Bulletins

SUPREME COURT                                       COUR SUPRÊME

      OF CANADA                                             DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

This Bulletin is published at the direction of the Registrar and is for general information only.  It is not to be used as evidence of its content, which, if required, should be proved by Certificate of the Registrar under the Seal of the Court.  While every effort is made to ensure accuracy, no responsibility is assumed for errors or omissions.

Ce Bulletin, publié sous l'autorité de la registraire, ne vise qu'à fournir des renseignements d'ordre général.  Il ne peut servir de preuve de son contenu.  Celle‑ci s'établit par un certificat du registraire donné sous le sceau de la Cour.  Rien n'est négligé pour assurer l'exactitude du contenu, mais la Cour décline toute responsabilité pour les erreurs ou omissions.

 

Subscriptions may be had at $200 per year, payable in advance, in accordance with the Court tariff.  During Court sessions it is usually issued weekly.

Le prix de l'abonnement, fixé dans le tarif de la Cour, est de 200 $ l'an, payable d'avance.  Le Bulletin paraît en principe toutes les semaines pendant les sessions de la Cour.

 

The Bulletin, being a factual report of recorded proceedings, is produced in the language of record.  Where a judgment has been rendered, requests for copies should be made to the Registrar, with a remittance of $10 for each set of reasons.  All remittances should be made payable to the Receiver General for Canada.

Le Bulletin rassemble les procédures devant la Cour dans la langue du dossier.  Quand un arrêt est rendu, on peut se procurer les motifs de jugement en adressant sa demande au registraire, accompagnée de 10 $ par exemplaire.  Le paiement doit être fait à l'ordre du Receveur général du Canada.

 

 

October 22, 2004 1541 - 1563                                                             le 22 octobre 2004

CONTENTS                                                     TABLE DES MATIÈRES

 

 

Applications for leave to appeal filed   Applications for leave submitted to Court since last issue   Oral hearing ordered   Oral hearing on applications for leave   Judgments on applications for leave   Judgment on motion   Motions   Notice of reference   Notices of appeal filed since last issue   Notices of intervention filed since last issue   Notices of discontinuance filed since last issue   Appeals heard since last issue and disposition   Pronouncements of appeals reserved     Rehearing   Headnotes of recent judgments   Agenda   Summaries of the cases   Notices to the Profession and Press Release   Deadlines: Appeals   Judgments reported in S.C.R.

1541 - 1542     1543 - 1548     -   -     1549 - 1554     -   1555 - 1558   -   1559     -     -     1560 - 1562     -     -   -   -   -   -     1563   -

Demandes d'autorisation d'appel déposées   Demandes soumises à la Cour depuis la dernière parution   Audience ordonnée   Audience sur les demandes d'autorisation     Jugements rendus sur les demandes                                                                                  d'autorisation   Jugement sur requête   Requêtes   Avis de renvoi   Avis d'appel déposés depuis la dernière parution   Avis d'intervention déposés depuis la                                                                                    dernière parution   Avis de désistement déposés depuis la     dernière parution   Appels entendus depuis la dernière parution et résultat   Jugements rendus sur les appels en délibéré   Nouvelle audition   Sommaires des arrêts récents   Calendrier   Résumés des affaires   Avis aux avocats et communiqué de presse   Délais: Appels   Jugements publiés au R.C.S.

 

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FILED

DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION D'APPEL DÉPOSÉES

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

R.V.M.

Sonia Heyeur

 

c. (30499)

 

M.B.G.A., et autres (Qc)

Jean El Masri

El Masri Dugal

 

DATE DE PRODUCTION: 7.9.2004

 

 

The Immigration and Refugee Board

Lorne Waldman

Waldman and Associates

 

v. (30564)

 

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (FC)

Ian Hicks

Attorney General of Canada

 

FILING DATE: 28.9.2004

 

 

Wilfred Dwayne Johnson

Terrance G. Sheppard

Boyne Clarke

 

v. (30556)

 

Her Majesty the Queen (N.S.)

William D. Delaney

Attorney General of Nova Scotia

 

FILING DATE: 29.9.2004

 

 

John Susin

John Susin

 

v. (30565)

 

Ronald G. Chapman (Ont.)

M. Scott Martin

Torkin Manes Cohen Arbus

 

FILING DATE: 30.9.2004

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Brian Chutskoff, et al.

Eugene Meehan, Q.C.

Lang Michener

 

v. (30563)

 

Mary Waterhouse as executrix for the estate of Angeline Ruskin (Sask.)

Karen M. Prisciak, Q.C.

A.S.K. Law

 

FILING DATE: 4.10.2004

 

 

Edna Jane Visneskie

Brigitte Gratl

Gratl Law Office

 

v. (30555)

 

Ronald Brian Visneskie (Ont.)

Tracy Miller

Miller Law Office

 

FILING DATE: 6.10.2004

 

 

David Baugh

David Baugh

 

v. (30474)

 

Faculty Association of Red Deer College, et al. (Alta.)

Simon Renouf, Q.C.

Simon Renouf Professional Corporation

 

FILING DATE: 7.10.2004

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S.B., et autre

Catherine Brousseau

Houle, Nilsson, Brousseau

 

c. (30558)

 

Marie Maynard, personne autorisée par le Directeur de la proctection de la jeunesse des Centres jeunesses de la Mauricie et du Centre du Québec, et autre (Qc)

Jean-François Champoux

Madore, Trudel, Champoux, Leduc

 

DATE DE PRODUCTION: 8.10.2004

 

 

Her Majesty the Queen

John A. Henheffer

Attorney General of New Brunswick

 

v. (30557)

 

Jason Daniel MacKay (N.B.)

Brian D. Munro

 

FILING DATE: 12.10.2004

 

 

Gregory Peace

Gregory Peace

 

v. (30287)

 

Attorney General of Canada (FC)

Jan E. Brongers

Attorney General of Canada

 

FILING DATE: 13.10.2004

 

 

 

 

 

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE  SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE

DEMANDES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION

 

OCTOBER 18, 2004 / LE 18 OCTOBRE 2004

 

                                                CORAM:  Chief Justice McLachlin and Binnie and Charron JJ.

La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Binnie et Charron

 

 

Eric Young and Marlene Young

 

v. (30377)

 

The Saanich Police Department and the Capital Regional District (B.C.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  (Civil ) - Civil  rights -Statutes - Interpretation - Ss. 7  and 15  of the Charter  - Food and drugs - Medical use of marihuana - Eviction - Residential Tenancy Act, RSBC 1996, c. 406 -  Did the Court of Appeal for British Columbia err when interpreting s.   32(1)  of the Charter ? - Did the Court of Appeal err when determining that police questioning about medical information falls outside the ambit of s. 8  of the Charter ? - Did the Court of Appeal err in law when deciding that there is no evidence supporting a finding of violations of s. 15(1)  of the Charter ? - Is the Constitutional Question Act, R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 68 constitutionally valid?

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

June 13, 2003 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Macaulay J.)		Applicants’ application for judicial review, dismissed; Applicants’ petition seeking constitutional remedies for alleged Charter  breaches, dismissed
April 16, 2004 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Finch C.J.B.C., Lowry and Huddart JJ.A.)		Appeal dismissed
June 9, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada		Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

Ivan Morris and Carl Olsen

 

v. (30328)

 

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Native law  - Constitutional law -  Aboriginal rights - Hunting at night - Whether bona fide safety regulations such as prohibition on night hunting conflict with  Douglas Treaty right to hunt - What is the proper definition, in a dispute concerning treaty rights, of the exclusive federal jurisdiction in s. 91(24)  of the Constitution Act, 1867  over “Indians and the Lands reserved for Indians”? - Are treaty rights to be interpreted in their modern context by restricting their scope with contemporary safety regulations? - What is the scope of the protection from provincial laws accorded to treaty rights under s. 88 of the Indian Act?

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

June 11, 1999

Provincial Court of British Columbia

(Higinbotham J.)

Applicants convicted of hunting with a firearm during prohibited hours and hunting by the use or with the aid of a light or illuminating device contrary to s. 27(1)(d) and (e) of the Wildlife Act Applicant Olsen, convicted of discharging a firearm at wildlife from a motor vehicle contrary to s. 28(1) of the Wildlife Act

May 24, 2002 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Singh J.)		Appeal from conviction dismissed
March 3, 2004 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Lambert [dissenting], Huddart and Thackray JJ.A.)		Appeal dismissed
May 3, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada		Application for leave to appeal filed
June 3, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada		Application for leave to cross- appeal filed.

 

 

CORAM:  Major, Fish and Silberman Abella JJ.

Les juges Major, Fish et Silberman Abella

 

Andrew Davis a.k.a Andrija Tramsek

 

v. (30155)

 

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

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Criminal Law (Non Charter) - Trial - Jury Instructions - Similar fact evidence - Trial on two counts of intentionally causing an explosion and two counts of mailing an explosive device -  Whether trial judge erred in instructing jury to consider all of the evidence in determining whether applicant guilty of two separate transactions without a finding of similar fact evidence - Whether trial judge ought to have instructed jury to consider transactions separately and not to use evidence related to one transaction as evidence to convict on the other - Whether trial judge erred in telling the jury that the only live issue was identification - Whether Court of Appeal erred in applying curative proviso.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

July 13, 2002 Supreme Court of British Columbia		Convictions: two counts of intentionally causing an explosion and two counts of sending an explosive device to a person with intent to do bodily harm (ss. 81(1) (a) and 81(1) (b)(ii) of the Criminal Code )

December 4, 2003 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Ryan, Newbury and Levine JJ.A.)
Appeal from convictions dismissedJanuary 27, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada		Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

Petro‑Canada

 

v. (30433)

 

Her Majesty the Queen (FC)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Statutes - Interpretation - Commercial law - Arm’s length transaction - Income Tax Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp .), s. 66.1(6)(a) “Canadian exploration expense” - Whether expenditures made by the Applicant were Canadian exploration expenses - Whether the lower courts applied the correct test to determine the Applicant’s “purpose” under s. 66.1(6)(a), which provides for immediate deductibility of an “eligible exploration expense” incurred “for the purpose of determining the existence, location, extent or quality of an accumulation of petroleum or natural gas” in Canada - Whether the lower courts applied the correct test to determine whether the parties were acting at “arm’s length” under s. 251(1)  of the Income Tax Act .

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

December 6, 2002 Tax Court of Canada (Bowie J.)		Applicant’s appeal from income tax assessment for 1992 taxation year, dismissed
April 23, 2004 Federal Court of Appeal (Létourneau, Nadon and Sharlow JJ.A.)		Appeal allowed in part; reassessment referred back to the Minister of National Revenue
July 9, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada		Applications for leave to appeal and for extension of time filed

 

 

Zdzislaw Wojtowicz

 

v. (30285)

 

Maria Wojtowicz (Man.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Procedural Law‑ Costs- Family Law‑ Whether the Bill of Costs is in accordance with the Queen’s Bench Rules of Tariff Classification- Whether the error must be corrected in accordance with the law.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

November 7, 2002 Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Family Division) (McKelvey J.)
Respondent awarded Class III costs in accordance with the Queen's Bench Rules October 15, 2003 Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (McKelvey J.)		Leave to appeal granted
February 25, 2004 Court of Appeal of Manitoba (Huband, Monnin and Freedman JJ.A.)		Appeal dismissed
May 25, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada		Application for leave to appeal filed
June 9, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada (Arbour J.)		Applicant’s motion to extend time to file and/or serve leave application to May 25, 2004, granted

 

 

CORAM:  Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

 

Greenpeace Canada, Tzeporah Berman, and Tamara Stark

 

v. (30443)

 

Clint Verchere, Rod Plosz, Richard Wild, and Terry Poslowsky (B.C.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Torts - Intentional torts - Negligence - Whether the definition of the tort of intentional interference with contractual relations is an issue of public importance, given conflicting appellate decisions from British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Nova Scotia - Whether the British Columbia Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Applicants had both knowledge of, and the intent to interfere with, the Respondents’ contractual relations.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

April 29, 2003 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Sinclair Prowse J.)		Applicants held liable and order to pay the total sum of $5,925 to the Respondents in damages
May 3, 2004 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Southin, Braidwood and Oppal JJ.A)		Appeal dismissed
July 30, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada		Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 

 

 

 

Benoit Baron

 

c. (30524)

 

Ville de Saint‑Lin‑Laurentides (Qc)

 

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

 

Droit municipal - Municipalités - Fossé - Propriété - Requête en bornage - Entre 1994 et 2000, la Ville de St-Lin a-t-elle respecté le Code municipal du Québec, L.R.Q., ch. C-27.1, afin de faire valoir son droit de propriété sur la parcelle de terrain en litige? - Après la fusion en l’an 2000, la nouvelle Ville de St-Lin-Laurentides a-t-elle respecté la Loi sur les cités et villes, L.R.Q., ch. C-19, afin de faire valoir son droit de propriété sur la parcelle de terrain en litige?

 

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

 

Le 29 septembre 2003 Cour supérieure du Québec (Le juge Jean Guibault)		Requête du demandeur afin de déterminer le droit de bornage accueillie en partie
Le 22 juin 2004 Cour d’appel du Québec (Les juges Dussault, Benoit et Morissette)		Appel de l’intimée accueilli et jugement de première instance infirmé
Le 17 septembre 2004 Cour suprême du Canada		Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée

 

 

Sous‑ministre du Revenu du Québec

 

c. (30382)

 

Richard Moufarrège (Qc)

 

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

 

Droit fiscal – Déduction d’un montant payé à titre d’intérêts sur un prêt contracté pour générer un revenu de bien ou d’entreprise – Déductibilité du montant payé à titre d’intérêts lorsque la source génératrice de revenus disparaît – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en déterminant que l’intimé pouvait déduire les intérêts alors que les immeubles initialement acquis avaient été vendus et que le produit d’aliénation avait été affecté au remboursement partiel de l’emprunt? – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en déterminant que l’intimé pouvait déduire les intérêts alors que les actions d’une société désormais en faillite étaient réputées avoir été aliénées et de nouveau acquises à un coût nul en vertu des art. 232.1 et 299 de la Loi sur les impôts, L.R.Q., ch. I-3? – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en déterminant que la dépense d’intérêt demeure déductible si le lien entre cette dépense et le bien visé est maintenu depuis son origine, et que la question de la relation entre la dépense et la source de revenu ne se pose qu’au moment de l’investissement initial?

 

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

 

Le 19 avril 2002 Cour du Québec (Le juge Barbe)
Requête de l’intimé pour annuler des avis de cotisation à l’égard des années d’imposition 1993, 1994, 1995 et 1996, rejetéeLe 13 avril 2004 Cour d’appel du Québec (Les juges Baudouin, Morin et Rochon)		Appel accueilli
Le 10 juin 2004 Cour suprême du Canada		Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

 

 

JUDGMENTS ON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE

JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION

 

                                                                                                                                                             

 

OCTOBER 21, 2004 / LE 21 OCTOBRE 2004

 

30219                    Jason Dwight Linley v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (B.C.) (Civil ) (By Leave)

 

Coram:                    Major, Fish and Silberman Abella 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 British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA029610, dated January 12, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

 

 La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‑Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA029610, daté du 12 janvier 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Commercial law –  Insurance –  Automobile insurance –  Coverage – Unlicenced driver striking and injuring pedestrian while driving in field – Vehicle insured by Respondent – Courts below finding Applicant forfeited coverage under insurance policy by driving without licence –  Whether court of appeal erred in law in its interpretation of s. 55(3)(i) of motor vehicle regulation, by concluding phrase “authorized and qualified by law” imposed duty to obtain drivers licence to have coverage, when: no such obligation exists in British Columbia; Applicant’s conduct not prohibited by statute, regulation, or common law, and; no process in British Columbia by which Applicant could be either authorized or qualified to drive, not on a highway, but in a field – Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 288, s. 24(1) – Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 204, s. 18(1)(c) – Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Regulations, Revised Regulation (1984), B.C. Reg. 447/83, s. 55(3)(a).

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

May 27, 2002 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Cole J.)		Applicant in breach of s.55 of the Revised Regulations (1984) under the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act
January 12, 2004 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Braidwood, Mackenzie and Low JJ.A.)		Applicant’s appeal dismissed
March 12, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada		Application for leave to appeal filed
July 30, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada		Motion to extend time to serve application filed

 

 

30350                    Keyvan Nourhaghighi v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, Mervin Witter, Bob Fagan, Bell Canada, Sprint Canada, Wennifer Wilson, The Canadian Radio‑Telecommunications Commission, Robert Birgeneau, The University of Toronto, Robert Pearce, The Bank of Montreal, The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Dennis Osborne, Bank of Nova Scotia, The MBNA Canada Bank, Toronto Dominion Bank, Nicole Barbe, Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Richard Schobesberger, Tina Soares, The Transport Canada, Bruce Preston, Michel Lortie, Orland Carryl, Anne Edge, Anne Roland, The Attorney General of Canada (FC) (Civil ) (By Leave)

Coram     :               Major, Fish and Silberman Abella JJ.

 

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‑50‑01, dated March 2, 2004 and all ancillary motions, are dismissed with costs to the respondent the Attorney General of Canada.

 

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‑50‑01, daté du 2 mars 2004 et toutes les requêtes accessoires, sont rejetées avec dépens en faveur de l'intimé le Procureur général du Canada.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Procedural law - Civil  procedure - Judgments and orders - Whether the Federal Court of Canada committed a double standard, ‘intimidation’ and the discriminatory practices in complying with ‘Orders and Directions’ and the Rules that governs the ‘Service of Documents’, ‘Application’, ‘Contempt of Proceedings’, ‘and the ‘Costs to self-represent citizens’ in the circumstances of this case that offend Sections 2, 5(a)(b), 13 and 59 of the Canadian Human Rights Act? -  Whether there is an institutional conflict of interest that does not allow the judges of the ‘Federal Court of Canada’ be able to act independent and impartial in the ‘mandamus’ or a ‘review of a decision’ issues against their own clerks and managers that were respondents before the ‘Canadian Human Rights Commission’? - Whether the fairness and impartiality is both subjectively and objectively demonstrated to the eyes of informed and reasonable observer in the circumstances of this case? If the answer is negative, whether the applicant’s rights guaranteed under Sections 7 , 9 , 10 , 11(a) (d), 12 , 15  and 24(1)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  (“Charter ”) infringed; whether the infringement is justifiable under Section 1  of the Charter ?

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

August 18, 2000 Federal Court, Trial Division		Notice of application
January 22, 2001 Federal Court of Canada (Gibson J.)		Applicant’s application for judicial review dismissed; Respondent Canadian Human  Rights Commission, MBNA Canada Bank,Mervin Witter and Bob Fagan’s motion for an order dismissing the application against each of them, without leave to amend, granted
December 14, 2001 Federal Court of Appeal (Décary J.A.)		Appeal deemed discontinued for delay
March 2, 2004 Federal Court of Appeal (Evans J.A.)		Motion to set aside the discontinuance order dismissed
April 30, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada		Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

30362                    Canadian Kawasaki Motors Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada (FC) (Civil ) (By Leave)

 

Coram:                    Major, Fish and Silberman Abella JJ.

 

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‑358‑03, dated April 2, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‑358‑03, daté du 2 avril 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Administrative law – Appeal – Standard of review – Customs and excise – Classification of goods – Decision of Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) classifying all-terrain vehicles (“ATVs” or “quad bikes”) as “motorcycles” and not “motor cars and other vehicles” under the Schedule to the Customs Tariff, found unreasonable and reversed by the Federal Court of Appeal – Whether CITT decision reasonable – What are Canada’s legal obligations arising from global economy and harmonization of tariff classifications – Are quad bikes more akin to motorcycles or cars and other motor vehicles and who is in the best position to make that determination: a specialist tribunal or a non-specialist court.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

May 2, 2003 Canadian International Trade Tribunal (Close, Presiding Member)		Applicant’s appeals of the classification of ATVs under the Schedule to the Customs Tariff, allowed; ATV’s classified as “motorcycles” under heading No. 87.11 as opposed to “motor cars and other vehicles principally designed for the transport of persons” under heading No. 87.03
April 2, 2004 Federal Court of Appeal (Evans, Létourneau and Malone JJ.A.)		Respondent’s appeal allowed: CITT decision set aside; Applicant’s appeals from Commissioner’s decisions dismissed
May 31, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada		Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

30389                    Star Choice Television Network Incorporated v. The Commissioner of Customs and Revenue (FC) (Civil ) (By Leave)

 

Coram:                    Major, Fish and Silberman Abella JJ.

 

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‑67‑03, dated April 13, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

 

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‑67‑03, daté du 13 avril 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Administrative law – Appeal – Standard of review – Customs and excise – Classification of goods under Customs Tariff ,  S.C. 1997, c. 36  – Decision of Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) classifying integrated receivers/decoders (IRDs) as falling  within tariff item number 8528.12.99 as an "other colour reception apparatus for television" under the Schedule to the Customs Tariff – CITT decision upheld as reasonable by Federal Court of Appeal – Whether CITT decision reasonable – On an appeal from a tribunal’s decision restricted to questions of law and governed by the standard of reasonableness simpliciter, is the appellate court required, under the pragmatic and functional approach, to consider whether the tribunal’s findings of fact (and hence its application of law to the facts) are reasonably based on the evidence before it?  If a tribunal’s findings of fact and hence decision are not reasonably based on the evidence, does this constitute an error of law, an excess of jurisdiction or otherwise make the tribunal’s decision unreasonable?  Under what circumstances can expert evidence in CITT hearings be relied upon to show that it would be unreasonable to follow non-binding classification guides issued by the World Customs Organization, particularly where the guides relate to different apparatus and provide little or no rationale for their conclusion?

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

November 8, 2002 Canadian International Trade Tribunal (Kvarda , Presiding Member; Thalheimer and Ogilvy, Members)		Applicant’s appeal pursuant to subsection 67(1)  of the Customs Act , whether the integrated receivers/decoders are properly classified under tariff item No. 8528.12.99 as other colour reception apparatus for television, dismissed
April 13, 2004 Federal Court of Appeal (Evans _dissenting_ , Strayer, and Sexton JJ.A.)		Appeal dismissed
June 11, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada		Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

30393                    Bruce Morris v. Her Majesty the Queen (FC) (Civil ) (By Leave)

 

Coram:                    Major, Fish and Silberman Abella 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‑285‑03, dated March 30, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

 

 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‑285‑03, daté du 30 mars 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

 Taxation - Assessment - Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Whether the lower courts erred in its findings that the Applicant’s endeavours as a fishing guide did not constitute a source of income under the Income Tax Act  having regard to the approach set out in Stewart v. Canada, 2002 SCC 46.  

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

July 12, 2001 Tax Court of Canada (O’Connor J.T.C.C.)		Applicant’s appeals from tax assessments under the Income Tax Act  for taxation years 1996, 1997 and 1998, dismissed
March 4, 2003 Federal Court of Appeal (Strayer, Evans and Malone JJ.A.)		Application for judicial review allowed; Tax Court decision set aside;  matter remitted to another Tax Court judge for reconsideration
May 14, 2003 Tax Court of Canada (Bowie J.T.C.C.)		Applicant’s appeals from tax assessments under the Income Tax Act  for taxation years 1996, 1997 and 1998, dismissed

March 30, 2004 Federal Court of Appeal (Strayer, Noël and Sexton JJ.A.)
Application for judicial review dismissedJune 16, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada		Application for leave to appeal and motion for extension of time filed

 

 

30396                    Nicole Desjardins et Mohamed Sdiri c. Centre d'achats St‑Jérôme Inc. (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

 

Coram:                    Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

 

 Les requêtes pour déposer de nouveaux éléments de preuve et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‑09‑012438‑024, daté du 28 avril 2004, sont rejetées avec dépens.

 

 The motions to adduce new evidence and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‑09‑012438‑024, dated April 28, 2004, are dismissed with costs. 

 

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

 

Droit des biens - Locateurs et locataires - Est-ce que les demandeurs ont eu droit à un procès impartial? - Est-ce que la Cour d’appel a commis une erreur en rejetant les prétentions des demandeurs à l’effet qu’ils avaient renouvelé le bail? - Est-ce que la Cour d’appel a commis une erreur en rejetant les prétentions des demandeurs qu’ils ont été expulsés des lieux de l’intimée? - Est-ce que la Cour d’appel a commis une erreur en rejetant les prétentions des demandeurs à l’effet que la clause d’exclusivité empêchait la venue du magasin Dollarama?

 

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

 

Le 12 juin 2002 Cour supérieure du Québec (Le juge Silcoff)		Action des demandeurs rejetée; demande reconventionnelle de l’intimée rejetée
Le 28 avril 2004 Cour d’appel du Québec (Les juges Robert, Rayle et Biron [ad hoc])		Appel rejeté
Le 17 juin 2004 Cour suprême du Canada		Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée

 

 

30427                    Ernst Zundel v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Civil ) (By Leave)

 

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

 

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number 41054, dated May 19, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

 

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro 41054, daté du 19 mai 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Administrative Law - Jurisdiction - Immigration law - Security certificate - Canadian Charter  - Civil  - Whether the principle set out by this Honourable Court in R. v. Gamble, that courts considering habeas corpus applications should ensure that justice prevails over rigid procedural rules is still good law - Whether the secret trial legislation violates sections 7 , 9 , 10(c)  of the Charter  - When the case law on a procedural point arguably changes during a case, whether a party who has reasonably relied on the old law to his detriment should be essentially told retroactively that he is “out of luck” based on the new case law - Whether it is appropriate for courts to allow one party to procedurally sandbag the other party and bounce him from court to court in a jurisdictional ping-pong game.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

November 25, 2003 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Benotto J.)		Jurisdiction declined; Respondent’s motion for a stay of proceedings granted
May 19, 2004 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Charron, Rosenberg and Gillese JJ.A.)		Appeal dismissed
July 6, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada		Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

MOTIONS

REQUÊTES

 

12.10.2004

 

Before / Devant: DESCHAMPS J.

 

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum and book of authorities of the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario and for an order to present oral argument at the hearing of the appeal   Provincial Court Judges’ Association of New Brunswick, et al.   v. (30006)   Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of New Brunswick as represented by the Minister of Justice (N.B.)		Requête de l’intervenant le procureur général de l’Ontario en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de ses mémoire et recueil de sources, et en vue de présenter une plaidoirie orale lors de l’audition de l’appel

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

 

UPON APPLICATION by the intervener, the Attorney General of Ontario, for an order extending the time to serve and file its factum and book of authorities to October 5, 2004, and for an order to present oral argument at the hearing of this appeal.

 

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

 

The motion is granted.

 

 

13.10.2004

 

Before / Devant: THE CHIEF JUSTICE

 

Motion to adjourn the hearing of the appeal

 

Liquid Carbonic Inc., et al.

 

v. (29782)

 

British Colombia’s Children’s Hospital, et al. (B.C.)

Requête pour ajourner l'audition de l'appel

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

 

UPON APPLICATION by the appellants for an order extending the time to serve and file their factum, record and book of authorities to November 15, 2004 and for an order adjourning the hearing of the appeal;

 

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

 

1)             The appellants are granted an extension of time to serve and file their factum, record and book of authorities to November 15, 2004.

2)             The motion to adjourn the appeal is granted.

 

15.10.2004

 

Before / Devant: SILBERMAN ABELLA J.

 

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum and book of authorities of the intervener the Attorney General for Saskatchewan and for an order to present oral argument at the hearing of the appeal

 

Christopher Orbanski

 

v. (29793)

 

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

 

- and between -

 

Her Majesty the Queen

 

v. (29920)

 

David Jeff Elias (Man.) (Crim.)

Requête de l’intervenant le Procureur général de la Saskatchewan en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de ses mémoire et recueil de sources, et en vue de présenter une plaidoirie orale lors de l’audition de l’appel

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

 

UPON APPLICATION by the intervener, the Attorney General of Saskatchewan, for an order extending the time to serve and file its factum and book of authorities to October 4, 2004, and for an order to present oral argument at the hearing of these appeals.

 

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

 

The motion is granted.

 

 

15.10.2004

 

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

 

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the response of the respondent James Coultice

 

Her Majesty the Queen

 

v. (30459)

 

James Coultice, et al. (Ont.) (Crim.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to October 1, 2004.

 

 

15.10.2004

 

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

 

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the applicant's reply to September 13, 2004

 

Bruce Morris

 

v. (30393)

 

Her Majesty the Queen (FC)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la réplique du demandeur jusqu’au 13 septembre 2004

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

 

 

15.10.2004

 

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

 

Miscellaneous motions

 

Sameer Mapara

 

v. (29750)

 

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

 

- and between -

 

Simon Kwok Cheng Chow

 

v. (29919)

 

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

Autres requêtes

 

GRANTED IN PART / ACCORDÉES EN PARTIE

 

UPON APPLICATION by the appellant, Simon Kwok Cheng Chow, for an order permitting the filing of a single record in both appeals, extending the time to serve and file its factum, joint record and book of authorities to October 1, 2004, permitting the appellant to file a factum of no more than 50 pages and permitting the Crown to file a single factum in response to both cases of no more than 100 pages;

 

AND UPON APPLICATION by the appellant, Sameer Mapara, for an order permitting the appellant to file a factum of no more than 50 pages and permitting the Crown to file a single factum in response to both cases of no more than 100 pages;

 

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

 

The motions are granted in part.

 

The motion by the appellant, Simon Kwok Cheng Chow, for an order permitting the filing of a single record in both appeals and extending the time to serve and file its factum, joint record and book of authorities to October 1, 2004, is granted.

 

The motions by the appellants, Simon Kwok Cheng Chow and Sameer Mapara, for an order permitting the appellants to file factums of no more than 50 pages, are granted.

 

The motions by the appellants, Sameer Mapara and Simon Kwok Cheng Chow, for an order permitting the respondent to file a single factum of no more than 100 pages, is dismissed.

 

 

NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE

AVIS D’APPEL DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

 

14.10.2004

 

P.E.C.

 

v. (30561)

 

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

 

(As of Right)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPEALS HEARD SINCE LAST ISSUE AND DISPOSITION

APPELS ENTENDUS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION ET RÉSULTAT

 

14.10.2004

 

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Silberman Abella and Charron JJ.

 

Normand Martineau

 

c. (29794)

 

Le ministre du Revenu national, et al. (CF)(Civile) (Autorisation)

 

Frédéric Hivon et Jacques Waite pour l’appelant.

 

Pierre Cossette et Yvan Poulin pour l’intimés.

 

Michel Y. Hélie pour l’intervenant Attorney General of Ontario.

 

Richard Dubois et Gilles Laporte pour l’intervenant Procureur général du Québec.

 

DISMISSED, REASONS TO FOLLOW / REJETÉ, MOTIFS À SUIVRE

 

L’appel interjeté contre l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale, numéro A‑71‑02, en date du 3 avril 2003, a été entendu aujourd'hui et le jugement suivant a été rendu:

 

 

 

 

La Juge en chef (oralement) – Nous sommes tous d’avis que l’appel doit être rejeté.  Motifs à suivre.

 

The appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‑71‑02, dated April 3, 2003, was heard this day  and the following judgment was rendered:

 

[Translation]

 

The Chief Justice (orally) – We are all of the view that this appeal should be dismissed.  Reasons to follow.

 

Nature of the case:

 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - S.11(c) - Administrative law - Taxation - Customs and excise - Seizure - Notice of ascertained forfeiture - Customs Act,  R.S.C. (1985), c. 1 (2nd suppl .) - S. 135(1) - Federal Court Rules (1998) - Rule 236(2) - Procedure - Judgments and orders - Pre-trial procedure - Pre-trial discovery - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that, in the action instituted against the Minister of National Revenue, the appellant was not an accused within the meaning of s. 11(c)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that the notice of ascertained forfeiture provided for in s. 124  of the Customs Act  is not a true penal consequence within the meaning of the test established in R. V. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R.

 

Nature de la cause:

 

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Al. 11c) - Droit administratif - Droit fiscal - Douanes et accise - Saisie - Avis de confiscation compensatoire - Loi sur les douanes,  L.R.C. (1985), ch. 1 (2 ^e  suppl .) - Par. 135.(1) - Règles de la Cour fédérale (1998) - Règle 236(2) - Procédure - Jugements et ordonnances - Procédure préalable au procès - Interrogatoire au préalable - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en refusant de reconnaître à l’appelant le statut d’inculpé au sens de l’alinéa 11c)  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  dans les procédures judiciaires entreprises ? - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en refusant de reconnaître que l’avis de confiscation compensatoire prévu à l’art. 124  de la Loi sur les douanes  est une véritable conséquence pénale au sens du critère établi dans la décision R. c. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 R.C.S. 541 ?

 

 

 

 

15.10.2004

 

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Silberman Abella and Charron JJ.

 

Cory Howard Grandinetti

 

v. (30096)

 

Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.) (Criminal) (As of Right / By Leave)

Patrick C. Fagan and Greg Dunn for the Appellant.

 

Gordon Tomljanovic for the Respondent.

 

 

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

 

Nature of the case:

 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Murder - Whether, for purposes of the confession rule, can an undercover police officer ever be a person in authority - When and under what circumstances can evidence capable of supporting an inference that a third party committed a crime be excluded? - Whether the trial judge erred in excluding evidence capable of supporting an inference that a third party committed the crime.

Nature de la cause:

 

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Droit criminel - Meurtre - Pour l’application de la règle de l’aveu, un policier agissant comme agent d’infiltration pourrait-il être une personne en situation d’autorité? - Quand et dans quelles circonstances un élément de preuve susceptible d’étayer une conclusion qu’un tiers a commis un crime peut-il être exclu? - Le juge du procès a-t-il commis une erreur en excluant un élément de preuve susceptible d’étayer une conclusion qu’un tiers a commis le crime?

 

 

15.10.2004

 

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish JJ.

 

Her Majesty the Queen

 

v. (30098)

 

Randalph Blake (Ont.) (Criminal) (As of Right)

Shelley Hallett for the Appellant.

 

Nicholas A. Xynnis for the Respondent.

 

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

 

Nature of the case:

 

Criminal law - Sexual assault - Similar fact evidence - Whether the credibility of the child complainant’s allegation can be an “issue in question” for the purpose of determining the admissibility of similar fact evidence - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the similar fact evidence did not disclose  sufficient degree of specificity to justify reception of the evidence - Whether the majority of the Court of

Appeal erred in concluding that there were no distinct

Nature de la cause:

 

Droit criminel - Agression sexuelle - Preuve de faits similaires - La crédibilité de l’allégation de la plaignante, une enfant, peut-elle être une « question en litige » pour déterminer l’admissibilité d’une preuve de faits similaires? - Les juges majoritaires de la Cour d’appel ont-ils commis une erreur en concluant que la

preuve de faits similaires ne révélait pas un degré de spécificité suffisant pour justifier la recevabilité de la preuve? - Les juges majoritaires de la Cour d’appel ont-

 

 

 

issues arising out of the cross-examination of the complainant, the Respondent’s testimony and the conduct of the defence that justified the admission of the similar fact evidence - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in failing to defer to the discretion of the trial judge in admitting the similar fact evidence.

ils commis une erreur en concluant qu’aucune question litigieuse distincte, issue du contre-interrogatoire de la plaignante, du témoignage de l’accusé et de la conduite de la défense, ne justifiait l’admission de la preuve de faits similaires? - Les juges majoritaires de la Cour d’appel ont-ils commis une erreur en refusant d’accepter la décision du juge du procès qui, dans l’exercice de son pouvoir discrétionnaire, a admis la preuve de faits similaires?

 

 

 

The Fall Session of the Supreme Court of Canada started October 4, 2004.   Pursuant to the Supreme Court Act and Rules, the following requirements for filing must be complied with before an appeal can be heard:   Appellant’s record; appellant’s factum; and appellant’s book(s) of authorities  must be filed within 12 weeks of the filing of the notice of appeal or 12 weeks from decision on the motion to state a constitutional question.     Respondent’s record (if any); respondent’s factum; and respondent’s book(s) of authorities must be filed within eight weeks after the service of the appellant's documents.     Intervener's factum and intervener’s book(s) of authorities, (if any), must be filed within eight weeks of the order granting leave to intervene or within 20 weeks of the filing of a notice of intervention under subrule 61(4).     Parties’ condensed book, if required, must be filed on the day of hearing of the appeal.   The Registrar shall enter the appeal on a list of cases to be heard after the respondent’s factum is filed or at the end of the eight-week period referred to in Rule 36.

La session d’automne de la Cour suprême du Canada a commencé le 4 octobre 2004.   Conformément à la Loi sur la Cour suprême et aux Règles, il faut se conformer aux exigences suivantes avant qu'un appel puisse être entendu:   Le dossier de l’appelant, son mémoire et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine doivent être déposés dans les douze semaines du dépôt de l’avis d’appel ou douze semaines de la décision de la requête pour formulation d’une question constitutionnelle.    Le dossier de l’intimé (le cas échéant), son mémoire et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine doivent être déposés dans les huit semaines suivant la signification des documents de l’appelant.   Le mémoire de l'intervenant et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine, le cas échéant, doivent être déposés dans les huit semaines suivant l’ordonnance autorisant l’intervention ou dans les vingt semaines suivant le dépôt de l’avis d’intervention visé au paragraphe 61(4).   Le recueil condensé des parties, le cas échéant, doivent être déposés le jour de l’audition de l’appel.    Le registraire inscrit l’appel pour audition après le dépôt du mémoire de l’intimé ou à l’expiration du délai de huit semaines prévu à la règle 36.

 

 

                                                         SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

                                                             CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME

 

                                                                                                                  - 2004 -    

             10/06/04

 

                                                                                                          - 2005 -

 

 

 

Sittings of the court: Séances de la cour:		18  sitting weeks/semaines séances de la cour            88  sitting days/journées séances de la cour           9    motion and conference days/ journées                   requêtes.conférences                                          2    holidays during sitting days/ jours fériés                 durant les sessions
Motions: Requêtes:	M
Holidays: Jours fériés:	H