (Ont.) (Civil)

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian   Charter  - Civil - Civil rights - Right to assisted suicide - Summary judgment - Whether it was plain and obvious that the action could not succeed - Whether ss. 14 and 241(b) of the Criminal Code  violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by failing to find that Canada’s s. 1 defence that was used in Rodriguez was no longer applicable - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to find that Rodriguez was distinguishable from the case at bar.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28885                    Raffaele Greco ‐ v. ‐ Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Procedural law - Courts - Jurisdiction - Sentencing - Probation - Alleged breach of probation occurring solely outside Canada - Whether Canadian court has jurisdiction to try a failure to comply with probation offence where the acts constituting the failure to comply took place solely outside Canada.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

February 9, 2001

Superior Court of Justice

(MacKinnon J.)

Appeals from conviction and sentence dismissed 

October 25, 2001

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Doherty, Rosenberg and Moldaver JJ.A.)

Appeal from conviction dismissed

December 21, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

28799                    Ian Swayze and Paul Posner ‐ v. ‐ Scott Starson a.k.a. Scott Jeffery Schutzman (Ont.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Consent and Capacity Review Board - Capacity to consent to treatment - Standard of review - Hearsay - Subjective considerations - New evidence on appeal - Whether the standard of appellate review of treatment capacity orders by review tribunals under provincial legislation was properly determined by the lower courts - Whether the courts below erred in reversing the decision of the Consent and Capacity Board by, in effect, applying a standard of correctness and a strict application of the hearsay rule, rather than a standard of reasonableness - Whether the Board correctly applied the statutory standard in s. 4(1) of the Act with respect to the Respondent’s capacity to consent to treatment - Whether the Board improperly allowed its subjective assessment of the choices made by the Respondent to influence its decision - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to admit new evidence on the current condition and prognosis of the Respondent.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

November 26, 1999

Superior Court of Justice

(Molloy J.)

Appeal allowed

June 14, 2001

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Carthy, Laskin and Goudge JJ.A.)

Application to admit new evidence dismissed; appeal dismissed

September 12, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

28852                    Cory Mitchell King ‐ v. ‐ Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.) (Criminal)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian  Charter  - Criminal - Criminal law - Abuse of process - Right to liberty - Reasonable doubt - Accused’s rights pursuant to breach in respect of third party - Whether the third party’s rights were breached - Whether a breach of a third party’s rights would create a breach of the accused’s rights under the Charter , s. 7  - Whether such a breach would entitle accused to a remedy - Whether the lower courts erred in law by refusing to grant the stay of proceedings - Whether the lower courts erred in law in assessing reasonable doubt where the only evidence implicating the accused was proven false as to the time of the offence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

September 26, 2000

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta

(Rooke J.)

Applicant convicted of possession of stolen property under the Criminal Code , s. 355 (a)

29038                    Luca Liuni and Valerie Liuni, minors by their Litigation Guardian, Dalia Liuni, the same Dalia Luini, Antonio Liuni, Francesca Liuni Paccitti, Gaetano Pacitti and Anna‐Maria Liuni ‐ v. ‐ Christine J. Peters (Ont.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence - Physicians and surgeons - Causation - Whether the trial judge erred in failing to expressly make findings of causation before determining liability - Whether the trial judge misapprehends an important issue and of fact and discounted the evidence of one party’s experts due to that misapprehension - Whether proceeding under such a misapprehension would constitute an overriding error.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28861                    James MacEachern ‐ v. ‐ Bishop & McKenzie and Ernest A. Hee (Ont.) (Civil)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ.

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

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Summary judgment - Securities - Real property - Barristers and solicitors - Duty of care - Duty to third parties - Reasonable reliance - Trustees - Whether there was a genuine issue for trial - Whether the Applicant reasonably relied on the Respondents - Whether the Respondents breached their duties as trustees of the Applicant - Whether the Respondents prepared a transaction that did not comply with the Ontario Securities Act - Whether the Applicant, a third party, suffered loss as  a result - Whether the Ontario Securities Act was not applicable to the purchase.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

November 8, 2000

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

(Ratushny J.)

Motion for summary judgment granted; action dismissed

June 18, 2001

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Carthy, Doherty and Moldaver JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

October 17, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

8.4.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Robert Rahn

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’appelant

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to May 3, 2002.

9.4.2002

Before / Devant:   THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Further order on motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Robert Lavigne

IN/DANS:              Clayton Charles Ruby

v. (28029)

The Solicitor General (F.C.)

Autre ordonnance sur une requête en autorisation d'intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by Robert Lavigne for leave to intervene in the above appeal and pursuant to the order of March 21, 2002;

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said intervener is granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding 10 minutes at the hearing of the appeal.

10.4.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Miguel Figueroa

v. (28194)

The Attorney General of Canada (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer le recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’appelant

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to March 26, 2002, nunc pro tunc.

12.4.2002

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Further order on motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Privacy Commissioner of Canada

IN/DANS:              Clayton Charles Ruby

v. (28029)

The Solicitor General (F.C.)

Autre ordonnance sur une requête en autorisation d'intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by Privacy Commissioner of Canada for leave to intervene in the above appeal and pursuant to the order of May 25, 2001;

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

15.4.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Miscellaneous motion

The Estate of Manish Odhavji, Deceased, et al.

v. (28425)

Detective Martin Woodhouse, et al. (Ont.)

Autre requête

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    The motion to extend the time to serve and file the appellants’ record, factum and books of authorities to March 27, 2002 and the respondents’ record, factum and books of authorities to June 17, 2002, to reduce the number of copies of the appellants’ record to 14 and to accept the lower court decisions as filed, is granted.

15.4.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

William Christopher Wilson

v. (28703)

Her Majesty 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 April 2, 2002.

15.4.2002

CORAM:               Le Juge en chef et les juges L'Heureux‐Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour et LeBel

Motion by the respondents to quash the appeal and motion by the appellant in continuation of the appeal

Le procureur général du Québec

c. (28432)

Future Électronique Inc., et al. (Crim.)(Qué.)

Requête par les intimés en annulation de l’appel et requête par l’appelant en continuation de l’appel

Guy Du Pont, Louis-Martin O’Neill et Jody Shugar pour la requête en annulation.

Daniel Grégoire, Serge Brodeur et Sébastien Bergeron pour le procureur général du Québec.

Robert Frater et James L. Brunton pour l’intervenant le procureur général du Canada.

Judgment:

We are all of the view that the appeal is moot, as agreed by the parties, and we see no basis for exercising the Court’s discretion to hear this appeal.  Accordingly, the motion is granted and the appeal is quashed.

Jugement:

Nous sommes tous d’avis que l’appel est devenu théorique, comme les parties en conviennent, et qu’il n’y a pas lieu que la Cour exerce son pouvoir discrétionnaire pour entendre l’appel.  Par conséquent, la requête est accordée et l’appel est annulé.

12.4.2002

Inspector Kenneth Doern, et al.

v. (28846)

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

12.4.2002

Billy Taillefer

c. (28899)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)

12.4.2002

Hughes Duguay

c. (28903)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)

15.4.2002

The Crown in Right of Alberta, et al.

v. (28834)

Audrey Allen, et al.  (Alta.)

10.4.2002

Glen Dennis Mahabir, et al.

v. (28963)

Brent O’Connor, et al.  (Alta)

(leave)

16.4.2002

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

Karlheinz Schreiber

v. (28543)

The Federal Republic of Germany and the Attorney General of Canada (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Edward L. Greenspan, Q.C. and David Stratas for the appellant.

Ed Morgan for the respondent the Federal Republic of Germany.

Brian J. Saunders and Michael H. Morris for the respondent Attorney General of Canada.

David Matas and Michael Bossin for the intervener Amnesty International Canadian Section

Malcolm N. Ruby for the intervener United States of America.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

International Law - Sovereign Immunity - Republic of Germany requested extradition of Appellant from Canada - Appellant arrested and detained in Canada - Appellant brought action for damages for personal injuries in the form of mental distress, denial of liberty and damage to reputation - Legislation conferring immunity on foreign states from jurisdiction of Canadian courts - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the term “personal injury” in s. 6(a) of the State Immunity Act applies only to claims of physical injury, and does not apply to wrongful imprisonment - Whether the exception in s. 4(2)(b) of the State Immunity Act applies.

Nature de la cause:

Droit international - Immunité de juridiction - L’Allemagne a demandé l’extradition de l’appelant - Arrestation et détention de l’appelant au Canada - L’appelant a déposé une action en dommages‐intérêts parce qu’il aurait subi des dommages corporels sous forme de souffrance mentale, d’atteinte à la liberté et de préjudice à la réputation - La loi confère aux États étrangers une immunité de juridiction devant tout tribunal au Canada - La Cour d’appel a‐t‐elle commis une erreur en concluant que l’expression « dommages corporels » contenue à l’al. 6a) de la Loi sur l’immunité des États s’applique uniquement aux allégations de préjudice physique, et non aux emprisonnements illégaux? - L’exception prévue à l’al. 4(2)b) de la Loi sur l’immunité des États s’applique‐t‐elle?

17.4.2002

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

Her Majesty The Queen

v. (28748)

Allen Michael Carlos (Y.T.) (Criminal) (As of Right)

Graham R. Garton, Q.C. and David A. McWhinnie for the appellant.

Richard A. Fritze for the respondent.

ACQUITTAL SET ASIDE, CONVICTION ENTERED ON ALL 3 COUNTS AND MATTER REMITTED TO TRIAL JUDGE FOR SENTENCING /

ACQUITTEMENT ANNULÉ, DÉCLARATION DE CULPABILITÉ INSCRITE À L’ÉGARD DES 3 CHEFS D’ACCUSATION ET AFFAIRE RENVOYÉE AU JUGE DU PROCÈS POUR DÉTERMINATION DE LA PEINE

ARBOUR J. (orally):

This is an appeal as of right by the Crown.

Accepting, as we must, the findings of fact made by the trial judge, we disagree with the majority of the Yukon Court of Appeal ((2001), 155 C.C.C. (3d) 459) that the actus reus of storage, within the meaning of s. 86(1)  of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 , has not been made out.

There is no requirement in that section that the accused plan a long term or permanent storage.  The trial judge found that the respondent deposited a loaded .357 Magnum in an ill-planned temporary hiding spot.  In all the circumstances, in our view, this amounted to storage within the meaning of s. 86(1) of the Code.  The same applies to the temporary placing of the two loaded handguns inside a locked safe.

In the circumstances of this case, where the respondent, as he put it, rapidly set aside and hid his loaded firearms, in a panicked state, intending to retrieve them shortly thereafter, the facts amply support the conclusion that he stored them within the meaning of that section.

[traduction] LE JUGE ARBOUR (oralement) :

Le présent appel est interjeté de plein droit par le ministère public.

Après avoir accepté, comme il se doit, les conclusions de fait de la juge du procès, nous ne partageons pas l’avis des juges majoritaires de la Cour d’appel du Yukon ((2001), 155 C.C.C. (3d) 459) que l’actus reus de l’entreposage, au sens du par. 86(1)  du Code criminel ,  L.R.C. 1985, ch. C‐46 , n’a pas été prouvé.

Ce paragraphe n’exige nullement que l’accusé prévoie un entreposage à long terme ou permanent.  La juge du procès a conclu que l’intimé avait caché un pistolet Magnum de calibre .357 dans un endroit temporaire mal choisi.  Compte tenu de l’ensemble des circonstances, nous estimons qu’il s’agissait d’une forme d’entreposage au sens du par. 86(1) du Code.  Cela vaut autant en ce qui concerne le fait d’avoir placé temporairement les deux armes de poing chargées dans un coffre-fort verrouillé.

Dans les circonstances de la présente affaire, où l’intimé, pris de panique, s’est empressé, selon ses propres paroles, de ranger et cacher ses armes chargées avec l’intention de les récupérer peu après, les faits étayent amplement la conclusion qu’ils les a entreposées au sens de ce paragraphe.

There are obviously circumstances where a short interruption in the use or handling of firearms would still constitute use or handling rather that storage.  In this case however, the respondent took steps to put away and hide his weapons such that the proper characterization of his actions was that he stored them, albeit temporarily, rather than continue his use and handling of the firearms in plain view of the police.

We are of the view that the storage was careless in one case, and in contravention of the regulations in the other two.  We therefore agree with Ryan J.A. dissenting in the Court of Appeal that the acquittals must be set aside and convictions entered on all three counts.  The matter is remitted to the trial judge for sentencing.

Il existe des circonstances manifestes où une brève interruption de l’utilisation ou de la manipulation d’armes à feu constitue néanmoins une utilisation ou manipulation et non un entreposage.  En l’espèce, toutefois, l’intimé a pris des mesures pour ranger et cacher ses armes de sorte qu’il convient de considérer qu’il les a entreposées, quoique temporairement, au lieu de continuer à les utiliser et à les manipuler sous les yeux des policiers.

Nous sommes d’avis que l’entreposage était négligent dans un cas, et contraire aux règlements dans les deux autres cas.  Nous sommes donc d’accord avec la juge Ryan, dissidente en Cour d’appel, pour dire que les acquittements doivent être annulés et que des déclarations de culpabilité doivent être inscrites relativement aux trois chefs d’accusation.  L’affaire est renvoyée à la juge du procès pour qu’elle prononce la sentence.

Nature of the case:

Criminal law - Statutes - Interpretation - Firearms - Meaning of “storage” - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the firearm in question had not been “stored” within the meaning of s. 86  of the Criminal Code , and in failing to enter verdicts of guilty against the Respondent with respect to all three of the offences with which he had been charged.

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel - Lois - Interprétation - Armes à feu - Signification du terme « entreposage » - La Cour d’appel a‐t‐elle commis une erreur en concluant que l’arme à feu en question n’avait pas été « entreposée » au sens de l’art. 86  du Code criminel , et en omettant d’inscrire des verdicts de culpabilité contre l’intimé relativement aux trois infractions dont il est accusé?

17.4.2002

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin, L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

V.C.A.S.

v. (28671)

Her Majesty the Queen (Man.) (Criminal) (As of Right)

Mark Wasyliw and Greg Brodsky, Q.C. for the appellant.

Gregg Lawlor for the respondent

DISMISSED, LEBEL J. DISSENTING / REJETÉ, LE JUGE LEBEL EST DISSIDENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:

Mr. Lawlor, it will not be necessary to hear from you.  The Court is ready to hand down judgment.  Mr. Justice Iacobucci will give the judgment for the Court.

IACOBUCCI J. (orally):

This appeal comes to us as of right.

At the outset, it is important to note the essential supervisory role of courts of appeal in carefully scrutinizing the reasonableness of verdicts.  In this respect, we are mindful of the cogent factors identified by Twaddle J.A., dissenting in the Manitoba Court of Appeal in this case.  However, in the final analysis, we do not see any reason to differ with the disposition arrived at by Helper J.A. for the majority of the Court of Appeal.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.  Mr. Justice LeBel, dissenting, would have allowed the appeal substantially for the reasons of Twaddle J.A., and quashed the conviction for sexual assault.

[traduction] LE JUGE EN CHEF :

Il ne sera pas nécessaire de vous entendre M^e Lawlor.  La Cour est prête à rendre jugement séance tenante, lequel sera prononcé par le juge Iacobucci.

LE JUGE IACOBUCCI (oralement) :

Il s’agit en l’espèce d’un appel de plein droit.

Il importe, au départ, de noter le rôle de surveillance essentiel que jouent les cours d’appel en examinant attentivement le caractère raisonnable des verdicts.  À cet égard, nous sommes conscients des facteurs pertinents que le juge Twaddle, dissident en Cour d’appel du  Manitoba, a relevés en l’espèce.  En dernière analyse, toutefois, nous ne voyons aucune raison de ne pas souscrire à la décision rendue par le juge Helper, au nom de la Cour d’appel à la majorité.  L’appel est donc rejeté.  Le juge LeBel, dissident, aurait accueilli l’appel essentiellement pour les mêmes raisons que le juge Twaddle et il aurait annulé la déclaration de culpabilité d’agression sexuelle.

Nature of the case:

Criminal law - Evidence - Appellate review - Assault and sexual assault - Child complainant - Whether verdict on sexual assault unreasonable - Whether the trial judge reviewed the evidence in a manner to avoid the unjust conviction on a suspicious allegation of sexual abuse - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal granted an undue degree of deference to the findings of the trial judge and failed to exercise their powers of review.

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel - Preuve - Révision en appel - Voies de fait et agression sexuelle - Plaignant mineur - Le verdict était-il déraisonnable? - Le juge du procès a-t-il analysé la preuve de manière à éviter de prononcer une déclaration de culpabilité injuste relativement à une allégation douteuse d’agression sexuelle? - Les juges majoritaires de la Cour d’appel ont-ils fait preuve d’une retenue indue à l’égard des conclusions du juge du procès et ont-ils fait défaut d’exercer leur pouvoir de révision?

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME

- 2001 -

- 2002 -