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. |
588 - 591
592 - 595
-
-
596 - 600
-
601 - 603
604
-
605
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
606
607
608 |
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 |
D.C.
D.C.
c. (29116)
T.D. (Qué.)
Vera Mesenzew
Azran & Associés
DATE DE PRODUCTION 1.3.2002
Mr. Pawn Ltd.
Sidney Green, Q.C.
v. (29105)
The City of Winnipeg (Man.)
Ursula B. Goeres
City of Winnipeg
FILING DATE 7.3.2002
Richard Wayne Gillingham
Roger P. Thirkell
Thirkell & Company
v. (29065)
The United States of America (B.C.)
Kenneth J. Yule
A.G. of Canada
FILING DATE 12.2.2002
Harel, Drouin & Associés
Sylvain Lussier
Desjardins Ducharme Stein Monast
c. (29122)
Jean-Guy Vidal (Qué.)
Pierre Sylvestre
Sylvestre Charbonneau Fafard & Associés
DATE DE PRODUCTION 12.3.2002
Michel Laflamme
Martin Tremblay
c. (29123)
Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)
Germain Martin
P.G. du Québec
DATE DE PRODUCTION 14.3.2002
Allison Bernard, Jr.
Bruce H. Wildsmith, Q.C.
v. (29124)
Her Majesty the Queen (N.S.)
William D. Delaney
A.G. of Nova Scotia
FILING DATE 14.3.2002
Stamicarbon B.V.
A. David Morrow
Smart & Biggar
v. (29127)
Urea Casale S.A. (F.C.)
Douglas N. Deeth
Deeth Williams Wall
FILING DATE 18.3.2002
Jean Piché
Michel Aubin
c. (29125)
Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)
Carole Lebeuf
P.G. du Québec
DATE DE PRODUCTION 18.3.2002
Manuel Emilio Melgarejo-Gomez
Josiah Wood, Q.C.
Blake, Cassels & Graydon
v. (29126)
Rajinder Singh Sidhu (B.C.)
Alison L. Murray
Dickson, Murray
FILING DATE 18.3.2002
Dr. Kenneth C.L. Wu
Mark M. Skorah
Skorah Doyle Khanna
v. (29129)
Greta Holsten (B.C.)
John N. Laxton, Q.C.
Laxton & Company
FILING DATE 21.3.2002
Ed Dick, also known as Edward Dick, also known as Edward : Dick
Edward Dick
v. (29128)
Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)
Pamela Meneguzzi
A.G. of Canada
FILING DATE 22.3.2002
Le Procureur général du Québec
Gilles Laporte
P.G. du Québec
c. (29121)
Sébastien Beauchamps, et autres (Qué.)
François Bordeleau
DATE DE PRODUCTION 25.3.2002
M.T., et al.
Julius H. Grey
Grey Casgrain
v. (29132)
A.T. (Que.)
Linda Schachter
L. Schachter & Associés
FILING DATE 28.3.2002
Phil Lajeunesse, operating as “Prince Albert Northern Bus Repair” (Northern Bus Repair Centre Inc.)
Peter V. Abrametz
Eggum, Abrametz & Eggum
v. (29070)
Wahpeton Dakota First Nation and Lorne Waditaka (Sask.)
Dwayne J. Stonechild
Angus, Stonechild & Racine
FILING DATE 28.3.2002
Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail
Jean-Marie Robert
Panneton, Lessard
c. (29117)
Compagnie de chemin de fer Canadien Pacifique (Qué.)
Robert M. Skelly
Fasken, Martineau, DuMoulin
DATE DE PRODUCTION 28.3.2002
Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail
Jean-Marie Robert
Panneton, Lessard
c. (29119)
Purolator Courrier Ltée (Qué.)
Robert M. Skelly
Fasken, Martineau, DuMoulin
DATE DE PRODUCTION 28.3.2002
Daniel Armaly
Daniel Armaly
v. (29130)
Parole Service, Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board (Alta.)
Rick Garvin
A.G. of Canada
FILING DATE 3.4.2002
Pearl Winnifred Pearl, et al.
Raymond Wagner
Wagner & Associates
v. (29094)
The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (N.S.)
John Ashley, Q.C.
A.G. of Canada
FILING DATE 18.3.2002
Simeon Hogan
William H. Watts
v. (29133)
Her Majesty the Queen (N.B.)
Robert J. Frater
A.G. of Canada
FILING DATE 27.3.2002
- and between -
Kevin Michael Mailman
Martin D. Fineberg
Mosher Chedore
v. (29133)
Her Majesty the Queen (N.B.)
Robert J. Frater
A.G. of Canada
FILING DATE 27.3.2002
- and between -
Nathan Gionet
Margaret Gallagher
v. (29133)
Her Majesty the Queen (N.B.)
Robert J. Frater
A.G. of Canada
FILING DATE 28.3.2002
Ellen LaBelle
Ellen LaBelle
v. (29120)
Attorney General for Ontario (Ont.)
Walter Myrka
A.G. for Ontario
FILING DATE 2.4.2002
City of Regina
Barry W. Wilson
City of Regina
v. (29138)
Empringham Catering Services Ltd. (Sask.)
Robert P. Hrycan
Balfour, Moss
FILING DATE 21.3.2002
Dr. Ralph Christensen
David P. Roberts, Q.C.
Campney & Murphy
v. (29139)
Lorraine Sinclair, et al. (B.C.)
Gary V. Lauk, Q.C.
Lauk La Liberté
FILING DATE 25.3.2002
Kevin Shapwaykeesic
Keith E. Wright
v. (29141)
Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
Alexander Alvaro
A.G. for Ontario
FILING DATE 26.3.2002
The Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Linda R. Rothstein
Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein
v. (29135)
The Attorney General of Ontario (Ont.)
Robert Earl Charney
A.G. for Ontario
FILING DATE 4.4.2002
Stephen M. Byer
Stephen M. Byer
v. (29134)
The Bar of Montreal (Que.)
Maurice Boileau
Barreau de Montréal
FILING DATE 5.4.2002
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE
|
|
DEMANDES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
APRIL 8, 2002 / LE 8 AVRIL 2002
CORAM: Chief Justice McLachlin and Iacobucci and Arbour JJ. /
Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Arbour
Attorney General of Canada
v. (28936)
Stephen O. Youngman and Paul Gaster (Crim.) (B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter - Criminal - Criminal Law - Whether ss. 487 and 488.1 of the Criminal Code are in breach of ss. 7 or 8 of Charter.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
March 10, 2000 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Romilly J.) |
|
Declaration s. 488.1 of the Criminal Code unconstitutional and of no force and effect; Declaration s. 487 constitutional |
|
|
|
November 5, 2001 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Prowse, Donald and Newbury [dissenting] JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal with respect to s. 488.1 dismissed; Cross-appeal with respect to s. 487 allowed in part, s. 487 declared unconstitutional, words read into s. 487 |
|
|
|
December 11, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
January 10, 2002 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to cross-appeal filed by Paul Gaster |
|
|
|
Attorney General of Canada
v. (28937)
Eric Emerson Huber (Crim.) (B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter - Criminal - Criminal Law - Whether ss. 487 and 488.1 of the Criminal Code are in breach of ss. 7 or 8 of Charter.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
March 10, 2000 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Romilly J.) |
|
Declaration s. 488.1 of the Criminal Code unconstitutional and of no force and effect; Declaration s. 487 constitutional |
|
|
|
November 5, 2001 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Prowse, Donald and Newbury [dissenting] JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal with respect to s. 488.1 dismissed; Cross-appeal with respect to s. 487 allowed in part, s. 487 declared unconstitutional, words read into s. 487 |
|
|
|
December 11, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache and Binnie JJ. /
Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache et Binnie
Kevin H. Grotheim
v. (29009)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (Sask.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter - Criminal - Criminal law - Warrantless arrest - Dwelling house - Arbitrary detention - Duty to provide reasons - Powers of peace officers to make warrantless arrests in dwelling-houses - Whether the Applicant’s rights under ss. 7, 8 and primarily 9 of the Charter were breached - Whether the lower courts failed to recognize and apply those rights - Whether the trial judge had a duty to provide reasons and analysis for his decision - Whether the failure to adequately do so constitutes reversible error.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 27, 2000
Provincial Court of Saskatchewan
(Finley P.C.J.)
Applicant convicted operating a motor vehicle while impaired under s. 253(b) of the Criminal Code
December 21, 2000 Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Laing J.) |
|
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed |
|
|
|
November 13, 2001 Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (Cameron, Sherstobitoff and Jackson JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed; conviction restored |
|
|
|
January 15, 2002 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed
|
|
|
|
January 23, 2002 Supreme Court of Canada (Major J.) |
|
Motion to extend time granted |
|
|
|
CORAM: Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ. /
Les juges Gonthier, Major et LeBel
Melvin P. Deutsch
v. (29032)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter - Criminal - Criminal Law - Whether a person must be first found guilty after trial before determining if rights violated - Whether a solicitor can represent co-defendants with different interests - Whether persons in every province have the same right to speedy trials - Whether a bilingual person may be denied right to a french trial solely on the grounds that he or she speaks and understands English - Whether disclosure denied - Whether Court of Appeal for Ontario err with respect to findings of lower court - Whether Crown can the proceed with charges when the original information had been withdrawn and defendant not arraigned on the new information - Was the applications judge in error to state that an application had no merit only because the applicant did not retain counsel- Whether Crown improperly contacted applicant’s former counsel - Whether Court of Appeal required to see that the courts and all its offices are handicapped accessible - Whether persons in Canada have the same rights as United States citizens to protection of the court - Whether Crown may proceed on matters originally stated they had withdrawn.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 25, 2001 Superior Court of Justice (O’Driscoll J.) |
|
Application dismissed |
|
|
|
December 17, 2001 Court of Appeal for Ontario (McMurtry C.J., Rosenberg, MacPherson JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
January 21, 2002 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
The Estate of Claude John, et al.
v. (28739)
Eaton Yale Ltd. (Ont.)
AND BETWEEN:
Shawn Flynn
v.
Eaton Yale Ltd. (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Torts - Damages - Motor vehicles - Negligence - Statutes - Interpretation - Employee becoming intoxicated partly during work hours on employer’s premises and partly outside of work hours away from workplace - No observable signs of intoxication - Employee driving motor vehicle home safely at end of shift and arriving without incident - Employee driving again shortly thereafter causing accident and personal injury to third party – Employer having notice of employee’s alcoholism - Whether employer owing duty of care to third parties suffering injuries as a result of negligent driving of intoxicated employee - If employer liable, whether employer permitted to deduct collateral benefits paid by victims’ insurer from damages award, as provided under no fault statutory scheme - Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, s. 267(1).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
September 1, 2000 Superior Court of Justice (Donnelly J.) |
|
Order awarding applicants, Claude and Rose John, damages in the amount of $620,052.88; jury apportioned 70 per cent liability as against the applicant, Flynn, and 30 per cent as against the respondent Eaton Yale |
|
|
|
July 28, 2001 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Finlayson, Weiler and Goudge JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal brought by Eaton Yale allowed; cross-appeal brought by Claude and Rose John dismissed |
|
|
|
August 16, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed, the Estate of Claude John and Rose John, applicants |
|
|
|
September 25, 2001
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed, Shawn Flynn, applicant
JUDGMENTS ON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE |
|
JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION |
APRIL 11, 2002 / LE 11 AVRIL 2002
29055 M.L. ‐ c. ‐ A.C. (Qué.) (Civile)
CORAM: Le Juge en chef et les juges Iacobucci et Arbour
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 de la famille — Union de fait entre le demandeur et l’intimée — Pension alimentaire payable par le demandeur pour le bénéfice de l’enfant né pendant l’union de fait — Législation — Interprétation — Code civil — Prescription d’un droit résultant d’un jugement — Code civil du Québec, L.Q. 1991, ch. 64, art. 2924 — Quelle est la prescription applicable à une ordonnance alimentaire intérimaire? — La jurisprudence de la Cour supérieure et de la Cour d’appel en la matière manque-t-elle d’uniformité? — Le juge de première instance a-t-il erré en intervenant sur des questions de fait et de crédibilité?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 5 juillet 2001 Cour supérieure du Québec (Léger, j.c.s.) |
|
Requête du demandeur en annulation de pension alimentaire et d’arrérages, accueillie ; pension alimentaire payable par le demandeur aux termes du jugement du 19 octobre 1990 annulée rétroactivement |
|
|
|
Le 12 décembre 2001 Cour d’appel du Québec (Mailhot, Dussault et Thibault, jj.c.a.) |
|
Appel accueilli ; jugement de première instance, annulé ; requête en annulation pour partie, accueillie ; pension alimentaire annulée pour les périodes avant janvier 1991 et entre le 1er octobre 1998 et le 31 août 1999 |
|
|
|
Le 11 février 2002 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
28832 BMW Canada Inc. et Alain Laforest ‐ c. ‐ Automobile Jalbert Inc. (Qué.) (Civile)
CORAM: Le Juge en chef et les juges Iacobucci et Arbour
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 commercial - Contrats - Interprétation - En matière de contrat de franchise automobiles, un manufacturier a-t-il le droit de ne pas renouveler sa relation commerciale avec son franchisé à l’échéance du contrat de franchise? - Les nouveaux contrats de franchise offerts à l’intimée comportent-ils des clauses abusives qui justifiaient celle-ci de ne pas y concourir et, dans l’affirmative, la demanderesse était-elle en droit de mettre un terme à sa relation commerciale avec son franchisé à échéance le 31 juillet 2000?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 9 mars 2001 Cour supérieure du Québec (Bédard j.c.s.) |
|
Action en injonction permanente de l’intimée rejetée, demande de remise des “Facility Funds” rejetée et réclamation de dommages de 50 000 $ au demandeur Laforest rejetée; action en injonction permanente de BMW Canada Inc. accueillie |
|
|
|
Le 18 juillet 2001
Cour d’appel du Québec
(Michaud j.c.q., Forget et Rochette jj.c.a.)
Appel accueilli: BMW Canada Inc. condamnée à payer à l’intimée 72 000 $ avec intérêts et indemnité additionnelle; action en injonction permanente de BMW Canada Inc. rejetée; action en injonction permanente de l’intimée accueillie en partie
Le 1 octobre 2001
Cour suprême du Canada
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée
29029 T.M.B. ‐ v. ‐ Children's Aid Society of Halifax and S.M.R. (N.S.) (Civil)
CORAM: Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ.
The application for an extension of time is denied with costs to the Children’s Aid Society of Halifax. Had the application for leave to appeal been made in time, it would nevertheless have been dismissed.
La demande de prorogation de délai est refusée, avec dépens à la Société de l’aide à l’enfance d’Halifax. Si la demande d’autorisation d’appel avait été présentée dans les délais requis, elle aurait néanmoins été rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Family law - Infants - Child protection proceedings - Child in custody and care of agency - Permanent placement required - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to properly consider a family placement as required by s. 42(3) of the Children and Family Services Act, R.S.N.S. 1990, c. 5 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that there is a duty on the Children’s Aid Society to investigate the possibility of a family placement in child protection proceedings.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 12, 2001
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
(Family Division)
(Campbell J.)
Permanent care and custody of child granted to the Respondent, Children’s Aid Society of Halifax
June 15, 2001
Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
(Saunders, Roscoe E.A., Bateman N.J.)
Appeal dismissed
January 29, 2002
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal motion to extend time filed by Applicant
February 22, 2002
Supreme Court of Canada
Motion to admit new evidence filed by Respondent
28985 H.M.V. ‐ 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 - Evidence - Accused tried by a judge alone - Accused not testifying - Narrative evidence from complainant being admitted - Accused’s statements being tendered by Crown - Whether trial judge erred in failing to consider Crown’s evidence of Applicant’s denials of any wrongdoing as defence evidence on the issue of guilt or innocence - Whether Court of Appeal erred in drawing a distinction between Crown’s evidence in chief of denials by accused and evidence of denials by the accused when testifying in own defence - Whether trial judge erred in permitting the Crown to adduce evidence of prior consistent statements by complainant, through the complainant and five other witnesses, pursuant to the narrative exception to the rule against the admission of such evidence.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 4, 2000 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Desotti J.) |
|
Applicant convicted of sexual assault, incest and sexual interference respectively contrary to ss. 271, 155 and 151 of the Criminal Code |
|
|
|
August 24, 2000 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Desotti J.) |
|
Applicant sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment concurrent on each count
|
|
|
|
November 9, 2001 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Morden, Carthy and Moldaver JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal against conviction allowed in part; convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference stayed; conviction for incest maintained; appeal from sentence dismissed as abandoned |
|
|
|
December 20, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
29011 Ngoc Oanh Le ‐ v. ‐ Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (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
Charter - Criminal law - Offences - Search and seizure - Whether mere presence of a person in a dwelling house upon execution of a search warrant, without that person having previously been identified as being as involved in the offence alleged in the said warrant, is sufficient for a lawful arrest and search incidental thereto - Whether the convictions of the Applicant were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
October 28, 1999 Provincial Court of British Columbia (Baird-Ellan P.C.J.) |
|
Conviction: three counts of unlawful possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act |
|
|
|
November 6, 2001 Court of Appeal of British Columbia (Rowles, Prowse and Hall JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
January 2, 2002 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
28756 Lieb Waldman ‐ v. ‐ United States of America and Minister of Justice (Ont.) (Criminal)
CORAM: Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ.
The application for an extension of time is granted. The motion to adduce new evidence and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed.
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée. La requête en dépôt de nouveaux éléments de preuve et la demande d'autorisation d'appel sont rejetées.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - Extradition - Charges of bankruptcy fraud, perjury, and failure to surrender to serve sentence - Whether conduct alleged by the requesting state in relation to failing to surrender to serve a sentence constituting an offence in Canada - Whether “sufficient” evidence in relation to each of the constituent elements of the alleged offences - Whether Extradition justice without jurisdiction to entertain the Charter application - Whether Charter application without merit -Whether Minister of Justice properly exercised discretion in ordering the Applicant’s surrender without obtaining appropriate assurance from the requesting state that Applicant would not be deported to Romania.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 22, 1998
Ontario Court of Justice
(Morrison J.)
Applicant committed to surrender for extradition on charges of bankruptcy fraud, perjury and failure to surrender to serve sentence
September 9, 1998
Ontario Court of Justice
(Morrison J.)
Applicant’s Charter application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
August 9, 2001 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Carthy, Charron JJ.A and McCombs [ad hoc] J.) |
|
Appeal from order of committal dismissed; application for judicial review of Minister of Justice’s April 30, 1999 order of surrender dismissed |
|
|
|
November 22, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
March 1, 2002 Supreme Court of Canada (Bastarache J.) |
|
Motion to strike out material from affidavit of Susan von Ohlen in Applicant’s Application to Adduce Fresh Evidence granted without prejudice to right of the Applicant to file a motion to introduce fresh evidence |
|
|
|
28370 Ruth A. Laseur ‐ v. ‐ Workers' Compensation Board of Nova Scotia and Nova Scotia Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal (N.S.) (Civil)
CORAM: Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ
The application for an extension of time is granted. The motion to expedite and the application for leave to cross-appeal are dismissed.
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée. La requête sollicitant l'audition rapide de la demande et la demande d’autorisation d’appel incident sont rejetées.
28372 Donald Martin ‐ v. ‐ Workers' Compensation Board of Nova Scotia and Nova Scotia Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal (N.S.) (Civil)
CORAM: Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ
The application for an extension of time is granted. The motion to expedite and the application for leave to cross-appeal are dismissed.
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée. La requête sollicitant l'audition rapide de la demande et la demande d’autorisation d’appel incident sont rejetées.
MOTIONS |
|
REQUÊTES
|
2.4.2002
Before / Devant: MAJOR J.
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the application for leave
J.P.M.
v. (29046)
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 the Applicant for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal to May 15, 2002;
AND HAVING READ the material filed ;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1) The application for a further extension of time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal to May 15, 2002 is granted.
2) This order is final and no further extension of time shall be granted.
3.4.2002
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondent's response
Christopher George Phillips
v. (28957)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la réponse de l'intimée
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to March 28, 2002.
3.4.2002
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the response of the respondent Nova Scotia Department of Education
Phillip Ofume
v. (28956)
Nova Scotia Department of Education, et al. (N.S.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la réponse de l'intimé Nova Scotia Department of Education
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to March 7, 2002.
3.4.2002
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondent's response
Byron Cory Baker
v. (29035)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la réponse de l'intimée
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to March 28, 2002.
4.4.2002
Before / Devant: ARBOUR J.
Miscellaneous motion
Le procureur général du Québec
c. (28432)
Future Électronique Inc., et al. (Crim.)(Qué.)
Autre requête
REFERRED / RÉFÉRÉE
À LA SUITE DE LA DEMANDE de l’appelant, le Procureur général du Québec, visant à obtenir une ordonnance l’autorisant à poursuivre l’appel:
ET APRÈS AVOIR LU la documentation déposée;
ET ATTENDU que les intimés ont déposé une requête en annulation de l’appel;
L’ORDONNANCE SUIVANTE EST RENDUE;
La requête de l’appelant est référée au banc qui entendra la requête en annulation de l’appel le 15 avril 2002.
NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
|
AVIS D’APPEL DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
18.3.2002
District of Parry Sound Social Services Administration Board
v. (28819)
Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 324, Paula Knopf, et al. (Ont.)
NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
|
AVIS DE DÉSISTEMENT DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION
|
5.4.2002
Riccardo DiGiuseppe
v. (29057)
Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
(appeal)
5.4.2002
Ontario Corporate Number 102856, operating as The Brass Rail Tavern, Limited, et al.
v. (29059)
Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
(appeal)
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 : May 13, 2002
Service : April 22, 2002 Filing : April 26, 2002 Respondent : May 3, 2002
|
|
Audience du : 13 mai 2002
Signification : 22 avril 2002 Dépôt : 26 avril 2002 Intimé : 3 mai 2002 |
Motion day : June 10, 2002
Service : May 17, 2002 Filing : May 24, 2002 Respondent : May 31, 2002 |
|
Audience du : 10 juin 2002
Signification : 17 mai 2002 Dépôt : 24 mai 2002 Intimé : 31 mai 2002 |
DEADLINES: APPEALS
|
|
DÉLAIS: APPELS |
The Spring Session of the Supreme Court of Canada will commence April 15, 2002.
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.
Please consult the Notice to the Profession of October 1997 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.
|
|
La session du printemps de la Cour suprême du Canada commencera le 15 avril 2002.
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.
Veuillez consulter l’avis aux avocats du mois d’octobre 1997 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 REPORTS |
|
RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS DE LA COUR SUPRÊME
|
THE STYLES OF CAUSE IN THE PRESENT TABLE ARE THE STANDARDIZED STYLES OF CAUSE (AS EXPRESSED UNDER THE "INDEXED AS" ENTRY IN EACH CASE).
|
|
LES INTITULÉS UTILISÉS DANS CETTE TABLE SONT LES INTITULÉS NORMALISÉS DE LA RUBRIQUE "RÉPERTORIÉ" DANS CHAQUE ARRÊT. |
Judgments reported in [2001] 2 S.C.R. Part 4
Ivanhoe Inc. v. UFCW, Local 500, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 565, 2001 SCC 47
Sept-Îles (City) v. Quebec (Labour Court), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 670, 2001 SCC 48
Monenco Ltd. v. Commonwealth Insurance Co., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 699, 2001 SCC 49
Marcoux v. Bouchard, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 726, 2001 SCC 50 |
|
Jugements publiés dans [2001] 2 R.C.S. Partie 4
Ivanhoe Inc. c. TUAC, section locale 500, [2001] 2 R.C.S. 565, 2001 CSC 47
Sept-Îles (Ville) c. Québec (Tribunal du travail), [2001] 2 R.C.S. 670, 2001 CSC 48
Monenco Ltd. c. Commonwealth Insurance Co., [2001] 2 R.C.S. 699, 2001 CSC 49
Marcoux c. Bouchard, [2001] 2 R.C.S. 726, 2001 CSC 50 |
Judgments reported in [2001] 2 S.C.R. Part 5
Lac d’Amiante du Québec Ltée v. 2858-0702 Québec Inc., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 743, 2001 SCC 51
Ocean Port Hotel Ltd. v. British Columbia (General Manage, Liquor Control and Licensing Branch), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 781, 2001 SCC 52
R. v. Russell, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 804, 2001 SCC 53
R. v. Arcuri, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 828, 2001 SCC 54
Berendsen v. Ontario, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 849, 2001 SCC 55
R. v. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 867, 2001 SCC 56
Saint-Romuald (City) v. Olivier, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 898, 2001 SCC 57
|
|
Jugements publiés dans [2001] 2 R.C.S. Partie 5
Lac d’Amiante du Québec Ltée c. 2858-0702 Québec Inc., [2001] 2 R.C.S. 743, 2001 CSC 51
Ocean Port Hotel Ltd. c. Colombie-Britannique (General Manager, Liquor Control and Licensing Branch), [2001] 2 R.C.S. 781, 2001 CSC 52
R. c. Russell, [2001] 2 R.C.S. 804, 2001 CSC 53
R. c. Arcuri, [2001] 2 R.C.S. 828, 2001 CSC 54
Berendsen c. Ontario, [2001] 2 R.C.S. 849, 2001 CSC 55
R. c. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd., [2001] 2 R.C.S. 867, 2001 CSC 56
Saint-Romuald (Ville) c. Olivier, [2001] 2 R.C.S. 898, 2001 CSC 57 |
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 |
||
|
|
|
|