|
OF CANADA DU CANADA Erreur ! Signet non défini.
BULLETIN OF BULLETIN DES
PROCEEDINGS PROCÉDURESErreur ! Signet non défini.
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 $100 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 100 $ 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. |
Erreur ! Signet non défini.Erreur ! Signet non défini.
November 10, 1995 1753 - 1782 le 10 novembre 1995Erreur ! Signet non défini.
CONTENTS TABLE DES MATIÈRES
Applications for leave to appeal 1753 - 1754Demandes d'autorisation d'appel
filed déposées
Applications for leave submitted 1755 - 1761 Demandes soumises à la Cour depuis la
to Court since last issue dernière parution
Oral hearing ordered - Audience ordonnée
Oral hearing on applications for 1762 Audience sur les demandes d'autorisation
leave
Judgments on applications for 1763 - 1768 Jugements rendus sur les demandes
leave d'autorisation
Motions1769 - 1770 Requêtes
Notices of appeal filed since last 1771 Avis d'appel déposés depuis la dernière
issue parution
Notices of intervention filed since - Avis d'intervention déposés depuis la
last issue dernière parution
Notices of discontinuance filed since - Avis de désistement déposés depuis la
last issue dernière parution
Appeals heard since last issue and 1772 - 1779 Appels entendus depuis la dernière
disposition parution et résultat
Pronouncements of appeals reserved - Jugements rendus sur les appels en
délibéré
Headnotes of recent judgments - Sommaires des arrêts récents
Weekly agenda 1780 Ordre du jour de la semaine
Summaries of the cases - Résumés des affaires
Cumulative Index ‑ Leave - Index cumulatif ‑ Autorisations
Cumulative Index ‑ Appeals - Index cumulatif ‑ Appels
Appeals inscribed ‑ Session - Appels inscrits ‑ Session
beginning commençant le
Notices to the Profession and - Avis aux avocats et communiqué
Press Release de presse
Deadlines: Motions before the Court 1781 Délais: Requêtes devant la Cour
Deadlines: Appeals 1782 Délais: Appels
Judgments reported in S.C.R. - Jugements publiés au R.C.S.
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FILED |
DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION D'APPEL DÉPOSÉES |
Patrick O'Connor
Clayton C. Ruby
Ruby & Edwardh
v. (24952)
Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)
W. Graeme Cameron
Min. of the A.G.
FILING DATE 30.10.1995
Bonnie Moldowan
Donald G. Findlay
Dahlem, Findlay & Von Ledebur
v. (24954)
Saskatchewan Government Employees Union et al. (Sask.)
Rick A. Engel
Rath Johnson Hart
FILING DATE 30.10.1995
Robert Libman et al.
Julius H. Grey
Grey Casgrain
v. (24960)
The Attorney General of Quebec (Qué.)
Jean-Yves Bernard
Bernard, Roy & Assoc.
DATE DE PRODUCTION 30.10.1995
Steve Jaslowski
T. Andrew Bunn
v. (24968)
Her Majesty The Queen in right of the province of Manitoba et al. (Man.)
Deborah Carlson
A.G. of Manitoba
FILING DATE 30.10.1995
Charles C.M. Malhotra
Charles C.M. Malhotra
v. (24969)
The Ontario Human Rights Commission (Ont.)
Anthony D. Griffin
FILING DATE 30.10.1995
Debra P. and Lydia T.
Margaret A. Hoy
v. (24823)
Her Majesty The Queen et al. (Ont.)
Susan M. Chapman
A.G. of Ontario
FILING DATE 25.10.1995
Daniele S. David Davidovits
Joseph H. Kary
Kary and Kwan
v. (24957)
Bank of Credit and Commerce Canada (Ont.)
Barry H. Bresner
Borden & Elliott
FILING DATE 30.10.1995
Lowie H. Rosen
L.H. Rosen
v. (24965)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(F.C.A.)(Ont.)
F. Calabrese
A.G. of Canada
FILING DATE 1.11.1995
City of Prince George
Roy J. Stewart
King & Co.
v. (24966)
A.L. Sims & Sons Ltd. et al. (B.C.)
H.D.C. Hunter
FILING DATE 27.10.1995
Sidney L. Jaffe et al.
Sidney L. Jaffe
v. (24971)
Joe C. Miller, II et al. (Ont.)
A.A. Sanfilippo
Paterson, MacDougall
FILING DATE 2.11.1995
Barrys Ltd.
Joseph S. Hutchings
Poole, Althouse, Clarke, Thompson & Thomas
v. (24972)
Fishermen, Food and Allied Workers' Union et al. (Nfld.)
John J. Harris
Williams, Roebothan, McKay & Marshall
FILING DATE 27.10.1995
Hafeez Fazl
J. Christopher Arnold
v. (24973)
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.)
A.G. of Canada
FILING DATE 30.10.1995
Prem Malhotra
Prem Malhotra
v. (24975)
Minister of Transport et al. (F.C.A.)(Ont.)
Harley R. Nott
A.G. of Canada
FILING DATE 1.11.1995
Darcy Andrew Bjorge
George Kuzmicz
v. (24976)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.)
Shelagh Creagh
A.G. of Alberta
FILING DATE 1.11.1995
André Roussel et al.
André Roussel
c. (24863)
Ministre de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration (C.A.F.)(Qué.)
Daniel Poulin
P.G. du Canada
DATE DE PRODUCTION 6.11.1995
Michael Oniel
Michael Oniel
v. (24977)
Jack Marks, Chief of Police of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Police Force et al. (Ont.)
R. Baldwin
Metropolitan Toronto Legal Dept.
FILING DATE 30.10.1995
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE |
DEMANDES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
NOVEMBER 9, 1995 / LE 9 NOVEMBRE 1995
CORAM: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER AND GONTHIER AND IACOBUCCI JJ. /
LE JUGE EN CHEF LAMER ET LES JUGES GONTHIER ET IACOBUCCI
Terry McDonnell
v. (24814)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal Law - Sentencing - Evidence - Did the Alberta Court of Appeal err when, concerning charges of sexual assault simpliciter pursuant to s. 271(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, it created an exception to the rule established by this Court in R. v. Gardiner [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368, and held that where the accused disputes the presence of serious psychological harm upon which the Crown relies in aggravation of sentence, those facts are to be presumed and it is the accused who must establish the absence of the presumed facts if he is to avoid their effect in aggravation of sentence?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 27, 1994 Provincial Court of Alberta (Burch P.C.J.) |
Applicant pled guilty to two counts of sexual assault. Sentence: twelve months in custody followed by two years probation |
February 15, 1995 Court of Appeal of Alberta (Fraser, C.J.A., Bielby and Cairns, JJ.) |
Crown's appeal against sentence allowed with written reasons to follow, which written reasons were released on May 25, 1995 Sentence: five years imprisonment |
July 17, 1995 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal and for an extension of time |
Dupont Canada
v. (24781)
AlliedSignal Inc. (F.C.A.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Property law - Patents - Infringement - s. 34 of the Patent Act - Ambiguity and insufficiency of description - Where a patent relates to a product which can only infringe when put to a particular use and there are other uses for the product, should a Canadian patent prevent production in Canada for export and use of the product abroad - Where the invention is for a product made up of two ingredients, one of which must have certain characteristics, is the patent invalid if it fails to specify and in fact is misleading as to how to measure the characteristic - Should a Court of Appeal re-assess technical expert evidence in the absence of palpable or overriding error by the trial judge.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 19, 1993 Federal Court (Trial Division) (Reed J.) |
Plaintiff's claim for patent infringement dismissed Cdn letters patent no. 1,162,012 held invalid in certain respects
|
May 11, 1995 Federal Court of Appeal (Strayer, Desjardins, Létourneau JJ.A.) |
Appeal allowed Permanent injunction granted against Applicant's production, sale or use of product and order to deliver up all of the product |
June 13, 1995 Supreme Court of Canada
|
Application for leave to appeal filed
|
André Roussel et Micheline Roussel
c. (24863)
Le Ministre de l'emploi et de l'immigration (C.A.F.)(Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Immigration - Droit administratif - Procédure - Tribunaux - Appel - Compétence - Vu le libellé de l'art. 82.2 de la Loi sur l'immigration, L.R.C. 1985, ch. I-2, la décision d'un juge de la section de première instance de la Cour fédérale qui rejette une demande d'autorisation pour la présentation d'une demande de contrôle judiciaire peut-elle faire l'objet d'un appel devant la Cour suprême du Canada? - La décision de la Cour fédérale fait-elle abstraction des principes d'équité procédurale et de bonne foi? - La Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié a-t-elle violé les principes de justice naturelle?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 15 juin 1993 Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié (Busque et Poiré) |
Demande de revendication au statut de réfugié rejetée |
Le 12 octobre 1994 Cour fédérale, section de première instance (Denault j.) |
Demande pour obtenir la permission de présenter une demande de contrôle judiciaire rejetée |
Le 14 décembre 1993 Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié (Lalonde et Sivak) |
Requête en réouverture de dossier rejetée |
Le 27 octobre 1994 Cour fédérale, section de première instance (Hugessen j.) |
Demande pour obtenir la permission de présenter une demande de contrôle judiciaire rejetée |
Le 31 août 1995 Cour suprême du Canada |
Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée |
Le 11 octobre 1995 Cour suprême du Canada |
Requête en prorogation de délai déposée |
CORAM: LA FOREST, CORY AND MAJOR JJ. /
LES JUGES LA FOREST, CORY ET MAJOR
Arthur Hill and Angus Hill
v. (24782)
The Attorney General of Nova Scotia (N.S.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Property law - Expropriation - Real property - Real rights - Remedies - Crown - Whether Court of Appeal erred in law when it determined that there was no admissible evidence to support a conclusion that the Crown undertook to grant an equitable easement notwithstanding the common law right of direct access to or from a controlled access highway - Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to apply the principles of proprietary estoppel against the Crown when it held that the Minister pursuant to the Public Highways Act, R.S.N.S. 1954, c.91, had authority only to grant permission to access a controlled access highway and not to grant an easement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 24, 1994 Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Scanlan J.) |
Declaration that Applicants have an equitable easement in access ramps across the Trans-Canada Highway in Upper Onslow, N.S. |
April 13, 1995 Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (Hallett, Chipman, and Freeman [dissenting] JJ.A.) |
Appeal allowed and cross-appeal dismissed |
June 12, 1995 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
The Corporation of the City of York
v. (24793)
Superior Propane Inc. and Propane Gas Association of Canada Inc. (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Municipal law - Municipal corporations - Validity of a zoning by-law - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the City's by-law was invalid because the province of Ontario occupied the field of propane regulation and that, in any event, there was a conflict of such a nature as to nullify the zoning by-law - What are the proper legal principles to be applied in determining the scope of a municipal government's authority granted by provincial legislation to regulate on matters that are also regulated by other provincial legislation? - Planning Act, S.O. 1983, c. 1 -Energy Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 139.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 19, 1991 Ontario Court of Justice Divisional Court (O'Driscoll, Hollingworth [dissenting] and O'Brien JJ.) |
Application for a declaration that the Applicant's zoning by-law 1116-87 is invalid dismissed |
May 3, 1995 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Morden A.C.J.O., Griffiths and Abella JJ.A.) |
Appeal allowed |
June 20, 1995 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
The Town of St. Andrews
v. (24830)
Hospitality Investments Ltd. and
Everett Lord Building Construction Ltd. (N.B.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Torts - Municipal law - Negligence - Damages - Building standards - Duty of care of municipalities which enact inspection by-laws - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that the Applicant had a duty to inspect in spite of the misrepresentations and conduct of the Respondent, Hospitality Investments Ltd.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 7, 1993 Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Jones J.) |
Respondent Hospitality's negligence action against the Applicant for failure to ensure compliance with building by-law dismissed |
June 13, 1995 Court of Appeal of New Brunswick (Hoyt C.J.N.B., Ayles and Ryan JJ.A.) |
Respondent Hospitality's appeal against the Applicant allowed |
August 10, 1995 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
CORAM: L'HEUREUX-DUBÉ, SOPINKA AND McLACHLIN JJ. /
LES JUGES L'HEUREUX-DUBÉ, SOPINKA ET McLACHLIN
Joseph DeFrancesca
v. (24767)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Trial - Jury - Charge - Conspiracies - Procedural law - Evidence - Witnesses - Importing and trafficking in cocaine - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) Cr. C. to dismiss the appeal against conviction despite errors made by the trial judge in absence of a reasonable degree of certainty that the verdict would necessarily have been the same if the errors had not occurred - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider whether the proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) Cr. C. can cure a number of cumulative errors, and in failing to consider that the Crown's cas can not be considered without consideration of the various errors that enabled the so-called "overwhelming" case to be presented to the jury - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its treatment of questions in cross-examination - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in considering the evidence as a whole and not considering the evidence as against each co-Appellant separately.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 2, 1992 Ontario Court (General Division) (O'Connell J.) |
Conviction: Conspiracy to import and traffic cocaine |
December 15, 1992 Ontario Court (General Division) (O'Connell J.) |
Sentence: Fifteen years incarceration |
April 13, 1995 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Brooke, LaBrosse and Abella JJ.A.) |
Appeal against sentence allowed; appeal against conviction dismissed |
June 13, 1995 Supreme Court of Canada (Cory J.) |
Application for extension of time granted |
August 18, 1995 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
Joaquin Sevillano
v. (24812)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Trial - Jury - Charge - Conspiracies - Procedural law - Sentencing - Evidence - Witnesses - Importing and trafficking in cocaine - Considerations on imposing sentence - Disparity - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the proviso contained in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) Cr. C.; or whether the effect of the errors by the trial judge and Crown counsel was such as to cause a miscarriage of justice within the meaning of s. 686(2)(a)(iii) of the Cr. C. - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the disparity principle of sentencing by imposing a sentence on the Applicant that remained significantly disparate from that imposed on a similarly situated co-conspirator.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 2, 1992 Ontario Court (General Division) (O'Connell J.) |
Conviction: Conspiracy to import and traffic cocaine |
December 15, 1992 Ontario Court (General Division) (O'Connell J.) |
Sentence: Twenty years incarceration |
April 13, 1995 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Brooke, LaBrosse and Abella JJ.A.)
|
Appeal against sentence allowed; appeal against conviction dismissed |
July 14, 1995 Supreme Court of Canada (Major J.) |
Application for extension of time granted |
August 18, 1995 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal conviction and sentence filed |
Marvin Hatton
v. (24799)
Robert Clifford Glenn Dagneault
- and -
Interior Roads Ltd. (B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Torts - Negligence - Highways - Crown - Duty of care - Whether in the circumstances of this case, the Respondent Interior Roads, a contractor employed by the Province to maintain highways in the area in question, owed an independent duty of care to members of the public using the Highway, including the Applicant Hatton, to properly maintain the Highway and to warn motorists of unusually hazardous conditions affecting their safety.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 30, 1993 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Hunter J.) |
Applicant's third party action against Respondent Interior Road Ltd. dismissed |
April 25, 1995 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (McEachern C.J.B.C. and Wood and Goldie JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed |
June 26, 1995 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION / REHEARING --
DEMANDE DE RÉEXAMEN / NOUVELLE AUDITION
CORAM: L'HEUREUX-DUBÉ, SOPINKA AND McLACHLIN JJ. /
LES JUGES L'HEUREUX-DUBÉ, SOPINKA ET McLACHLIN
1.Leonardo Galuego v. Her Majesty The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.)(24580)
2.Rosario Galuego v. Her Majesty The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.)(24581)
ORAL HEARING ON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE |
AUDIENCE SUR LES DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION |
NOVEMBER 6, 1995 / LE 6 NOVEMBRE 1995
CORAM: LA FOREST, CORY AND MAJOR JJ. /
LES JUGES LA FOREST, CORY ET MAJOR
Northeast Marine Services Ltd.
v. (24629)
Atlantic Pilotage Authority (F.C.A.)(N.S.)
|
Anne S. Derrick and Janice E. Beaton, for the applicant.
John D. Murphy, Q.C. and Richard Southcott, for the respondent. |
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law - Commercial law - Judicial review - Contracts - Tendering process - Criteria not disclosed to all bidders - Exclusion clause inadvertently omitted from the tender specification - Finding by trial judge that the granting of the pilot boat contract to East Coast Marine Services Limited was a foregone conclusion because of the undisclosed preconditions of monopoly - Whether the role of a Court of Appeal permits it to substitute its own determinations and findings of fact for those made by a trial judge - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial judge's determination that the tendering process was rigged against the Applicant from the outset was a consequence of his misconstruing the evidence - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Respondent did not breach the tender contract with the Applicant by rejecting the Applicant's low bids on the basis of undisclosed criteria.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
October 19, 1992 Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (McNair, Deputy Judge) |
Action for damages against the Respondent allowed |
January 25, 1995 Federal Court of Appeal (Stone, Décary and Létourneau JJ.A.) |
Appeal allowed; decision of the trial judge is set aside and the action of the Applicant is dismissed |
March 24, 1995 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
JUDGMENTS ON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE |
JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION |
NOVEMBER 9, 1995 / LE 9 NOVEMBRE 1995
24797THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA - v. - JOHN JENKINS (F.C.A.)(Ont.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci 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
Unemployment insurance - Statutes - Interpretation - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the meaning of "claim for benefit" in s. 28(3) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. U-1, is limited to an "initial claim for benefit" - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in interpreting s. 28(3) of the Act by basing its interpretation on its own attempt to create policy, where that role is squarely within the responsibility of the government in the circumstances.
24802M.S. - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN AND THE KEEPER OF MOUNTAIN INSTITUTION (Crim.)(B.C.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci 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
Criminal law - Procedural law - Habeas corpus - Whether provincial Crown or federal Crown should appear in proceedings - Did Court of Appeal err in refusing to grant default judgment in habeas corpus proceedings.
24836SUZANNE POIRIER - c. - VILLE DE LACHINE ET LE PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL DU QUÉBEC (Qué.)
CORAM: Le Juge en chef et les juges L'Heureux-Dubé et Gonthier
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 municipal - Municipalités - Droit administratif - Compétence - Appel - Demanderesse reconnue coupable d'une infraction au Règlement sur l'administration de la bibliothèque municipale de Ville de Lachine et condamnée au paiement d'une amende de 104$ et des frais - Demande d'imposition d'une peine d'emprisonnement par suite du défaut de paiement de l'amende et du refus de la demanderesse d'effectuer des travaux compensatoires accueillie - Appel de la demanderesse en Cour supérieure - Requête de l'intimée en rejet d'appel, faute de compétence de la Cour supérieure, accueillie - Appel de la demanderesse en Cour d'appel rejeté -La Cour d'appel du Québec a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en statuant que la Cour supérieure du Québec n'avait pas juridiction pour entendre l'appel de la décision rendue par la Cour municipale de Lachine?
24682COMEAU'S SEA FOODS LTD., a body corporate v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA (F.C.A.)
CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est accordée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Torts - Administrative Law - Statutes - Negligence - Judicial Review - Jurisdiction - Fisheries -Interpretation - Sections 7 and 9 of the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.F-14 - Whether public authorities in Canada have immunity from tortious liability for the reasons expressed by Lord Keith in Rowling v. Takaro Properties Ltd., [1988] 1 A.C. 473 (P.C.) - Whether the Minister owed no duty of care to the Applicant because the Applicant had an administrative remedy by way of an application for judicial review - Whether an ultra vires decision of a Minister can be protected from a claim in negligence due to the common law exemption from liability accorded to "policy" decisions.
24688TORS COVE EXCAVATING LTD. v. NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR HOUSING CORPORATION and NEWFOUNDLAND DESIGN ASSOCIATES LTD. (Nfld.)
CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major 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 - Commercial law - Negligence - Contracts - Negligent misrepresentations - Tender - Breach of contract - Whether trench width referred to in contract clause is, in addition to a payment clause, a representation that pipes to be installed could be accommodated within that width - Whether the trial judge erred in holding that the notice provisions in the contract enabled the owner to escape liability for the breach of contract - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reversing the trial judge's finding of liability against the Respondents - Whether the Court of Appeal diluted the concept of duty of care of engineers towards contractors, as set out in Edgeworth Construction Ltd. v. N.D. Lea & Associates Ltd, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 206.
24695DELL HOLDINGS LTD. v. TORONTO AREA TRANSIT OPERATING AUTHORITY (Ont.)
CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est accordée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Crown - Expropriation - Interpretation - Property law - Real property - Restitution - Remedies -Availability of damages for financial loss caused by delay in expropriating lands - Is a landowner who proves that an expropriating authority caused him or her damages by delaying the development of the owner's lands entitled to recover those damages under the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 148 (now R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26) when the authority expropriates the lands?
24770BRADY LEWIS WILLIAMS -v.- REGINA (Crim.)(B.C.)
CORAM:L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Defence - Evidence - First degree murder - Provocation - Self-defence - Consciousness of guilt - Application of s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code - Whether the Court of Appeal for British Columbia erred in law in applying the curative provisions of s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code to the Applicant's appeal against conviction when the Court had determined that the trial judge had erred in instructing the jury on consciousness of guilt - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in ruling that consciousness of guilt was an insignificant part of the Applicant's trial and thus the error charging the jury on consciousness of guilt could be remedied by the application of the curative provisions of s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in ruling that the trial judge had not erred in his instructions to the jury on the defence of provocation as it impacted on the issue of intention to commit murder - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in concluding that there was no necessity to instruct the jury on the cumulative effect of provocation and self-defence as there was no accumulation of separate influences which could be said to have operated on the mind of the Applicant as the defences had their genesis in a single source.
24817J.F.S. -c.- E.V. (Qué.)
CORAM:L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.
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 - Divorce - Garde - Accès - Art. 17 de la Loi sur le divorce, L.R.C. 1985, ch. D-3.4 - L'erreur soulevée par les juges majoritaires de la Cour d'appel est-elle une erreur manifestement déraisonnable permettant la modification des conclusions de faits du premier juge? - Le jugement de première instance est-il un jugement punitif? - Dans l'affirmative, existe-t-il une sanction au défaut du parent gardien de respecter son obligation de favoriser les droits d'accès de l'autre parent? - Contrairement à ce qu'ont décidé les juges majoritaires de la Cour d'appel, la conduite d'une partie doit-elle être prise en considération lors de l'attribution d'une ordonnance modificative de la garde d'un enfant?
24827JOHN THOR WIDEMA -v.- HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)
CORAM:L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.
The application for leave to appeal and all ancillary motions are dismissed.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel et toutes autres requêtes sont rejetées.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Sentencing - Term of imprisonment - Applicant sentenced to eight months concurrent for offenses of assault and possession of a restricted weapon following his release from custody as a result of earned remission on a previous sentence - Latter sentence silent as to whether or not it was consecutive to or concurrent with original sentence - Whether s. 139(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, R.S.C., c. 20, applies to the benefit of the Applicant - Whether the Applicant was "a person sentenced to a term of imprisonment that has not expired".
24516DOLORES SHEILA ANGELA ASH -v.- ARTHUR EDWARD ASH (B.C.)
CORAM:L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin 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
Family law - Divorce - Procedural law - Divorce granted as uncontested - Applicant's religious belief does not free her to remarry unless divorce obtained on basis of husband's matrimonial misconduct - Whether the Court of Appeal erred when it stated there was no basis in law to grant the appeal.
24375GESTION GILLES MÉNARD INC. (JOURNAL LA VALLÉE) -c.- GEORGES FILION, ET AL (Qué.)
CORAM:L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Responsabilité civile - Libelle et diffamation - Dommages-intérêts - Interprétation - Est-ce que les garanties fondamentales relatives à la liberté d'expression et à la liberté de presse, enchâssées à l'art. 2(b) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés et l'art. 3 de la Charte des droits et libertés du Québec, s'appliquent aux actions en dommages pour diffamation intentées par les personnages publics contre les médias d'information écrite, pour des déclarations portant sur des sujets d'intérêt public? - Est-ce qu'une publication vise des politiciens du seul fait que la loi leur confèrent un pouvoir réglementaire sur le sujet qui y est discuté? - Quelles sont les limites acceptables pour l'identification des personnes qui se prétendent visées par une publication? - Est-ce que l'article du 28 février 1991 était une "rectification" ou une "rétractation" au sens des art. 3 et 4 de la Loi sur la presse, L.R.Q., ch. P-19 - Est-ce que les art. 3 et 4 de la Loi sur la presse doivent être interprétés comme requérant une admission de responsabilité? - Est-ce que les mots "seuls les dommages réels et actuels peuvent être réclamés", à l'art. 4 de la Loi sur la presse, visent tant les dommages moraux que les dommages matériels, ou se limitent-ils aux dommages matériels ou économiques?
24545ERNST & YOUNG INC. -v.- B.J. ROBERTSON & ASSOCIATES LTD. (Alta)
CORAM:L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin 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 - Banks/banking operations - Evidence - Procedural law - Exception to hearsay rule - Admissibility of Code Report - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of Section 230 of the Alberta Business Corporations Act, thereby refusing to admit the Code Report as evidence in proceedings brought by the Applicant against the Respondent.
24725JON ATHEY -v.- FERDINANDO LEONATI (B.C.)
CORAM:L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est accordée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Torts - Negligence - Damages - Appeal - Personal Injury - Causation and its apportionment - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to address the issue of apportionment of causation -Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying a new theory limiting the scope of appellate review.
24752MICHAEL FEENEY -v.- HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(B.C.)
CORAM:L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est accordée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - Defence - Detention - Evidence - Offences - Police - Pre-trial procedure - Procedural law - Seizure - Trial - Arrest - Search and seizure - Right to counsel - Admissibility of evidence - Charter, ss. 7, 8, 9, 10 - Warrantless search of dwelling - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by holding that the doctrine of exigent circumstances was a recognized addition to the rule that a search must be based on reasonable and probable grounds and that there was no need for the Court to engage in any Charter analysis, as this kind of police conduct was beyond Charter scrutiny and beyond the reach of sections 7, 8, 9, 10, and 24(2) of the Charter?
MOTIONS |
REQUÊTES |
3.11.1995
Before / Devant: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER
Motion to extend the time in which to state a constitutional question
Her Majesty The Queen
v. (24296)
James Keegstra (Alta.) |
Requête en prorogation du délai pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle
With the consent of the parties. |
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.the respondent is granted an extension of time for the purpose of filing the notice to state constitutional questions until October 30th, 1995;
2.the respondent is granted an extension of time for the purpose of filing his factum until October 30th, 1995; and
3.the appellant is authorized to file a reply factum, provided such factum is filed by December 3rd, 1995.
2.11.1995
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the applicant's reply & response to application for leave to cross-appeal
Bow Valley Industries Ltd.
v. (24855)
St. John Shipbuilding Ltd. et al. (Nfld.) |
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer une réplique et une réponse de la requérante à la demande d'autorisation d'appel incident
With the consent of the parties. |
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to November 1, 1995.
7.11.1995
Before / Devant: LE JUGE LA FOREST
Requête en prorogation du délai de dépôt de l'autorisation d'appel
Pierre Beauregard et al.
c. (24872)
Les Soeurs de Charité de Sainte-Marie (Qué.) |
Motion to extend the time in which to apply for leave to appeal
|
|
|
REJETÉE / DISMISSED
8.11.1995
Before / Devant: LE JUGE LA FOREST
Requête en autorisation d'intervention
BY/PAR:Procureur général du Canada
IN/DANS:Marc Michaud
c. (23764)
Le Procureur général du Québec (Qué.) |
Motion for leave to intervene
Avec le consentement des parties. |
|
|
ACCORDÉE / GRANTED La plaidoirie orale est limitée à 20 minutes.
9.11.1995
Before / Devant: LA FOREST J.
Motion to extend the time for leave to intervene and for leave to intervene
BY/PAR:Children's Lawyer of Ontario
IN/DANS:Robin James Goertz
v. (24622)
Janet Rita Gordon (Sask.) |
Requête en prorogation du délai pour la demande d'autorisation et demande d'autorisation d'intervention
H.S. Brown, Q.C. and D.L. Goldberg, for the motion.
Neil Turcotte, contra. (Tel.) |
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
NOTICES OF APPEAL FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
AVIS D'APPEL DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
02.11.1995
IN THE MATTER of a Reference from the Lieutenant-Governor-In-Council Pursuant to Section 18
Robert Christie et al.
v. (24778)
Attorney General of Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.)
AS OF RIGHT
02.11.1995
Nick Carosella
v. (24974)
Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)
AS OF RIGHT
03.11.1995
The Board of Education for the City of Toronto
v. (24724)
Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, District 15 (Toronto) et al. (Ont.)
07.11.1995
Le Procureur général du Canada, agissant pour et au nom de Sa Majesté La Reine
c. (24652)
Hydro-Québec (Qué.)
|
07.11.1995
Her Majesty The Queen
v. (24798)
Félix Michaud (Crim.)(N.B.)
09.11.1995
R.M.G.
v. (24709)
Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)
|
APPEALS HEARD SINCE LAST ISSUE AND DISPOSITION |
APPELS ENTENDUS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION ET RÉSULTAT |
2.11.1995
CORAM:Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci et Major.
Sa Majesté La Reine
c. (24210)
Jean Polo (Crim.)(Qué.) |
Pierre Lapointe, pour l'appelante.
Josée Ferrari, pour l'intimé. |
|
|
LE JUGE EN CHEF (oralement) -- Nous sommes tous d'avis que la Cour d'appel n'a commis aucune erreur en accueillant le pourvoi de l'accusé et en annulant la condamnation. Vu que la Couronne n'a pas demandé, subsidiairement à un rejet de son pourvoi l'ordonnance d'un nouveau procès, l'avocate de l'intimé nous déclare ne pas être prête à argumenter adéquatement au soutien du maintien de l'acquittement. Dans les circonstances le pourvoi à la majorité est rejeté, dissidente, Madame le juge L'Heureux-Dubé accueillerait en partie le pourvoi et ordonnerait la tenue d'un nouveau procès. |
THE CHIEF JUSTICE (orally) -- We are all of the view that the Court of Appeal made no error in allowing the accused's appeal and quashing the conviction. Since the Crown did not request an order for a new trial in the event of a dismissal of its appeal, counsel for the respondent has stated she is not adequately prepared to argue in favour of upholding the acquittal. In the circumstances the appeal is dismissed in a majority decision; L'Heureux-Dubé J., dissenting, would allow the appeal in part and order a new trial.
|
|
|
2.11.1995
CORAM:Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci et Major.
Sa Majesté La Reine
c. (24173)
Raynald Mathieu (Crim.)(Qué.) |
Alain Gaumond, pour l'appelante.
Pierre Gaudreau, pour l'intimé. |
|
|
LE JUGE EN CHEF (oralement) -- Nous sommes tous d'avis que la Cour d'appel n'a commis aucune erreur en accueillant le pourvoi de l'accusé et en ordonnant un nouveau procès. Le pourvoi est donc rejeté. |
THE CHIEF JUSTICE (orally) -- We are all of the view that the Court of Appeal made no error in allowing the accused's appeal and ordering a new trial. The appeal is therefore dismissed. |
|
|
2.11.1995
CORAMLe juge en chef Lamer et les juges La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci et Major.
Sa Majesté La Reine
c. (24310)
Jacques Fleurant (Crim.)(Qué.) |
Pierre Lapointe et Mario Tremblay, pour l'appelante.
Jean-Luc Paris, pour l'intimé |
|
|
LE JUGE EN CHEF (oralement) -- Nous partageons tous l'avis de Madame le juge Tourigny et, pour les motifs qu'elle énonce, nous accueillons le pourvoi et rétablissons la déclaration de culpabilité prononcée par le juge du procès. |
THE CHIEF JUSTICE (orally) -- We all share the view of Tourigny J.A. and, for the reasons she gives, we allow the appeal and restore the conviction entered by the trial judge. |
|
|
3.11.1995
CORAM:Les juges La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci et Major.
Louisette Béliveau St-Jacques
c. (22339)
Fédération des employées et employés des services publics Inc. (C.S.N.) et al. (Qué.) |
Jacques Blanchette, pour l'appelante et intimée en appel incident.
Pierre Bérubé et Annie Gerbeau, pour les intimées et appelantes en appel incident.
Jean-Claude Paquet, pour l'intervenante la Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail.
Bernard Bélanger, pour le mis en cause Pierre Gendron. |
|
|
EN DÉLÍBÉRÉ / RESERVED
Nature de la cause:
Code civil - Responsabilité civile - Dommages-intérêts - Procédure - Procédure civile - Actions -Compétence - Libertés publiques - Droit du travail - Accidents du travail - Employeur et employé - Législation - Interprétation - Harcèlement sexuel et harcèlement au travail - L'art. 49 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. C-12, a-t-il priorité sur les art. 1056a. du Code civil du Bas-Canada et 438 de la Loi qui semblent prohiber un recours devant les tribunaux de droit commun? - La règle d'interprétation contenue à l'art. 51 de la Charte empêche-t-elle l'exercice d'un recours fondé sur l'art. 49? - Vu les spécificités des recours créés par la Charte, la réclamation des divers dommages est-elle recevable, quitte à soustraire les montants par ailleurs reçus de la Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail? - Un travailleur victime d'une atteinte à un droit protégé par la Charte a-t-il un recours contre son employeur devant les tribunaux de droit commun pour obtenir compensation pour des dommages moraux lorsque le fait fautif est reconnu comme une lésion professionnelle au sens de la Loi? -L'employeur peut-il être condamné à payer des dommages exemplaires à la victime sur la base de l'art. 49 alinéa 2 de la Charte? |
Nature of the case:
Civil Code - Civil liability - Damages - Procedure - Civil procedure - Actions - Jurisdiction - Human rights - Labour law - Industrial accidents - Employer and employee - Legislation - Interpretation - Sexual harassment and harassment in workplace - Whether s. 49 of Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-12, has priority over art. 1056a of Civil Code of Lower Canada and s. 438 of Act which appear to prohibit action in ordinary courts of law - Whether interpretation rule contained in s. 51 of Charter prevents exercise of remedy based on s. 49 - In view of particular nature of remedies created by Charter, whether claim for various items of damage admissible if amounts also received from Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail subtracted - Whether employee victim of invasion of right protected by Charter as remedy against employer in ordinary courts of law or compensation for intangible damages when wrongful act recognized as professional injury within meaning of Act - Whether employer can be required to pay victim exemplary damages pursuant to s. 49(2) of Charter. |
|
|
3.11.1995
CORAM:Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et McLachlin.
S.P.
c. (24251)
M.R. (Qué.) |
Miriam Grassby et Sylvie Leduc, pour l'appelante.
Daniel St-Pierre, pour l'intimé. |
|
|
EN DÉLIBÉRÉ / RESERVED
Nature de la cause:
Code civil - Droit de la famille - Pension alimentaire - Prestation compensatoire - Article 462.14 du Code civil du Québec, L.Q. 1980 ch. 39, et modifications - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en déclarant le droit de l'appelante à une prestation compensatoire acquitté par la confirmation d'un droit de propriété sur un bien situé à Antigua, en ordonnant à l'appelante de payer à l'intimé une prestation compensatoire de 100 000 $ et en réduisant rétroactivement la pension alimentaire que l'intimé devait payer à l'appelante? - M. (M.E.) c. L.(P.), [1992] 1 R.C.S. 183; Lacroix c. Valois, [1990] 2 R.C.S. 1259. |
Nature of the case:
Civil Code - Family law - Maintenance - Compensatory allowance - Article 462.14 of the Civil Code of Quebec, S.Q. 1980, c. 39 as am. - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declaring the Appellant's right to a compensatory allowance paid by the confirmation of a right to ownership of a property in Antigua; ordering Appellant to pay to Respondent a compensatory allowance of $100,000; and reducing retroactively the amount of support to be paid by Respondent to Appellant - M.(M.E.) v. L.(P.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 183; Lacroix v. Valois, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1259. |
|
|
7.11.1995
CORAM:Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.
Ernest John Rogalsky et al.
v. (24489)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.) |
Mark Brayford and Hugh M. Harradence, for the appellants.
S.R. Fainstein, Q.C. and George Dolhai, for the respondent. |
|
|
SOPINKA J. (orally for the Court) -- The length of the delay in this case is sufficient to raise the issue of reasonableness. We agree with the trial judge that, in particular, the delay in the continuation of the preliminary inquiry from December 10, 1992 to April 12, 1993 due to the late consolidation of charges by the Crown requires an explanation. We agree, however, with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the trial judge erred in attributing the entire period of this delay to the Crown. While the Crown must bear some responsibility for the adjournment of the preliminary inquiry, this did not justify a finding that the entire period of delay should be attributed to the Crown. |
LE JUGE SOPINKA (oralement au nom de la Cour) -- Le délai a été suffisamment long en l'espèce pour soulever la question du caractère raisonnable. Nous sommes d'accord avec le juge du procès pour dire que, en particulier, il y aurait lieu d'expliquer le délai dans la poursuite de l'enquête préliminaire, qui a été reportée du 10 décembre 1992 au 12 avril 1993 en raison de la réunion tardive des chefs d'accusation par le ministère public. Cependant, tout comme la Cour d'appel à la majorité, nous sommes d'avis que le juge du procès a commis une erreur en attribuant la totalité de ce délai au ministère public. Bien que le ministère public doive assumer une partie de la responsabilité pour l'ajournement de l'enquête préliminaire, cela ne justifie pas la conclusion que la totalité du délai devrait lui être attribuée. |
The long period of the adjournment of four months was necessitated in order to accommodate the schedules of counsel. In this respect we adopt the following passage from the reasons of Cameron J.A.: |
Le long ajournement de quatre mois était nécessaire afin de concilier les horaires des avocats. À cet égard, nous adoptons l'extrait suivant des motifs du juge Cameron de la Cour d'appel: |
The Crown, of course, was prepared to continue ... [b]ut that was not convenient to defence counsel. And so the judge, though he had the power to override their wishes and forge ahead, adjourned until April 12 to accommodate them. |
Il va sans dire que le ministère public était disposé à poursuivre [. . .]. Mais cela ne convenait pas aux avocats de la défense. Bien qu'il ait eu le pouvoir de passer outre à leurs désirs et de poursuivre, le juge a ajourné jusqu'au 12 avril pour leur être utile. |
There is no evidence to support a conclusion that the consent of counsel to this adjournment constituted an acquiescence in the inevitable. Attribution of the entire period of delay to the Crown by the trial judge justified the intervention of the Court of Appeal. Taking into account that the entire period of four months cannot be attributed to the Crown and also taking into account all relevant circumstances, we agree with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the delay in this case was not unreasonable. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. |
Aucun élément de preuve ne permet d'appuyer une conclusion que le consentement des avocats à cet ajournement constituait une reconnaissance de l'inévitable. L'attribution de la totalité du délai au ministère public par le juge du procès justifiait l'intervention de la Cour d'appel. Compte tenu du fait que la totalité du délai de quatre mois ne peut pas être attribuée au ministère public et compte tenu également de toutes les circonstances pertinentes, nous convenons avec la Cour d'appel à la majorité que le délai en l'espèce n'était pas déraisonnable. En conséquence, le pourvoi est rejeté. |
|
|
7.11.1995
CORAM:Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.
Gerard Marc
v. (24588)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(N.B.) |
Scott F. Fowler, for the appellant.
Luc Labonté and Ronald Leblanc, for the respondent. |
|
|
SOPINKA J. (orally for the Court) -- This is an appeal as of right. We agree with the majority of the Court of Appeal that there was no error in the charge to the jury.
The appeal is dismissed. |
LE JUGE SOPINKA (oralement au nom de la Cour) -- Il s'agit d'un pourvoi de plein droit. Tout comme la Cour d'appel à la majorité, nous sommes d'avis qu'il n'y a pas eu d'erreur dans les directives au jury.
Le pourvoi est rejeté. |
|
|
8.11.1995
CORAM:La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
John M. Tennant
v. (24339)
Her Majesty The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.) |
Warren J.A. Mitchell, Q.C. and Karen R. Sharlow, for the appellant.
Johannes A. Van Iperen, Q.C. and Elizabeth Junkin, for the respondent. |
|
|
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Taxation - Statutes - Interpretation - Income tax - Deduction of interest expenses incurred on a loan - Whether Appellant entitled to continue to deduct interest expense for loan used to purchase shares after the shares have been exchanged. |
Nature de la cause:
Impôt - Lois - Interprétation - Impôt sur le revenu - Déduction des frais d'intérêt au titre d'un prêt - L'appelant a-t-il droit de continuer de déduire les frais d'intérêt au titre d'un prêt ayant servi à l'achat d'actions après que les actions ont été échangées? |
|
|
8.11.1995
CORAM:La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
Royal Bank of Canada
v. (24316)
North American Life Assurance Co. et al. (Sask.) |
Robert G. Kennedy and Ian A. Sutherland, for the appellant.
Gary A. Meschishnick and Eric M. Singer, for the respondent North American Life Assurance Co.
Robert D. Jackson, for the respondent Balvir Singh Ramgotra. |
|
|
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Commercial law - Bankruptcy - Insurance - Creditor & debtor - Statutes - Interpretation - Section 91(2) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 - When will a trustee in bankruptcy succeed in setting aside a solvent person's transfer of RRSP monies to a registered retirement income fund where the transfer was made between one and five years before bankruptcy? - Whether the Court of Appeal's decision constitutes an improper diminution of the rights of trustees in bankruptcy and the rights of the creditors of a bankrupt as set out in s. 91(2) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3. |
Nature de la cause:
Droit commercial - Faillite - Assurance - Créancier et débiteur - Lois - Interprétation - Article 91(2) de la Loi sur la faillite et l'insolvabilité, L.R.C. (1985), ch. B‑3 - Quand le syndic peut‑il réussir à annuler le transfert, par une personne solvable, des sommes d'argent d'un REER dans un fonds enregistré de revenu de retraite lorsque le transfert est effectué entre un et cinq ans avant la faillite? - La décision de la Cour d'appel emporte‑t‑elle une diminution illégitime des droits des syndics et des créanciers d'une faillite qui sont énoncés au par. 91(2) de la Loi sur la faillite et l'insolvabilité, L.R.C. (1985), ch. B‑3? |
|
|
9.11.1995
CORAM:Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
Norman Eugene Thibert
v. (24435)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.) |
Peter J. Royal, Q.C., for the appellant.
Goran Tomljanovic, for the respondent. |
|
|
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Criminal law - Defence - Evidence - Trial - Whether there was evidence at trial capable of supporting the defence of provocation such that the trial judge was correct in his decision to leave the defence with the jury - Whether given the inadequacy of the charge in relating the burden of proof to the defence of provocation, this is a proper case for the application of section 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code. |
Nature de la cause:
Droit criminel - Défense - Preuve - Procès - Y avait‑il une preuve au procès susceptible d'étayer la défense de provocation de sorte que le juge du procès a à juste titre décidé de soumettre la défense au jury? - Étant donné l'insuffisance de l'exposé en ce qui concerne le rapport entre le fardeau de la preuve et la défense de provocation, convient‑il en l'espèce d'appliquer le sous‑alinéa 686(1)b)(iii) du Code criminel? |
|
|
9.11.1995
CORAM:La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
Her Majesty The Queen
v. (24323)
Murray Calder (Crim.)(Ont.) |
Ian R. Smith, for the appellant.
Edward L. Greenspan, Q.C. and Alison Wheeler, for the respondent. |
|
|
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Criminal Law - Evidence - Charter, s. 24(2) - Trial - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial judge's conclusion that he could not reconsider s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in light of the Respondent's contradiction of his previously excluded statement and that the Crown should not have been permitted to cross-examine the Respondent on his prior inconsistent statement for the purpose of credibility - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding the Crown had not met the onus of demonstrating with a reasonable degree of certainty that the verdict would not necessarily have been the same had the cross-examination been permitted. |
Nature de la cause:
Droit criminel - Preuve - Charte, art. 24(2) - Procès - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en confirmant la conclusion du juge du procès qu'il ne pouvait réexaminer l'art. 24(2) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés à la lumière de la contradiction de la déclaration de l'intimé antérieurement écartée et que le ministère public n'aurait pas dû être autorisé à contre-interroger l'intimé sur sa déclaration antérieure incompatible pour attaquer sa crédibilité? - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que le ministère public n'avait pas démontré avec un degré raisonnable de certitude que le verdict n'aurait pas nécessairement été le même si le contre-interrogatoire avait été autorisé? |
|
|
WEEKLY AGENDA |
ORDRE DU JOUR DE LA SEMAINE |
AGENDA for the week beginning November 13, 1995.
ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 13 novembre 1995.
Date of Hearing/ Case Number and Name/
Date d'audition Numéro et nom de la cause
The Court is not sitting this week
La Cour ne siège pas cette semaine
NOTE:
This agenda is subject to change. Hearing dates should be confirmed with Process Registry staff at (613) 996-8666.
Cet ordre du jour est sujet à modification. Les dates d'audience devraient être confirmées auprès du personnel du greffe au (613) 996-8666.
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 : December 4, 1995
Service : November 13, 1995 Filing : November 20, 1995 Respondent : November 27, 1995 |
Audience du : 4 décembre 1995
Signification : 13 novembre 1995 Dépôt : 20 novembre 1995 Intimé : 27 novembre 1995
|
DEADLINES: APPEALS
|
DÉLAIS: APPELS |
The fall session of the Supreme Court of Canada will commence January 22, 1996.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court Act and Rules, the following requirements for filing must be complied with before an appeal will be inscribed and set down for hearing:
Case on appeal must be filed within three months of the filing of the notice of appeal.
Appellant's factum must be filed within four months of the filing of the notice of appeal. For appeals in which the notice of appeal was filed before July 26, 1995, the factum must be filed within five months.
Respondent's factum must be filed within eight weeks of the date of service of the appellant's factum.
Intervener's factum must be filed within four weeks of the date of service of the respondent's factum. For appeals in which the notice of appeal was filed before July 26, 1995, the factum must be filed within two weeks.
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
The Registrar shall enter on a list all appeals inscribed for hearing at the January 1996 session November 28 1995. |
La session d'automne de la Cour suprême du Canada commencera le 22 janvier 1996.
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 d'appel doit être déposé dans les trois mois du dépôt de l'avis d'appel.
Le mémoire de l'appelant doit être déposé dans les quatre mois du dépôt de l'avis d'appel. Pour les appels dont l’avis d’appel a été déposé avant le 26 juillet 1995, le mémoire doit être déposé dans les cinq mois.
Le mémoire de l'intimé doit être déposé dans les huit semaines suivant la signification de celui de l'appelant.
Le mémoire de l'intervenant doit être déposé dans les quatre semaines suivant la signification de celui de l'intimé. Pour les appels dont l’avis d’appel a été déposé avant le 26 juillet 1995, le mémoire doit être déposé dans les deux semaines.
Le registraire inscrit l'appel pour audition après le dépôt du mémoire de l'intimé ou à l'expiration du délai de signification du mémoire de l'intimé.
Le 28 novembre 1995, le registraire mettra au rôle de la session de janvier 1996 tous les appels inscrits pour audition. |