Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

January 18, 2002  67 - 93                                                                   le 18 janvier 2002

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Her Majesty the Queen

Beverly A. MacLean

A.G. of British Columbia

v. (28945)

Jerimiah Josia Johnson (B.C.)

Gil D. McKinnon, Q.C.

FILING DATE 28.11.2001

A.L.

Elaine Doyon

Arcand Doyon Duval

c. (28987)

M.G.  (Qué.)

Richard McConomy

McConomy & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION 21.12.2001

Brother Pascal Rowland, Brother Anthony Murphy, Brother Kieran Murphy, Brother J. Barry Lynch, et al.

W.S. Berardino, Q.C.

Berardino & Harris

v. (29000)

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver, represented by Most Rev. Adam Exner, on his own behalf and on behalf of all members of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver, et al. (B.C.)

Alfred T. Clarke

FILING DATE 19.11.2001

Noël Ayangma

Noël Ayangma

v. (29002)

The Government of Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.)

Ruth M. DeMone

A.G. of Prince Edward Island

FILING DATE 19.11.2001

Groupe Impérial Windsor Inc., et al.

James A. Robb, Q.C.

Stikeman Elliott

v. (28971)

Collège d’enseignement général et professionnel John Abbott (Que.)

Marcel Cinq-Mars, Q.C.

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin

FILING DATE 11.1.2002

Roger Colas

Munyonzwe Hamalengwa

v. (29003)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Jennifer Woolcombe

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 14.1.2002

Her Majesty the Queen

Beverly A. MacLean

A.G. of British Columbia

v. (28946)

Daniel George Edgar (B.C.)

Gil D. McKinnon

FILING DATE 28.11.2001

JANUARY 14, 2002 / LE 14 JANVIER 2002

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

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Arbour

The Hindu Mission of Canada (Quebec) Inc., Joginder Awasthi, Prekash Chadha, Ritish Chakraborty, Ramesh Dhand, Ram Swaroop Kaushal, Darbari Lal, Ravi Sharma, Vijay Sharma and Hari Tuknat

v. (28686)

Sita Ram Sharma

AND BETWEEN:

The Hindu Mission of Canada (Quebec) Inc., Joginder Awasthi, Prekash Chadha, Ritish Chakraborty, Ramesh Dhand, Ram Swaroop Kaushal, Darbari Lal, Ravi Sharma, Vijay Sharma and Hari Tuknat

v.

Shanta Srivastava (Que.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes – Interpretation – Labour law – Charter of human rights and freedoms, R.S.Q., c. C-12, s. 5 and 9 – Right to privacy – Right to non-disclosure of confidential information – Labour relations – Recording of telephone conversations – Did the Court of Appeal err in determining that the Respondents had a reasonable expectation of privacy? – Did the Court of Appeal err in law and fact by concluding that there was a violation of s. 9 of the Quebec Charter since, by its own admission, the recorded conversations were of a personal rather than of a professional nature? – Did the Court of Appeal err in law by concluding that the Applicants defamed the Respondents?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Trish Wood, Nicholas Regush,

Paul Webster and  David Studer

v. (28774)

Frans H.H. Leenen (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Libel and slander - Qualified privilege - Fair comment - Malice - Damages - Civil procedure - Costs - Applicants produced television program about safety of certain heart medications - Program implied that Respondent doctor and research scientist supported prescribing of “killer drugs”, was in conflict of interest, received pay-off from pharmaceutical company and acted negligently or dishonestly as chair of ad hoc advisory committee of Health Canada's Health Protection Branch - Defence of truth failed as many facts found not true - Defence of qualified privilege failed because program contrary to public interest - Defence of fair comment failed because Applicants presented unbalanced view of issue and must have known much of that presented was false - Regardless, defences failed as Applicants acted maliciously and in bad faith - Whether Court of Appeal erred in affirming liability for defamation - Whether Court of Appeal erred in affirming aggravated and punitive damages awards - Whether Court of Appeal erred in affirming order fixing solicitor and client costs.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Trish Wood, Nicholas Regush,

Paul Webster and David Studer

v. (28775)

Martin G. Myers (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Libel and slander - Qualified privilege - Fair comment - Malice - Damages - Applicants produced television program about safety of certain heart medications - Program implied, inter alia, that cardiologist supported prescribing of dangerous drugs, that he assisted pharmaceutical company in promotion of such drugs and acted dishonestly as member of ad hoc advisory committee of Health Canada's Health Protection Branch - Defence of qualified privilege failed as occasion was not such as to impose public duty to communicate defamatory material - Defence of fair comment failed because fair-minded person could not honestly come to conclusion that plaintiff doctor knowingly prescribed dangerous drugs or was dishonest - Regardless, defences failed as Applicants acted maliciously and in bad faith - Whether Court of Appeal erred in affirming liability for defamation - Whether Court of Appeal erred in awarding aggravated damages.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache et Binnie

The Trinh Pham

c. (28728)

Hydro‐Québec (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Révision judiciaire - Le Commissaire a-t-il excédé sa juridiction lorsqu’il substitue son jugement à celui de l’Employeur en invoquant un autre motif pour congédier le demandeur? -   La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en droit en refusant d’analyser ces questions de droit? - Le Commissaire a-t-il excédé sa juridiction lorsqu’il crée une obligation pour un employé et un droit équivalent pour l’Employeur et plus particulièrement, il s’agit de décider si la nouvelle obligation pour l’employé de se trouver lui-même un poste au sein de l’entreprise constitue une modification unilatérale de façon substantielle de son contrat de travail et subséquemment un congédiement déguisé? -  La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle commis une erreur lorsqu’elle refuse l’examen des questions de droits qui s’impose avec les faits établis par le Commissaire du travail? - Quel est le sens des expressions «priorité sur les postes » et «cause juste et suffisante » à l’art. 124 de la Loi sur les normes de travail et est-ce que la réintégration d’un employé mis en disponibilité suite à une réorganisation est un privilège ou un droit et plus particulièrement si l’Employeur a l’obligation d’offrir un poste à un employé mis en disponibilité lorsqu’il a des postes vacants disponibles et fait l’embauchage à l’externe et que son motif allégué pour la terminaison d’emploi est d’ordre économique i.e. le licenciement qui est rejeté par le Commissaire du travail

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 10 février 1998

Bureau du commissaire général du travail

(Doré, Président)

Plainte du demandeur contre son employeur, l’intimée, rejetée

Pierrette Gagnon‐Bolduc

c. (28701)

Placements D.P.C. Inc., Magasin Buteau Inc., Denis Rodrigue

ET ENTRE :

Décor La Guadeloupe Inc., R. Bolduc Électrique Inc.

c.

Placements D.P.C. Inc., Denis Rodrigue (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit des biens -- Procédure -- Appel -- Responsabilité découlant des relations de voisinage - - Théorie de la faute vs théorie du risque -- Exercice du droit de propriété de manière excessive et déraisonnable -- Travaux d’excavation provoquant l’affaissement du bien fonds --  Modification des conclusions de faits du juge de première instance -- La visite des lieux objet du litige par le juge de première instance constitue-t-elle un obstacle important additionnel à la révision des faits par une cour d’appel?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Union internationale des travailleurs et travailleuses unis de l'alimentation et du commerce

c. (28712)

Jean‐Guy Bélanger (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Responsabilité civile — Action en dommages-intérêts — Procédure — Tribunaux — Témoignages — Force probante du témoignage d’un employé — Contrats — Interprétation — Code civil du Québec, L.Q. 1991, ch. 64, art. 1426 — Quelle latitude est dévolue à un tribunal dans l’interprétation d’un contrat? — Quelle utilisation peut être faite des facteurs extérieurs au texte du contrat dans son interprétation? — Quel poids relatif doit être accordé aux divers critères définis par l’art. 1426 du Code civil du Québec? — Une cour d’appel doit-elle intervenir lorsqu’un juge de première instance omet de considérer le témoignage de plusieurs témoins dans ses motifs? — Quelle importance doit-on accorder au témoignage d’un employé?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

CORAM:   Gonthier, Major and LeBel JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Major et LeBel

Soliman Mohammadian

v. (28777)

The Minister of Employment and Immigration (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Civil - Claim to convention refugee status - Waiver by conduct of right to interpreter at convention refugee status hearing - Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in law by holding that waiver can be inferred from conduct in its treatment of the doctrine of waiver under s. 14 of the Charter or under Rule 17 of the Convention Refugee Determination Division Rules.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

November 21, 1998

Immigration and Refugee Board, Convention Refugee Determination Division

(Puttaveeraiah Prabhakara)

Claim to convention refugee status dismissed

Rachel Shilling

v. (28776)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Native law - Taxation - Income tax - Income tax exemption for on-reserve income - Employer on-reserve but tax-payer living and working off-reserve with native persons - Whether tax exemption under s. 87  of Indian Act , R.S.C.  1985, c. I-5 , applicable - Whether “connecting factors” test correctly applied to off-reserve employment income.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

June 9, 1999

Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division

(Sharlow J.)

Applicant held to be exempt from payment of income tax under para. 87(1) (b) of the Indian Act 

June 4, 2001

Federal Court of Appeal

(Rothstein, Evans and Malone JJ.A.)

Appeal against exemption allowed

September 4, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

JANUARY 17, 2002 / LE 17 JANVIER 2002

28736                    Terry Paul Bigcharles ‐ v. ‐ Alan John Lomax and Johan François Kritzinger (B.C.) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence - Onus of proof - Whether the onus of proof in a negligence action should shift to the alleged tortfeaser if the alleged tortious act or omission leaves the plaintiff in a position of not being able to establish causation affirmatively - Whether a loss-of-a-chance doctrine exists in the Canadian tort law.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28807                    Glenda Doucet‐Boudreau, Alice Boudreau, Jocelyn Bourbeau, Bernadette Cormier‐Marchand, Yolande Levert and Cyrille Leblanc, in their name and in the name of all Nova Scotia parents who are entitled to the right, under Section 23  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , to have their children educated in the language of the minority, namely the French language, in publicly funded French language school facilities and La fédération des parents Acadiens de la Nouvelle‐Écosse Inc. ‐ v. ‐ Attorney General of Nova Scotia (N.S.) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Bastarache 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  - Procedural law - Jurisdiction - Functus officio - Judge ordering a series of mandatory injunctions pursuant to s. 24(1) requiring school board and Ministry to use “best efforts” to complete five homogenous French schools by September 2000 in order to prevent further assimilation of French speaking children - Order further requiring parties to appear before same judge periodically to report on progress of construction and to ensure compliance with the order - Whether judge lost jurisdiction to adopt supervisory function - Scope of remedial power under s. 24(1) of the Charter

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

June 15, 2000

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

(Leblanc J.)

Remedies for breach of Applicants’ s. 24(1) rights ordered;  Order that judge would maintain jurisdiction to ensure compliance by Respondent

June 26, 2001

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

(Freeman [dissenting], Chipman and Flinn JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed of the order retaining the jurisdiction of the trial judge

28658                    Dr. Joyce Johansson, Dr. Patricia Johansson, Dr. Sami A. Youssef, Dr. Donna N. Tatryn, Dr. Larry P. Coughlin, Dr. Jorge Schwarz, Dr. Raquel Del Carpio and Dr. Ronald Friedman ‐ v. ‐ Comité administratif de l'Ordre des comptables agréés, Le bureau de l'Ordre des comptables agréés du Québec  ‐ and ‐ Comité du fonds d'indemnisation de l'Ordre des comptables agréés du Québec and Office des professions du Québec (Que.) (Civil)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimés.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts ‐ Damages – Embezzlement of funds by chartered accountant ‐ Professional liability – By unduly restricting the definition and scope of what constitutes the practice of accountancy for the purpose of applying the Professional Code and Regulations to the Applicants’ claims to the Indemnification Fund of the Order, did the Court of Appeal deprive the public in general, and Applicants in particular of the protection intended by the legislature? – By concluding that the applicable standard of review with respect to a decision of the Order in such a context is “reasonableness” rather than “correctness” decision, did the Court of Appeal exclude the constitutionally guaranteed superintending powers of the Superior Court in a matter where the public in general and Applicants in particular are entitled to a review by an independent judiciary, where there is no justification for any judicial deference to be given to the inferior decision making body? – Does the integrity of the administration of justice depend on the intervention of the Superior Court where there is an appearance of a conflict of interest when deciding a lis inter partes which had direct pecuniary consequences for the decision makers of the Respondents and the members of the Order alike?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

June 18, 2001

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

28823                    BCTV, a division of Global Communications Limited, CKVU, a Division of Global Communications Limited; CTV Inc.; CTV Television Inc.; CIVT, a division of CTV Television Inc. (d.b.a. CTV BC, formerly Vancouver Television); The Radio Television News Directors Association of Canada, and ad idem ‐ Advocates in Defence of Expression in Media ‐ v. ‐ Her Majesty the Queen, Dimitrios Pilarinos, Glen David Clark, Attorney General of British Columbia ‐ and ‐ Josiah Wood (B.C.) (Criminal)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Freedom of expression - Freedom of the press - Whether the common law prohibits television and radio access to courtroom proceedings - Whether  a prohibition (or a prohibition but for the consent of all parties) of television or radio access to court proceedings is an infringement of s. 2(b) of the Charter - What legal and constitutional principles must a judge follow when considering applications for television or radio access to court proceedings - Whether the trial judge fettered her inherent jurisdiction by embracing the Policy on Television in the Courtroom adopted by the Supreme Court of British Columbia on May 9, 2001, effectively giving each party a veto power over radio and television access

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28769                    Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission ‐ v. ‐ Joey's Delivery Service (N.B.) (Civil)

CORAM:               L'Heureux‐Dubé, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour Law - Workers’ Compensation - Employees and independent contractors - Service providing restaurants and pizza establishments with drivers for home deliveries and providing drivers with courier and dispatch services - Whether service is an employer and drivers are  employees for purposes of workers’ compensation - Whether New Brunswick is the only jurisdiction that cannot consider independent contractors who have contracts with a principal to be workers of the principal - Whether decision allows rearranging businesses so as to convert workers into independent contractors.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

28650                    Louise Gauthier Bardier ‐ c. ‐ Gestion Hervieux‐Seddiqi Holding Cie Inc.  (Qué.) (Civile)

CORAM:               Les juges L'Heureux‐Dubé, Arbour et LeBel

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 des biens - Immeubles - Action en paiement du solde de prix de vente - Requête en délaissement forcé - Revendication de certains biens meubles - Prix de vente - Demande de réduction du prix de vente - Le contrat dont l’existence est menacé par une nullité relative, relevant des règles d’ordre public de protection, est-il confirmé tacitement lorsque le contractant se comporte à l’égard du contrat comme si la cause de nullité n’existait pas? - La Cour d’appel du Québec n’a pas appliqué les bons critères d’intervention judiciaire lors de l’appel du jugement du tribunal de première instance - Bien que historiquement la règle de stare decisis est propre à la common law, une cour d’appel tel que la Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle le devoir, dans une cause de droit civil, de respecter et de suivre les motifs d’une décision antérieure qui a interprété certains principes juridiques codifiés par le législateur québécois.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

28751                    Jacques Laurendeau ‐ c. ‐ Université Laval  (Qué.) (Civile)

CORAM:               Les juges L'Heureux‐Dubé, Arbour et LeBel

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit procédural - Rétraction de jugement -  Les dérogations au Code de procédure donne-t-elle une fausse impression de clarté qui cause un préjudice à l’appelant lors de l’audition de l’appel - Le procureur de l’intimée déroge-t-il aux règles de procédure de manière à fausser la nature de la procédure judiciaire par des procédés linguistiques et en se parjurant.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

7.1.2002

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Motion for a stay of proceedings

Myra M.D. Simanek

v. (28932)

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

Requête en suspension des procédures

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the applicant Mirka (Myra) Simanek for a stay of proceedings;

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The application by the applicant Mirka (Myra) Simanek  for a stay of proceedings is dismissed.

8.1.2002

Before / Devant:   GONTHIER J.

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

Groupe Impérial Windsor Inc., et al.

c. (28971)

John Abbott College CEGEP (Qué.)

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

REFERRED / RÉFÉRÉE    La requête pour obtenir une ordonnance prorogeant le délai pour signifier et produire une demande d’autorisation d’appel au 11 février 2002 est déférée aux juges saisis de la demande d’autorisation d’appel.

9.1.2002

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

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

Michael Caster

v. (28979)

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

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to January 31, 2002.

9.1.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Chee K. Ling

v. (28315)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to December 18, 2001.

9.1.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondent's response

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (28946)

Daniel George Edgar (Crim.)(B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la réponse de l'intimé

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to January 11, 2002.

9.1.2002

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the response to the application for leave to cross-appeal

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (28533)

Steve Powley, et al. (Crim.)(Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la réponse à la demande d'autorisation d'appel incident

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to January 20, 2002.

9.1.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondent's responses

Hugues Duguay

c. (28903)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

and

Billy Taillefer

c. (28899)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les réponses de l'intimée

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Délai prorogé au 14 décembre 2001.

9.1.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the applicant's reply

Lieb Waldman

v. (28756)

United States of America, et al. (Crim.)(Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la réplique du demandeur

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to January 14, 2002.

9.1.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the applicant's reply

Ontario Public Service Employees Union

v. (28849)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, et al. (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la réplique du demandeur

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to January 7, 2002.

10.1.2002

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

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

FWS Joint Sports Claimants Inc.

v. (28993)

Border Broadcasters Inc., et al. (F.C.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to January 18, 2002.

10.1.2002

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Attorney General for Ontario

IN/DANS:              Thomas Robert Zinck

v. (28367)

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

Requête en autorisation d'intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General for Ontario for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion  for leave to intervene of the applicant Attorney General for Ontario is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

The request to present oral argument is deferred to a date following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the interveners.

The intervener shall not be entitled to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties.

Pursuant to Rule 18(6) the intervener shall pay to the appellant and respondent any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondent by the intervention.

10.1.2002

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Motion for extension of time and leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Association of Justices of the Peace of Ontario

IN/DANS:              Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta

v. (28261)

Devon Gary Ell, et al. (Alta.)

Requête visant à obtenir une prorogation de délai et l’autorisation d'intervenir

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the Association of Justices of the Peace of Ontario for an extension of time and for leave to intervene in the above appeal and cross-appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion  for an extension of time and for leave to intervene of the applicant Association of Justices of the Peace of Ontario is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

The request to present oral argument is deferred to a date following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the interveners.

The intervener shall not be entitled to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties.

Pursuant to Rule 18(6) the intervener shall pay to the appellant and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondents by the intervention.

10.1.2002

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Motions for extension of time and leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Mental Health Legal Committee

Canadian Civil Liberties Association

African Canadian Legal Clinic

Urban Alliance on Race Relations

IN/DANS:              The Estate of Manish Odhavji, Deceased, et al.

v. (28425)

Detective Martin Woodhouse, et al. (Ont.)

Requêtes visant à obtenir une prorogation de délai et l’autorisation d'intervenir

GRANTED / ACCORDÉES

UPON APPLICATION by the Mental Health Legal Committee, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the African Canadian Legal Clinic and the Urban Alliance on Race Relations for  extensions of time and for leave to intervene in the above appeal and cross-appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1)             The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Mental Health Legal Committee is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a  factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

2)             The motion for an extension of time and for leave to intervene of the applicant Canadian Civil Liberties Association  is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a  factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

3)             The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant African Canadian Legal Clinic  is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a  factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

4)             The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Urban Alliance on Race Relations  is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a  factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

The request to present oral argument is deferred to a date following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the interveners.

The interveners shall not be entitled to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties.

Pursuant to Rule 18(6) the interveners shall pay to the appellants and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellants and respondents by the interventions.

10.1.2002

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion for substitutional service

Elliot C. Wightman et al.

c. (28773)

Wolfgang Stolzenberg, et al. (Qué.)

Requête en substitution de signification

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    The motion by the respondents Simon et al. for an order permitting substitutional service of their response on the respondent Wolfgang Stolzenberg to January 28, 2002, by ordinary prepaid mail, is granted.

11.1.2002

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Motions for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Canadian Bar Association

National Academy of Arbitrators (Canadian Region)

IN/DANS:              The Minister of Labour for Ontario

v. (28396)

Canadian Union of Public Employees, et al. (Ont.)

Requêtes en autorisation d'intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉES

UPON APPLICATION by the Canadian Bar Association and the National Academy of Arbitrators (Canadian Region) for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

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

2)             The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant National Academy of Arbitrators (Canadian Region) is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

The request to present oral argument is deferred to a date following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the interveners.

The interveners shall not be entitled to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties.

Pursuant to Rule 18(6) the interveners shall pay to the appellant and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondents by the interventions.

21.12.2001

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (29001)

Alexander Wayne Harvey (Ont.)

(As of Right)

15.1.2002

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

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (28443)

Rajinder Kumar Benji (B.C.) (Crim.) (By Leave)

William F.Ehrcke, Q.C. for the appellant.

Peter Leask, Q.C. for the respondent.

ALLOWED / ACCUEILLI

Arbour J. (orally):

We are all of the view that the Court of Appeal for British Columbia erred in its interpretation of the Criminal Code  provisions dealing with the preferring of indictments.  The better view was expressed by Proulx J.A. of the Quebec Court of Appeal in the similar case of R. v. Cross (1996), 112 C.C.C. (3d) 410, leave to appeal refused, [1997] 2 S.C.R. viii, and by Baudouin J.A. in Canada (Procureur général) v. Bélair (1991), 10 C.R. (4th) 209 (Que. C.A.) (approved in R. v. Tapaquon, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 535, at pp. 549-50).

In the present case, the respondent concedes that he could have been indicted through the ordinary process of s. 574(1) (a) of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 .  This in itself is sufficient to permit his inclusion in the direct indictment which could only be brought under s. 577 of the Code against his co-accused Bhatti.

This interpretation is consistent with the reasons of Sopinka J. in Tapaquon, supra, at pp. 548-49, referring to Lamer J. (as he then was) in McKibbon v. The Queen, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 131, at p. 157, dealing with the predecessor provisions to s. 577, where he said:

TRADUCTION  Le juge Arbour (oralement) :

Nous sommes tous d’avis que la Cour d’appel de la Colombie-Britannique a fait erreur en interprétant les dispositions du Code criminel  portant sur la présentation des actes d’accusation.  L’interprétation à retenir à cet égard est celle qui a été formulée par le juge Proulx de la Cour d’appel du Québec dans l’affaire analogue R. c. Cross (1996), 112 C.C.C. (3d) 410, autorisation de pourvoi refusée, [1997] 2 R.C.S. viii, et par le juge Baudouin, de la même cour, dans l’affaire Canada (Procureur général) c. Bélair (1991), 10 C.R. (4th) 209 (approuvée dans  R. c. Tapaquon, [1993] 4 R.C.S. 535, p. 549-550).

En l’espèce, l’intimé concède qu’un acte d’accusation aurait pu être présenté contre lui selon la procédure ordinaire prévue à l’al. 574(1) a) du Code criminel , L.R.C. 1985, ch. C-46 .  En soi, cela suffit pour permettre qu’il soit inclus dans l’acte d’accusation qui ne pouvait être présenté contre son coaccusé Bhatti qu’en vertu de l’art. 577 du Code.

Cette interprétation est compatible avec les motifs exposés par le juge Sopinka dans l’arrêt  Tapaquon, précité, p. 548-549, où celui-ci cite les propos suivants, formulés par le juge Lamer (plus tard Juge en chef de notre Cour) dans l’affaire McKibbon c. La Reine, [1984] 1 R.C.S. 131, p. 157, relativement aux dispositions qui ont précédé l’art. 577 :

1.  The Attorney General or anyone with the written consent of a judge of the court may prefer an indictment for any offence irrespective of whether a preliminary inquiry has been held, and if so, whether the accused was discharged or committed for that or any other offence.

For these reasons, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal is set aside and the indictment charging the respondent and Suraj Singh Bhatti is reinstated.

1.  Le procureur général, ou toute personne qui a le consentement du juge de la cour, peut présenter un acte d’accusation pour toute infraction qu’il y ait eu ou non enquête préliminaire, et, s’il y en a eu une, peu importe que l’accusé ait été libéré ou renvoyé à son procès pour cette infraction ou toute autre infraction.

Pour ces motifs, le pourvoi est accueilli, l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie-Britannique est annulé et l’acte d’accusation présenté contre l’intimé et Suraj Singh Bhatti est rétabli.

Nature of the case:

Criminal law - Procedural law - Indictments - Direct indictments - Whether the Attorney General can prefer a direct indictment against an accused for offences for which the accused has already been committed for trial after a preliminary inquiry.

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel - Procédure - Actes d’accusation - Mise en accusation directe - Le procureur général peut‐il présenter un acte d’accusation contre un accusé pour des infractions à l’égard desquelles il a déjà été renvoyé à procès après l’enquête préliminaire?

16.1.2002

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

Procureur général du Québec

c. (28417)

Laurent Laroche, et al. (Qué.) (Crim.) (Autorisation)

Serge Brodeur, Alain Pilotte, Gilles Laporte et Patrick Michel pour l’appelant.

Bernard Laprade et François Lacasse pour l’intervenante la procureure générale du Canada.

Trevor Shaw for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario.

Christian Desrosiers et Denis Lavigne pour les intimés.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Criminal Law - Proceeds of crime - Restraint order - Criminal Code , s. 462.33 - Review of a restraint order - Did the trial judge err in his interpretation of the powers of a judge sitting in review of a restraint order? - Did the trial judge err in his interpretation of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of Canada in Colarusso? - Did the trial judge err in law as to the legal standard applicable to the review procedure? - Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 462.34 

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel - Produits de la criminalité - Ordonnance de blocage - Code criminel , art. 462.33  - Révision d’une ordonnance de blocage - Le juge de première instance a-t-il commis une erreur dans son interprétation des pouvoirs d’un juge siégeant en révision d’une ordonnance de blocage? - Le juge de première instance a-t-il commis une erreur dans son interprétation des principes énoncés par la Cour suprême du Canada dans l’arrêt Colarusso? - Le juge de première instance a-t-il

commis une erreur en droit quant à la norme juridique applicable à la procédure de révision? - Code criminel , L.R.C. 1985, ch. C-46, art. 462.34 .

17.1.2002

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

The Commissioner of Official Languages

v. (28188)

Robert Lavigne (F.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Barbara A. McIsaac, Q.C., Johane Tremblay and

Gregory S. Tzemenakis for the appellant (respondent on cross-appeal).

Robert Lavigne in person (appellant on cross-appeal).

Dougald E. Brown and Steven Welchner for the intervener Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Administrative law - Judicial review - Disclosure of information - Complaints being investigated by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages - Interviews being conducted by the Office - Respondent seeking access to the integral interview notes - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that, in effect, the access provisions of the Privacy Act override the confidentiality provisions of the Official Languages Act - What are the obligations and discretion to disclose relevant information gathered during an investigation by the Commissioner of Official Languages pursuant to s. 73(b) of the Official Languages Act, for the purpose of a remedy under Part X of the Act - What is the interpretation of ss. 8(2)(a), (b), and (m) of the Privacy Act as it pertains to the disclosure of information, personal or otherwise.

Nature de la cause:

Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Communication de renseignements - La Commissaire aux langues officielles enquête sur des plaintes - Il effectue des entrevues - L’intimé demande l’accès à  l’ensemble des notes d’entrevue - La Cour d’appel a‐t‐elle commis une erreur en concluant que les dispositions sur l’accès de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels l’emportent effectivement sur les dispositions relatives à la confidentialité de la Loi sur les langues officielles? - Quelles sont les obligations et le pouvoir discrétionnaire du Commissaire aux langues officielles conformément à l’al. 73b) de la Loi sur les langues officielles en ce qui a trait à la communication de renseignements pertinents recueillis durant une enquête, pour les besoins d’un recours judiciaire aux termes de la partie X de la Loi? - Quelle est l’interprétation des al. 8(2)a), b) et m) de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels, qui porte sur la communication de renseignements personnels ou autres?

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME

- 2001 -

- 2002 -