Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

March 28, 2003 497 - 562                                                                     le 28 mars 2003

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador

Hebert F. Edwards

A.G. of Newfoundland and Labrador

v. (29640)

Danny Cole, et al.  (Nfld. & Lab.)

Daniel M. Boone

Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales

FILING DATE 6.3.2003

Piersanti & Company

V. Ross Morrison

Morrison, Brown, Sosnovitch

v. (29650)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Marie Comiskey

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 11.3.2003

Avininder Chadha, et al.

Paul J. Pape

v. (29651)

Bayer Inc., et al.  (Ont.)

J.L. McDougall, Q.C.

Fraser Milner Casgrain

FILING DATE 13.3.2003

Vaughn Pictou, et al.

D. Bruce Clarke

Burchell Green Hayman Parish

v. (29654)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

Peter J. Leslie

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 14.3.2003

Gary Douglas Fertal

Peter J. Royal, Q.C.

Royal, McCrum, Duckett & Glancy

v. (29653)

Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

David C. Marriott

A.G. of Alberta

FILING DATE 13.3.2003

MARCH 24, 2003 / LE 24 MARS 2003

                                        CORAM:  Chief Justice McLachlin and Bastarache and Deschamps JJ. /

La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Bastarache et Deschamps

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (29542)

Keith Holmes (Crim.) (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non-Charter) - Evidence - Police - Pre-trial procedure - Witnesses - Confessions - Voluntary statements - Whether statements by accused to police were voluntary and admissible - Burden of proof of voluntariness - Accused held in custody for 16 hours before making statement - No evidence led at trial accounting for time in custody before statement - Whether Crown discharged burden of proving accused had access to counsel - Whether lack of evidence explaining time in custody was fatal to proof of voluntariness of statement - Whether contents of statement relevant to whether it was voluntary.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Réjeanne L'Heureux

c. (29365)

Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail et Résidence le St‐Patrick (Qué.)

- et -

Commission des lésions profesionnelles

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Droit du travail ‐ Contrôle judiciaire - Preuve -  Accidents du travail  ‐ La Cour d'appel a‐t‐elle erré en droit en appliquant le mauvais test d'intervention en révision judiciaire? ‐ La Cour d'appel a‐t‐elle erré en droit en retenant une fausse prémisse, soit que la demanderesse ne présentait pas de séquelles objectives d'entorse lombaire des suites de l'accident du travail survenu le 27 novembre 1996? ‐ La Cour d'appel a‐t‐elle erré en droit en retenant que le 6 mars 1998, la demanderesse n'avait pas aggravé objectivement son handicap lombaire?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

CORAM:  Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Major et Arbour

Holly Big Canoe, Inquiry Officer

v. (29572)

Attorney General of Ontario and James Doe, Requester (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Freedom of information - Standard of review - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in holding that section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act established a permanent exemption for lawyers’ litigation work product - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in holding that the standard of review for the Commissioner’s interpretation of section 19 was correctness, rather than reasonableness simpliciter - Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31, ss. 19, 21

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (29559)

Penner International Inc. (F.C.A.)

AND BETWEEN:

Her Majesty the Queen

v.

Bison Diversified Inc. (F.C.A.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Statutes - Custom and Excise - Assessment - Interpretation - Interpretation of subsection 68.1(1)  of the Excise Tax Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15  - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal, without express justification, erred in its conclusion to overturn a rule of law that has been held and acted on by American and Canadian courts for two centuries - Whether it’s less contextual interpretation can be applied in a large number of statutes having varying purposes, with uncertain consequences - Whether properly administering the new interpretation will be possible, with the immediate and future fiscal impact - Whether attempting to address, through new legislation, the broader potential problems in a wide variety of statutes is highly impractical - Whether  the established contextual approach to statute interpretation will be weakened by the decision of the Court of Appeal -- Whether the decision of the Court of Appeal leads to absurd specific results - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that, for the purposes of entitlement under the Excise Tax Act   to a refund of excise tax paid on goods subsequently exported from Canada (ie. Diesel fuel purchased in Canada for use by commercial trucks transporting goods from Canada to the U.S. and consumed in the U.S. in the operation of the trucks) constitutes a good exported from Canada - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that, to be considered an exported good, a commodity need not be intended to be merged with the commerce of a foreign country, but need merely to be consumed in the foreign country.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Canadian Magen David Adom For Israel

v. (29453)

Minister of National Revenue (F.C.A.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Charities - Revocation of registration - Administrative law - Appeal - Procedural fairness - Irrelevant considerations - Bias - Substitution of discretion - Minister making decision to deregister Applicant charity - Application of the “charitable goods policy” in interpreting the Income Tax Act , R.S.C. 1985 (5 ^th  Supp.), c. 1  - Whether the Federal  Court of Appeal erred in not sending the Minister’s decision back for reconsideration.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                  CORAM:  Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ. /

Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et LeBel

Yvon Houle

c. (29454)

Comité des requêtes du Barreau du Québec et Barreau du Québec (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Compétence - Droit des professions - Avocats et procureurs - Disposition statutaire prévoyant la radiation ou la suspension suite à une déclaration de culpabilité d’une infraction criminelle ayant un lien avec l’exercice de la profession - Effet d’une absolution conditionnelle - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en déclarant que la compétence du Comité des requêtes découlant de l’art. 55.1 du Code des professions, L.R.Q., ch. C-26, n’est pas anéantie par une déclaration d’absolution en vertu de l’art. 730 du Code criminel, L.R.C., ch. C-46?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Neil Barry McFadyen

v. (29591)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Civil - Civil Rights - Taxation - Assessment -  Applicant found to be ordinarily resident of Canada - Applicant’s ties with Canada found to be significant - What is the legal test to determine whether a person is “resident” or “ordinarily resident” in Canada “in a taxation year” - Whether the interpretation of s. 2(1) , 250(1) (e) and 250(3)  of the Income Tax Act  adopted by the Tax Court of Canada and the Federal Court is consistent with sections 6 , 7  and 15(1)  of the Charter  and section 92(2) of the Constitution Act of 1867- Whether the Tax Court of Canada has jurisdiction to determine for purposes of the Canada-Japan Tax Convention that the Applicant is not a resident of Japan under the law of Japan - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

MARCH 27, 2003 / LE 27 MARS 2003

29534                    Stephen M. Byer v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (FC) (Civil)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache and Deschamps JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐214‐02, dated November 8, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale, numéro A‐214‐02, daté du 8 novembre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural Law - Motions - Whether the motions judge properly granted the Respondent an oral hearing of its motion to strike the Applicant’s pleadings

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29535                    Stephen M. Byer v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (FC) (Civil)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache and Deschamps JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐624‐01, dated November 8, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale, numéro A‐624‐01, daté du 8 novembre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Whether the motions judge properly adjourned the Applicant’s motion for default judgment pending the hearing of the Respondent’s motion to strike the Applicant’s pleadings for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29536                    Stephen M. Byer v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (FC) (Civil)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache and Deschamps JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐249‐02, dated November 8, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale, numéro A‐249‐02, daté du 8 novembre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal properly upheld a decision of the motions judge to strike the Applicant’s pleadings for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action -  Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, r. 221(1)(a)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29279                    Marc Ouimette c. Procureur général du Canada (Qué.) (Civile)

Coram :                   La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Bastarache et Deschamps

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Québec (Québec), numéro 200‐09‐003133‐003, daté du 2 mai 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Quebec), Number 200‐09‐003133‐003, dated May 2, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Code civil - Interprétation - Responsabilité civile ‐ Dommages‐intérêts - Preuve - Lien de causalité - Responsabilité de l’État - Action en responsabilité en application de la Loi sur la responsabilité de l’État. S.R., ch. C-38, alinéas 3a) et 3b) - Code civil du Québec, L.Q. ch. C-64, articles 976, 979 et ss., 1465 - Loi sur le régime des eaux, L.Q. ch. R-13 - Loi concernant les forces hydrauliques du Canada, L.R. ch. W-4 - La responsabilité civile découlant de l’application de l’alinéa 3b) de la Loi sur la responsabilité de l’État peut-elle être déterminée selon les dispositions législatives provinciales de responsabilité et d’indemnisation? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en refusant d’interpréter les obligations liées à la garde des biens de l’État et d’appliquer les présomptions légales découlant du régime de responsabilité pour le fait des choses; du régime des servitudes légales d’écoulement des eaux, du régime de l’abus de droit dans les troubles de voisinage, du régime d’indemnisation de la Loi sur le régime des eaux? - Est-ce que l’immunité de la Couronne dans l’exercice de ses pouvoirs politiques s’applique à la construction et à l’opération d’un ouvrage public? - Est-ce qu’il découle de la non-application de la “Directive relative aux ouvrages de protection du ministère des Travaux publics” et de la Loi concernant les forces hydrauliques du Canada une faute susceptible d’engager la responsabilité de l’intimé aux termes de l’alinéa 3a) de la Loi sur la responsabilité de l’État? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en imposant au demandeur le fardeau d’une faute lourde dans l’appréciation découlant du mode de gestion du barrage? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que l’érosion de la propriété d’autrui causée par l’État ne constituait pas une expropriation donnant ouverture à une indemnisation et en concluant également que pouvait être opposée au demandeur la défense d’habilitation législative?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29471                    Mary Martha Coady v. National Trust in trust for Keith Bradley (Ont.) (Civil)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache and Deschamps JJ.

The applications for an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal and to file the reply are granted.  The application for the order modifying dismissal of stay and the application to cross-examine Paul Webber on his affidavit are dismissed.  The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C37936, dated October 8, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

Les requêtes pour prorogation de délai pour déposer la demande d’autorisation d’appel et pour déposer la réplique sont accordées.  La requête pour une ordonnance modifiant l’ordonnance rejetant la demande de sursis et la requête pour contre-interroger Paul Webber sur son affidavit sont rejetées.  La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C37936, daté du 8 octobre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Mortgages - Remedies - Procedural law - Actions - Motion to strike pleadings - Contempt - Mortgagee moving to strike mortgagor’s pleadings and for judgment pursuant to Rule  60.12 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure - Mortgagor failing to comply with terms of order requiring her to pay monthly sum under the mortgage into court - Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding order of chambers judge striking the Applicant’s pleadings where there was no finding of contempt - Whether Court of Appeal erred in permitting cruel and unusual punishment through the imposition of sanctions pursuant to Rule 60.12 - Whether Court of Appeal erred in hearing the appeal in light of failure by one of its members to recuse himself on the grounds considered by this Court in R. v. Catcheway giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias - Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to find that the Applicant had been denied the rights as guaranteed by sections 7 , 11  and 15  of the Charter of Rights , on a motion for civil contempt brought under the Rules 60.05 and 60.11

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29522                    Dallas Park Shopping Centre Ltd. v. Buy‐Low Foods Ltd. (B.C.) (Civil)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache and Deschamps JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA028633, dated October 24, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA028633, daté du 24 octobre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Contracts - Lease - Construction of condition - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that where a party to a contract declares that a condition expressly stated to be for that party’s sole benefit is satisfied, the other party may rely on the condition to avoid the contract on the basis that the condition has not been satisfied - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that notice given by one party to a contract declaring that a condition for that party’s benefit had been satisfied did not constitute, in law, a waiver of that condition.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29487                    Monica Leung v. The City of Edmonton, Jane Kan and Jean Sullivan (Alta.) (Civil)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache and Deschamps JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Edmonton), Number 0103‐0476‐AC, dated October 11, 2002, is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Alberta (Edmonton), numéro 0103‐0476‐AC, daté du 11 octobre 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Municipal law - Limitation of actions - Elections - Challenges - Local Authorities Election Act providing for specific procedure for challenging municipal election - “Original Notices of Motion” filed by Applicant not meeting procedure or time limits  mandated by Act - Whether “Original Notices of Motion” properly struck and whether that originating notice of motion allows three years limitation period to file.   

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29512                    Melba Florine Manson and Melba Florine Manson in right of Estate of Hugh Manson (deceased husband) v. Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of National Revenue and Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (FC) (Civil)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache and Deschamps JJ.

The application for an extension of time to serve and file the response is granted.  All ancillary motions are dismissed.  The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐479‐00, dated October 3, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

La demande de prorogation de délai pour déposer et signifier la réponse est accordée.  Toutes les requêtes accessoires sont rejetées. La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale, numéro A‐479‐00, daté du 3 octobre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Appeal - Civil Procedure - Applicant appealing lower court decision but appeal not made ready for hearing because no acceptable appeal book filed - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal based on the determination that the applicant failed to justify failure to file Appeal Book in accordance with previous court order.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29526                    Save the Eaton's Building Coalition v. City of Winnipeg (Man.) (Civil)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache and Deschamps JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba, Number AI 02‐30‐05300, dated October 25, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Manitoba, numéro AI  02‐30‐05300, daté du 25 octobre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Remedies - Duty to act fairly - Bias - Municipal law - Zoning - Amendment - Coalition’s application to quash a zoning by-law and a conditional use order on the grounds of bias and procedural unfairness dismissed - Whether a court may deny a remedy to a party after having found that a decision making authority has breached its duties of procedural fairness and the procedure mandated by its governing statute - Whether bias may be inferred from the actions of the municipal authority in entering into a binding agreement to give effect to a development prior to conducting the public hearings into aspects of the development.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29557                    Serge Audette c. Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.) (Criminelle)

Coram :                   La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Bastarache et Deschamps

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐10‐001674‐991, daté du 17 juin 2002, est rejetée.

The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐10‐001674‐991, dated June 17, 2002, is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel (excluant la Charte)- Détermination de la peine - Déclaration de délinquant dangereux - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle commis une erreur en décidant que la procédure pour faire déclarer le demandeur délinquant dangereux pouvait être enclenchée malgré le fait que le rapport déposé selon l’article 752.1 du C. cr. ne recommandait qu’une déclaration de délinquant à contrôler? - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle commis une erreur en déclarant que le juge de première instance n’a commis aucune erreur en droit en déclarant le demandeur délinquant à contrôler? Code criminel , L.R.C. 1985, ch. C-46, art. 752.1 , 753 .

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29477                    Phillip Henry Mann v. Her Majesty the Queen (Man.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba, Number AR01‐30‐05120, dated September 25, 2002, is granted.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Manitoba, numéro AR01‐30‐05120, daté du 25 septembre 2002, est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal - Criminal Law - Search and Seizure - Search of detainee’s pocket during investigative detention -  Scope of warrantless searches of pockets during investigative detentions - Justifiable grounds to search pockets of person detained for inquiry.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29416                    Thomas Gifford v. Her Majesty the Queen (FC) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐191‐01, dated August 12, 2002, is granted with costs to the applicant in any event of the cause.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale, numéro A‐191‐01, daté du 12 août 2002, est accordée avec dépens en faveur du demandeur quelle que soit l’issue de l’appel.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Taxation - Assessment - Minister of National revenue disallowing deductions - Customer list - Financial advisors -  Deductible expense or capital outlay - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law when it concluded that the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada established a rule of law that interest was invariably a capital expenditure and that interest payable by a commission salesperson on borrowed money used for the purpose of earning employment income was not deductible in computing that employment income by virtue of s. 8 (1) (f)(v) of the Income Tax Act,  R.S.C. 1985 (5 ^th  Supp.), c. 1 , as amended - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal  erred in fact and law when it concluded that a payment by a commission salesperson to a retiring co-employee for an endorsement and other services set out in an agreement described herein for the purpose of earning employment income was a capital expenditure and not deductible in computing that employment income by virtue of s.8(1) (f)(v) of the Income Tax Act 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29495                    J.H.K. v. United States of America, Her Majesty the Queen and the Minister of Justice (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Numbers C33326 and C33327, dated June 18, 2002, is dismissed.

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéros C33326 et C33327, daté du 18 juin 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Principles of fundamental justice - Extradition - Jurisdiction - Whether Applicant’s extradition was barred by Art. 4(1)(i) of the Treaty - Whether Applicant’s surrender contrary to s. 7  of Charter  given issues of double jeopardy and the potential imposition of a life sentence with no parole eligibility for twenty-five years.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29473                    Annette Kopp v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance (Sask.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan, Number 511, dated September 24, 2002, is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Saskatchewan, numéro 511, daté du 24 septembre 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Motor vehicles - Procedural law - Settlement of claim - Applicant injured in motor vehicle accident making claim against no fault accident insurer for income replacement benefits - Applicant appealing Respondent’s decision to discontinue benefits - Applicant signing Minutes of Settlement and accepting lump sum in settlement of her claims - Applicant later applying for benefits - Whether Applicant should be entitled to a reinstatement of Income Replacement Benefits - Whether Court of Appeal should have determined the issue of the Applicant’s mental capacity at the time the agreement was signed - Whether Court of Appeal should have received certain documents into evidence and granted a hearing

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29517                    S.T.B. Holdings Ltd. v. Her Majesty the Queen (FC) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐747‐01, dated October 15, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale, numéro A‐747‐01, daté du 15 octobre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Income tax - Assessment -  Whether s. 245(7) of the Income Tax Act , R.S.C. 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 1 , requires that a reference to s. 245 and/or the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR) be made on the face of a notice of assessment or reassessment in order for s. 245 to be relied on by the Minister - Whether s. 245(7) of the Act precludes the use of s. 245 as an alternative assessing position.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29458                    Kim Nathan Louie and Todd Sheldon Louie v. Melvin Douglas Lastman (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C36567, dated September 17, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C36567, daté du 17 septembre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family law - Maintenance - Child Support - Action brought by adult Applicants against Respondent for damages for breach of fiduciary duty and tort claims arising out of his failure to provide adequate support during their dependence - Respondent’s motion to strike out claim on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause of action granted - Whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the Applicants’ claim for equitable compensation by reclassifying it as a claim for retroactive child support - Whether the scope of fiduciary duty ought to have been expanded to encompass their claim for compensation due to an obvious breach of duty - Whether the lower courts erred in finding that  there was no chance of success for the claim and have denied the Applicants access to justice.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29446                    Daleatta Ilnicki v. David Jeremy Hill (Alta.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Edmonton), Numbers 0101‐0045‐AC and 0201‐0051‐AC, dated September 23, 2002, is dismissed without costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Alberta (Edmonton), numéros 0101‐0045‐AC et 0201‐0051‐AC, daté du 23 septembre 2002, est rejetée sans dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Family law - Maintenance - Courts - Judgments and orders - Standing - Court of Appeal reasons brief - Whether requirement for Court of Appeal to give reasons - If so, what constitutes adequate reasons and when will the absence of reasons result in the reversal of their decision - Whether a litigant who is substantially in arrears for child support has status before the Court and, if so, under what circumstances.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29560                    John Lee Stevenson v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C33376, dated April 4, 2002, is dismissed.

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C33376, daté du 4 avril 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non-Charter) - Trial - Sentencing - Reasonableness of jury verdict - Error in jury charge on reasonable doubt - Reasonableness of parole ineligibility for twenty years.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29550                    Michael Pochay v. Commissioner of Corrections Canada (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C38084, dated December 4, 2002, is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C38084, daté du 4 décembre 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Parole - What is the breadth of the authority of Correctional Services of Canada, in interpreting an unclear warrant of committal issued in regards to a person under their supervision, and how that person’s sentence is to be carried out? - Does s. 11(i) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  afford protection to a person’s eligibility for Accelerated Parole Release, in respect to a retrospective application of an exclusionary amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act , S.C. 1992, c. 20 ?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29463                    Edwin Pearson v. Her Majesty the Queen (FC) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐76‐01, dated September 11, 2002, is dismissed without costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale, numéro A‐76‐01, daté du 11 septembre 2002, est rejetée sans dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Civil Procedure - Costs - Judgments and Orders - Pre-trial procedure - Whether the federal court of appeal misconstrued and erred in law and fact in its interpretation of the order of Dubé J. - Whether the federal court of appeal erred in law and in fact by issuing an order that far exceeded the relief sought by the Respondent, to the prejudice of the Applicant - Whether the federal court of appeal erred in law and in fact in failing to follow the rules of the Federal Court of Canada relative to costs and the judgments of this Honourable Court relative to fees and cost awards - Whether there existed no legal or factual error that permitted the federal court of appeal to intervene.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29499                    Edwin Pearson v. Her Majesty the Queen (FC) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐377‐01, dated September 11, 2002, is dismissed.

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale, numéro A‐377‐01, daté du 11 septembre 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Action - Civil Procedure - Pre-trial Procedure - Rule 55 of the Federal Court Rules invoked - Whether the federal court of appeal erred in law and fact when it failed to find that the order of the court appealed from conflicted with the order that denied the motion then before the court - Whether the federal court of appeal erred in law when it held that “the creative order” of Hansen J, did not conflict with Rules 47(2) and 55 of the Rules, and that this “creative order” was not an abuse of discretion or the exercise of a jurisdiction the court lacked - Whether the federal court of appeal erred in law and fact in upholding the order of Hansen J., and in failing to adjudicate certain issues.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29422                    934691 Ontario Inc. carrying on business as First Media Group Inc., 763207 Ontario Inc. and 851653 Ontario Inc. v. Bell Canada (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C37453, dated August 15, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C37453, daté du 15 août 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Appeal - Jurisdiction - Motion to stay action on grounds that matters raised were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CRTC - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to interfere with the trial judge’s determination that the CRTC is the more appropriate forum to consider the action.   

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29383                    Patricia Ann Butler v. Malcolm Kronby and McMillan Binch (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application to introduce fresh evidence is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C32053, dated July 3, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

La demande pour déposer des nouvelles preuves est rejetée.  La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C32053, daté du 3 juillet 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence - Damages - Solicitor and client - Lawyer representing client in contested divorce proceedings - Lawyer consenting to or not opposing non-depletion order - Client not aware of implications of order with respect to the sale of the former matrimonial home - Client suffering loss on sale of home and forced to go bankrupt - Client bringing negligence action against solicitor - Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to overturn trial judgment - Appropriate standard of conduct for solicitors in family law matters - Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to examine the test for negligence applied by the trial judge

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29497                    The Corporation of the City of Kingston v. The Ontario Energy Board and Union Gas Limited (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C37664, dated October 9, 2002, is dismissed with costs to the Respondent, Union Gas Limited.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C37664, daté du 9 octobre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens à l’intimée, Union Gas Limited.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Municipal law - Municipal corporations - Energy - Public utilities - Whether a provincial utility regulator, in electing not to renew a gas utility franchise, can make orders concerning the use of the underlying assets so as to allow the provision of the public utility to be carried out by a different operator than the former franchisee - Whether a public authority with a plenary jurisdiction to determine a matter in the public interest is prevented from exercising that power where that exercise would result in a minimal impairment or interference with a property right.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29462                    Captain Douglas Kay Campbell v. Metro Toronto Condominium Corporation #694 (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C‐37766, dated October 9, 2002, is dismissed without costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C‐37766, daté du 9 octobre 2002, est rejetée sans dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Property law - Statutes - Interpretation - Condominiums - Hearing to determine whether an inspector should be appointed and whether a compliance order should be issued against the Condominium corporation - Allegations of error on part of courts below.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29504                    Mellco Developments Ltd. and Newton Enterprises (1983) v. The City of Portage La Prairie and Lions Park Housing Inc. - AND -v Mellco Developments Ltd. and Newton Enterprises (1983) v. Lions Park Housing Inc. and Lions Club of Portage La Prairie (Man.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba, Numbers AI 01‐30‐05134 and AI 01‐30‐05135, dated October 1, 2002, is dismissed with costs to the Respondents, Lions Park Housing and Lions Club of Portage La Prairie.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Manitoba, numéros AI 01‐30‐05134 et AI 01‐30‐05135, daté du 1 octobre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens aux intimés, Lions Park Housing and Lions Club of Portage La Prairie.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law ‐ Contracts ‐ Tendering ‐ Unjust enrichment ‐ Constructive trust ‐ Damages ‐ Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that, in tendering, any element of negotiation of contract B means there could not be a contract A ‐ Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the subjective intentions of the parties are more important in determining the existence of contract A than what a reasonable person would conclude objectively from the material ‐ Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the duty of good faith and fairness owed by the Respondent City to the Applicants obligated the City to consider only compliant proposals, and not to evaluate the proposals according to the criteria in its Request of Proposals ‐ Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that a constructive trust cannot be imposed on a bidding competitor who obtains the sought‐after property by appearing to break the rules of the competition ‐ Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the trial judge was correct in reducing the Applicants' damages from $225,000. to $50,000. based on the Applicants' view that the Respondents' proposal was not economically feasible ‐ Whether the Court of Appeal erred in confirming the award of punitive and compensatory damages to the Respondents because of a Pending Litigation Order (PLO), when there was no finding of malice or improper motive against the Applicants, the PLO was not appealed, and there was no proof of harm caused to the Respondents.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29494                    Krishnaveni Chavali and Rajagopal Chavali v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C32576, dated October 1, 2002, is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C32576, daté du 1^er octobre 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law (Non-Charter) - Evidence - Admissibility of Reply Evidence - Whether the court of appeal erred by permitting a trial to stand in which the Crown was allowed to split its case and call improper reply evidence - Whether the court of appeal erred by finding that the admission of the reply evidence caused no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice because it “did not materially advance” the Crown’s case and caused “no unfairness” - Whether there are issues of public importance raised.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29493                    Denis Lizotte c. Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.) (Criminelle) (Autorisation)

Coram: Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et LeBel

La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐10‐002010‐005, daté du 26 septembre 2002, est rejetée.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐10‐002010‐005, dated September 26, 2002, is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Charte canadienne des droits et libert é s   - Droit criminel - Fouilles, perquisitions et saisies - Fouille accessoire à une arrestation - Exclusion de la preuve - Une fouille systématique, incluant une fouille à nu, appliquée dans le cadre d’une procédure d’écrou au comptoir du poste de police, est-elle autorisée en vertu du pouvoir de common law de procéder à une fouille accessoire à une arrestation? - Une telle procédure systématique de fouille contrevient-elle à la protection prévue à l’article 8  de la Charte ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en déclarant que les fouilles à nu subies en l’instance respectaient les limites énoncées par cette Cour? - Si cette Cour déclare les fouilles abusives, doit-elle intervenir à la décision en première instance d’exclure la preuve?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29220                    A.H. c. Paul‐André Lafleur (Qué.) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram: Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et LeBel

La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐11850‐021, daté du 25 mars 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐11850‐021, dated March 25, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Procédure civile - Requête pour obtenir la communication des dossiers médicaux du demandeur - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en refusant la requête pour permission d’en appeler d’un jugement interlocutoire statuant sur la communication des dossiers médicaux ?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29366                     Irene Whitney v. Her Majesty the Queen (FC) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐305‐01, dated June 21, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‐305‐01, daté du 21 juin 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal , in overturning the decision of the Tax Court of Canada, misinterpreted the provisions of s. (5) (1) and paragraphs 56 (1) (V) and 110 (1) (G) of the Income Tax Act ? - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal , erred in differentiating for tax purposes, between compensation benefits received by injured workers from self insured employers and benefits received from employers who pay premiums under worker compensation legislation?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29345                     Dale Kroppmanns, Allison Muriel Currie v. Pamela Jean Townsend (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA27438, dated June 11, 2002, is granted.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA27438, daté du 11 juin 2002, est accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Damages  - Motor vehicle accident - Personal injury - Whether the trier of fact is prohibited in law from considering evidence of a plaintiff’s legal fees and known capital expenditures, or whether those known expenditures should be deducted from the fund available for investment and management

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29318                     Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario v. Ontario Association of Architects (FC) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to cross‐appeal is dismissed with costs to the Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐739‐00, dated May 28, 2002, is dismissed with costs to the Respondent Ontario Association of Architects.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel incident est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‐739‐00, daté du 28 mai 2002, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de l'intimée l'Ordre des architectes de l'Ontario.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property Law - Trade marks - Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Standard of review - Statute prohibits adopting as a trade-mark any official mark adopted and used by a public authority if Registrar gives public notice of public authority’s adoption and use of the mark - Registrar gives public notice of adoption and use of official marks by applicant - Respondent brings application for judicial review to set aside notice - Whether applicant is a public authority under public benefit and governmental control test - Whether applicant subject to sufficient governmental control to be a public authority - Amount of governmental control required to satisfy the test for a public authority -  Standard of review in reviewing lower court decisions with respect to the application of test - Whether  Federal Court of Appeal erred in applying correctness to trial judge’s findings  -  Whether members of respondent prevented from using marks as a result of public notice.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29259                     Sudbury Downs Holding, a Division of Macranald Enterprise Incorporated v. Ontario Harness Horse Association (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C36305, dated June 21, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C36305, daté du 21 juin 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction of the Ontario Racing Commission to hold hearing in relation to exclusion of members from overnight racing at Sudbury Downs - Whether the court of appeal erred in ordering the Ontario Racing Commission to hold a hearing - Whether the court of appeal erred in reversing the decision of the Ontario Racing Commission and Divisional Court that the Racing Commission Act, 2000 S.O. 2000, c. 20 does not remove the common law and statutory rights of the owner/lisencee of the race track to exclude persons from its property and that the Commission has no jurisdiction to abrogate the rights of the owner/lisencee to control access to the track -  Racing Commission Act, 2000 S.O. 2000, c. 20.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29156                     La Fondation Artisans, Claude Lévesque c. Raymond Chabot Inc. ès qualités de liquidateur de Les Coopérants, Société mutuelle d'assurance‐vie/Coopérants, Mutual Life Insurance Society (Qué.) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram: Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et LeBel

La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐005722‐970, daté du 12 février 2002, est rejetée.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐005722‐970, dated February 12, 2002, is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Faillite - Association - Personnalité juridique - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en décidant que les sommes détenues entre les mains du liquidateur de la débitrice devaient être incluses dans le processus de liquidation forcé de cette dernière et mises au profit de la masse des créanciers, se trouvant ainsi à nier tout attribut de personnalité juridique à la  Fondation Artisans et à dénaturer la raison d’être de la collecte et l’utilisation de ces fonds qui étaient et sont pour des fins éducatives seulement et non pour des créanciers étrangers à ces finalités? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en substituant sa propre opinion dans l’appréciation des faits à celle du juge de première instance? 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29338                     General Motors Corp. v. Daryl Oshanek as representative Plaintiff (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia, Number CA028156, dated June 6, 2002, is dismissed.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique, numéro CA028156, daté du 6 juin 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Assumption of jurisdiction - Allegations of deceptive trade practices concerning the paint on vehicles manufactured by the Applicants and sold in British Columbia - Whether the proposed interpretation and application of the Trade Practice Act, R.S.B.C., c. 457, a) have extraterritorial effect, or b) are inconsistent with provincial heads of power.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29339                     DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Frank Robson and Karen Robson as representative Plaintiffs (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia, Number CA028155, dated June 6, 2002, is dismissed.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique, numéro CA028155, daté du 6 juin 2002, est rejetée. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Assumption of jurisdiction - Allegations of deceptive trade practices concerning the paint on vehicles manufactured by the Applicants and sold in British Columbia - Does Moran v. Pyle (1973), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 193, establish the test of jurisdiction simpliciter applicable to not only common law, but also statutory torts regardless of territorial limitations otherwise applicable pursuant to the Constitution Act ,  1867 , 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3  (U.K.)? Is the real and substantial connection test established to determine whether jurisdiction simpliciter exists in respect of torts (and subsequently extended to contract) applicable to determine the extent of a province’s legislative jurisdiction?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29414                     James Bradford Medd v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ.

The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C36710, dated May 21, 2002, is dismissed.

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C36710, daté du 21 mai 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation – Income Tax – Whether Income Tax Act is ultra vires the federal government.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29169                    Claude Landry c. La Cour du Québec, La Coopérative d'habitation Jeanne‐Mance (Qué.) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram: Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et LeBel

La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐000953‐950, daté du 20 février 2002, est rejetée.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐000953‐950, dated February 20, 2002, is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Procédure - Contrôle judiciaire - Tribunaux - Juridiction - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en rejetant la demande de révision judiciaire à l’encontre de la décision de la Cour du Québec qui s’était déclarée sans compétence pour décider de l’existence et de la légalité de l’expulsion du demandeur? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en ne se prononçant pas sur la clause d’augmentation automatique de loyer en cas de révocation du statut de membre?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 3 août 1990

Régie du logement

(Me Chicoyne, membre)

Demande de la coopérative intimée accueillie; bail du demandeur résilié; éviction du demandeur ordonnée; demandeur condamné à payer la somme de 2 592$

Le 21 novembre 1991

Cour du Québec

(Bilodeau, j.c.q.)

Appel rejeté en partie; la Cour se déclare non compétente pour disposer de la légalité de la résolution d’expulsion du demandeur; la Cour conserve compétence pour disposer des autres questions

Le 5 mai 1995

Cour supérieure du Québec

(Nolin j.c.s.)

Requête du demandeur pour révision judiciaire et pour jugement déclaratoire accueillie; résolution d’expulsion annulée;  demandeur déclaré membre de l’intimée et locataire de l’immeuble au loyer fixé pour les membres

Le 20 février 2002

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Gendreau, Forget et Rochon [ad hoc] jj.c.a.)

Appel de l’intimée accueilli; appel incident du demandeur rejeté; Régie du Logement et Cour du Québec déclarées non compétentes pour disposer de la question de la légalité de la résolution d’expulsion; résolution d’expulsion déclarée illégale; dossier retourné à la Cour du Québec pour qu’elle dispose des seules questions pour lesquelles elle avait conservé compétence

Le 19 avril, 2002

Cour Suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

29237                     Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters (''OFAH''), C. Davison Ankney v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Natural Resources, The Honourable John Snobelen (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ.

The motion to strike out certain materials is granted with costs to the Respondents on a party and party basis and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C36139, dated April 19, 2002, is dismissed with costs on a party and party basis.

La demande de radiation de certains documents est accordée avec dépens en faveur des intimés comme entre parties et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C36139, daté du 19 avril 2002, est rejetée avec dépens comme entre parties.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Civil Rights - Administrative law - Jurisdiction - Judicial Review - Whether appellate court erred in quashing examinations of Premier and Minister on issue of whether Minister made own decision in exercising his discretion to pass regulation closing spring bear hunt - Does regulation infringe rights under sections 2(a) , 2(b) , 7  and 15  of the Charter  - Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, S. O. 1997, c. 41 - Fresh Evidence - Costs.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29410                     Genpharm Inc. v. The Minister of Health, Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals Canada, Inc. and The Procter & Gamble Company AND BETWEEN Genpharm Inc. v. The Minister of Health, Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals Canada, Inc. and The Procter & Gamble Company (FC) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ.

The applications for leave to appeal from the judgments of the Federal Court of Appeal, Numbers A‐615‐01, dated July 8, 2002 and A‐616‐01, dated July 23, 2002, are dismissed with costs to the Respondents Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals Canada, Inc. and The Procter & Gamble Company.

Les demandes d'autorisation d'appel des arrêts de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéros A‐615‐01, daté du 8 juillet 2002 et A‐616‐01, daté du 23 juillet 2002, sont rejetées avec dépens en faveur des intimées Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals Canada, Inc. et The Procter & Gamble Company. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Patents - Patented medicines - Notice of compliance - Notice of allegation - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal  erred in law in holding that the Patented Medicine (Notice of Compliance) Regulations must be interpreted such that a generic drug company who seeks approval from the Minister of Health to market a drug for an old or unpatented purpose must allege in its Notice of Allegation and satisfy the Court that no third party would use that drug for another, patented, purpose whether or not that third party is under the generic drug company’s influence or control - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal  erred in law in holding that a Notice of Allegation served pursuant to the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations could not be subject to being perfected by Court order - Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133

PROCEDURAL HISTORY