Bulletins

      OF CANADA                                             DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

April 16, 2004 612 - 645                                                                       Le 16 avril 2004

CONTENTS                                                     TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Canadian Union of Public Employees Locals 1712, 3009, 2225-05, 2225-06 and 2225-12, et al.

Sean Dewart

Sack, Goldblatt, Mitchell

v. (30233)

Ernst & Young Inc. in its capacity as trustee in bankruptcy of Royalcrest Lifecare Group, et al. (Ont.)

John A. MacDonald

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt

FILING DATE: 18.3.2004

Casurina Limited Partnership, et al.

Robert W. Staley

Bennett, Jones

v. (30234)

Rio Algom Limited, et al. (Ont.)

Peter Roy

Roy, Elliott, Kim, O’Connor

FILING DATE: 19.3.2004

Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in

Glen R. Thompson

Davis & Company

v. (30227)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, et al. (Y.T.)

Mark A. Radke

Attorney General of Canada

FILING DATE: 22.3.2004

John Kavaratzis

Mark J. Sandler

Cooper, Sandler & West

v. (30229)

The United States of America (Ont.)

Kevin Wilson

Attorney General of Canada

FILING DATE: 22.3.2004

Ernst & Young, et al.

James A. Woods

Woods & Partners

v. (30237)

Fraser Milner Casgrain, s.e.n.c., et al. (Que.)

Raynold Langlois

Langlois, Kronström, Desjardins

FILING DATE: 22.3.2004

Roger Andrew Hebert, et al.

Roger Andrew Hebert

v. (30251)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Government of Canada (Alta.)

Kerry E.S. Boyd

Attorney General of Canada

FILING DATE: 22.3.2004

Faidy Fouad Naguib

Domenic Marciano

Marciano, Beckenstein

v. (30252)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

Franco Calabrese

Attorney General of Canada

FILING DATE: 26.3.2004

Lee Edward Fingold

Lee Edward Fingold

v. (30239)

The Law Society of Upper Canada (Ont.)

Dennis Reeve

FILING DATE: 23.3.2004

Mikisew Cree First Nation

Jeffrey R.W. Rath

Rath & Company

v. (30246)

Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage, et al. (F.C.)

Paul Shenher

Department of Justice of Edmonton Regional Office

FILING DATE: 23.3.2004

Larry Fisher

Brian A. Beresh

Beresh, Depoe ,Cunningham

v. (30228)

Her Majesty the Queen (Sask.)

Anthony B. Gerein

Attorney General for Saskatchewan

FILING DATE: 24.3.2004

Karen Webb

Michael McGowan

McGowan & Company

v. (30236)

3584747 Canada Inc. (Ont.)

John C. Field

Hicks, Morley, Hamilton, Stewart, Storie

FILING DATE: 25.3.2004

Avi Financial Corporation (1985) Inc.

Edward Figlarz

v. (30242)

Novergaz Inc. (Que.)

Steve McInnes

Robinson, Sheppard, Shapiro

FILING DATE: 26.3.2004

Harry Dikranian

Leon J. Greenberg

Sternthal, Katznelson, Montigny

c. (30243)

Procureur Général du Québec (Qc)

Mario Normandin

Bernard, Roy & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 26.3.2004

Ruben Jimmie

Timothy J. Russell

McCullough, Parsons, Blazina

v. (30248)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Bruce Johnstone

FILING DATE: 26.3.2004

Alberta Veterinary Medical Association

David C. Rolf

Parlee, McLaws

v. (30244)

Louis Pequin (Alta.)

James A. Moffat

Hustwick, Wetsch, Moffat & McCrae

FILING DATE: 29.3.2004

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3373

Lyle Kanee

Sack, Goldblatt, Mitchell

v. (30245)

Queen’s County Residential Services Inc. (P.E.I.)

Ronald MacLeod

Gaudet, Dorsey & Macleod

FILING DATE: 29.3.2004

Alberta Energy and Utilities Board

J. Richard McKee

v. (30247)

Atco Gas and Pipelines Ltd. (Alta.)

Clifford D. O’Brien, Q.C.

Bennett, Jones

- and between -

The City of Calgary

Brian K. O’Ferrall

McLennan, Ross

v. (30247)

Atco Gas and Pipelines Ltd. and Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.)

Clifford D. O’Brien, Q.C.

Bennett, Jones

FILING DATE: 29.3.2004

Cosmas Rowel

Sidney Green, Q.C.

v. (30149)

Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union, Local 206, et al. (Man.)

Alvin R. McGregor, Q.C.

FILING DATE: 29.3.2004

Lawrence Cecil Robbins

John R. Mann III

v. (30241)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Michal Fairburn

Attorney General of Canada

FILING DATE: 29.3.2004

Frank Kim

Frank Kim

v. (30254)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

W.J. Scott Bell

Attorney General of British Columbia

FILING DATE: 31.3.2004

Wavel Ventures Corp., et al.

Valerie Morrow

v. (30255)

Albert Gene Constantini (Alta.)

James T. Eamon

Code, Hunter

FILING DATE: 31.3.2004

Kevin Albert Ducharme

Mark Wasyliw

Brodsky & Company

v. (30261)

Her Majesty the Queen (Man.)

Brian Bell

Manitoba Justice

FILING DATE: 2.4.2004

Steve Vassilantopoulos

Johanne Gagnon

Kaufman, Laramée

c. (30249)

Ville de Montréal (Qc)

Gilles Dubé

Jalbert, Séguin, Caron

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 2.4.2004

Sa Majesté la Reine

Germain Tremblay

Cour Municipale de Montréal

c. (30256)

Éric Boucher (Qc)

Marco Labrie

Lord, Labrie, St-Onge, Boucher, Huet

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 2.4.2004

Super Kal Construction Inc.

Serge Segal

Segal, Laforest

v. (30262)

Her Majesty the Queen (Que.)

Pierre Salois

Cote, Marcoux, Joyal

FILING DATE: 2.4.2004

Association des professionnels et professionnelles de la vidéo du Québec

Daniel Payette

Cabinet Payette

c. (30257)

Productions du Petit Bonhomme Inc., et autres (C.F.)

Roch Guertin

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 2.4.2004

Timothy Wilford

John R. Mann III

v. (30258)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Rosella M. Cornaviera

Attorney General of Ontario

FILING DATE: 2.4.2004

Lawrence Joseph Joyea

Donald E. Worme, Q.C.

Semaganis, Worme & Missens

v. (30265)

Her Majesty the Queen (Sask.)

Barry J. Hornsberger, Q.C.

Attorney General for Saskatchewan

FILING DATE: 5.4.2004

Regent Millette

Regent Millette

c. (30263)

Frank (Francesco) Rodi, et autre (Qc)

Pina Mancuso

Yanofsky, Gelber, Mancuso

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 5.4.2004

Richard Morin

Richard Morin

c. (30250)

Gilles Tourigny, et autres (Qc)

Lise Boily-Monfette

Deveau, Lavoie et Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 5.4.2004

APRIL 13, 2004 / LE 13 AVRIL 2004

                                                    CORAM:  Chief Justice McLachlin and Major and Fish JJ.

                                                          La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Major et Fish

Warren Hitzig, Alison Myrden, Mary‐Lynne Chamney, Catherine Devries, Jari Dvorak, Stephen Van de Kemp, Deborah Anne Stultz‐Giffin and Marco Renda

v. (30120)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal - Criminal Law - Remedies - Whether the court should have retained a supervisory role in its constitutional remedy - Whether severing provisions from the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations was the appropriate remedy for constitutional defects - Whether the case should have been remitted to the motions judge to ensure that new exemption scheme resulting from the Court of Appeal’s order would adequately address the needs of seriously ill Canadians?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Sydney Abrahams, Frank Bartelen, Dorie Franz Bartelen, Nicholas Bartolomucci, Jack D. Beaton, Kai Yee Chow, Yiu Kee Chow, Alan Ying Tsi Chung, Ping Mei Chung, Nick Cianci, Mila Cueva, Brigida M. Cueva, Frank Gentile, Millie Gentile, Nicholas Gray, Robert James Hart, Dale S. Humphrey, Girdhari L. Pedata, Robert Lee, Shu Wha Lee, John Arthur Lewis, Kenneth Sascha, Yusuf Abdulgani Shaikh, Leonard Schechtman, Beverley Schechtman, Donald Acria Tsuji, Gary Akikazu Tsuji, Elaine Starr, Ronald E. Starr, also known as Ron E. Starr, Paul Sachimi Tokiwa, Marten Vanderbroek and Linda Vanvendbroek

v. (30147)

Bank of Montreal (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Bills of exchange - Promissory note - Holder in due course - Bank taking assignment of alleged promissory notes  - Whether Range v. Belvedere [1969] S.C.R. applies to real estate transactions - whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to correctly apply the decision in Range to the facts of this case - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in  concluding that this case was factually distinguishable from Range - Whether the Applicants were entitled not to have their “promissory notes” read independently of their purchase contract documentation - Whether, given the total failure of consideration, the “notes” were simply evidence of debt capable of assignment to the Respondent, only subject to the equities existing between the original parties.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Attorney General of Canada

v. (30137)

Donald Gladstone and William Gladstone (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes - Interpretation - Fiduciary duty - Proceeds from sale of fish seized under Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-14 deposited into Consolidated Revenue Fund - Whether Crown must pay interest on proceeds held for eight years before returned to Respondents - Whether the Court erred in failing to consider that s. 73.1  of the Fisheries Act,  R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14  providing for the return of the proceeds realized from the disposition of perishables lawfully seized and dealt with under the Act, is a complete statutory code setting out the Crown’s obligations - Whether the Court erred in imposing a fiduciary duty on the Crown on the basis of the Crown’s role under the Financial Administration Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. F-10 , as amended, as administrator of special purpose monies - Whether the Court erred in applying the common law doctrine of fiduciary duty to override a statutory provision.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                  CORAM:  Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

                                                                       Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et Arbour

Osvaldo Minchella

v. (30014)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal Law - Procedural Law - Evidence - Exclusion of evidence - R. v. Stillman, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the inevitable subsequent discovery of the documents seized by search warrant rendered the evidence of the search of his personal office, including its “communicative aspect”, non-conscriptive - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in not concluding that the trial judge had erred in finding that the conduct of the investigators was in the “utmost good faith” - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the “predominate purpose” test and in finding the Charter  breach did not occur when Special Investigations began directly and personally investigating the corporation and its general partner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Steven John Schneeberger

v. (30124)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Citizenship - Appeals - Courts - Jurisdiction - Applicant declared to have obtained Canadian citizenship by false representation or by knowingly concealing material circumstance from RCMP - Federal Court Trial Division in a reference proceeding pursuant to s. 18  of the Citizenship Act  granting summary judgment - Motion to quash Applicant’s appeal granted - Whether Trial Division should have granted summary judgment in context of s. 18(1)  citizenship reference - Whether Federal Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear Applicant’s appeal from an order of the Trial Division - Citizenship Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29 .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Eugene Kaulius, Steven M. Cook, Charles E. Beil, Craig C. Sturrock, Amalio De Cotiis, John N. Gregory, 347059 B.C. Ltd., Frank Mayer, John R. Owen, Verlaan Investments Inc., William John Millar, NSFC Holdings Ltd., TFTI Holdings Limited, Douglas H. Mathew, Ian H. Pitfield, The Estate of the Late Lorne A. Green and Innocenzo De Cotiis

v. (30067)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation – Income Tax – General anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) – Whether it is necessary for this Court to consider what interpretative rules and guidelines are to be employed when the “clear and unambiguous policy” standard is applied so as to yield a standard which is fair and which provides certainty in tax affairs? – Whether these rules and guidelines should consider what evidence must  exist for a court to determine with confidence that a particular policy exists in the Act? – Whether these rules and guidelines should consider what evidence must exist for a court to determine that a particular policy is “clear and unambiguous”? – Whether these rules and guidelines should consider how courts are to determine the “relevant policy” where more than one “clear and unambiguous” policy is evident? – Whether these rules and guidelines should consider how conflicts between competing or inconsistent policies are to be resolved? – Income Tax Act , R.S.C. 1985, c.1 (5 ^th  Supp .), s. 245.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                             CORAM:  Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

                                                                  Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

Pharmascience Inc. et Morris S. Goodman

c. (30188)

Jocelyn Binet et Procureur général du Québec (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Sursis - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en refusant d’appliquer le test de Manitoba (Procureur général) c. Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd., [1987] 1 R.C.S. 110, et, par conséquent, en refusant le sursis interlocutoire recherché ?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

David Hilewitz

v. (30125)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Immigration law - Application for permanent residence - Medical inadmissibility - Excessive demands on the social system - Whether an assessment under s. 19(1)(a)(ii) of the Immigration Act requires consideration of the actual probability of excessive demands being placed on social services, including in particular the requirement, ability and intention of the Applicant to pay for or obtain those services privately - Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I‐2, s. 19(1)(a)(ii) (repealed).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Dirk De Jong

v. (30127)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Immigration law - Application for permanent residence - Medical inadmissibility - Excessive demands on the social system - Whether an assessment under s. 19(1)(a)(ii) of the Immigration Act requires consideration of the actual probability of excessive demands being placed on social services, including in particular the requirement, ability and intention of the Applicant to pay for or obtain those services privately - Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I‐2, s. 19(1)(a)(ii) (repealed).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

APRIL 15, 2004 / LE 15 AVRIL 2004

29841                    Roy Allan Sabotiak v. Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Iacobucci, Binnie 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 of Alberta (Edmonton), Number 9103‐0646‐A, dated May 31, 1994, 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'Alberta (Edmonton), numéro 9103‐0646‐A, daté du 31 mai 1994, est rejetée. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Section 7 - Right to Silence - Section 10(b) - Right to Counsel - Whether the Alberta Court of Appeal erred in law in concluding that the Applicant’s right to remain silent under section 7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  was not violated. - Whether the Alberta Court of Appeal erred in law in concluding that the actions of the police in this case did not violate the repute and integrity of the judicial process, contrary to the principles of fundamental justice under section 7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Whether the Alberta Court of Appeal erred in law in concluding that the accused’s right to counsel under section 10 b)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  was not violated.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29999                    Sandra Murray v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C38617, dated August 20, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C38617, daté du 20 août 2003, est rejetée avec dépens. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Crown law - Crown liability - Statement of claim alleging Crown liability for torts committed prior to September 1, 1963 - Whether all litigants who have causes of action against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario for events which occurred prior to September 1, 1963, must apply to the Lieutenant Governor by way of a petition of right under the former Rules of Practice and rather than by way of a Statement of Claim under the contemporary Rules of Civil Procedure - If so, whether all such litigants are prohibited from proceeding in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario unless the Lieutenant Governor grants a fiat giving permission for “justice to be done” - Whether, prior to September 1, 1963, claims in equity, contract and statute based non-delegable duty were the proper subject matter of a petition of right, subject to the granting of a fiat.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30059                    Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1560 v. Avalon East School Board (N.L.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador ‐ Court of Appeal, Number 02/72, dated September 22, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour suprême de Terre‐Neuve et Labrador ‐ Cour d'appel, numéro 02/72, daté du 22 septembre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law – Judicial review – Standard of review – Labour law – Labour relations  – School Board deciding upon level of service to be maintained during impending teacher strike – Union disagreeing with number of non-teacher employees designated essential by School Board – Newfoundland and Labrador Labour Relations Board (LRB) finding employer School Board solely responsible for setting level of public service to be maintained during strike – LRB deciding approximately one-half of those designated by School Board met definition of essential employees under Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, R.S.N. 1990, c. P-42 s. 10(13), as duties were “necessary for the health, safety or security of the public” – Non-teacher employees occupying positions as cleaners, custodians, program assistants for students with disabilities, and various maintenance workers – Whether courts below erred in upholding decision of LRB – What standard of review applies to the legal question whether the doctrine of stare decisis applies to the interpretation by an administrative tribunal of statutory provisions previously considered by a court on an earlier application for judicial review – In what circumstances, if any, are administrative tribunals bound by prior judicial consideration of statutory provisions made by a court in the context of prior applications for judicial review – To what extent should public service essential services provisions be interpreted to require that a labour relations board determine which positions are essential to health, safety or security of the public based on the level of service an employer unilaterally decides it wishes to maintain during a labour dispute – Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, R.S.N. 1990, c. P-42, s. 10(13)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

August 30, 2001

Newfoundland and Labrador Labour Relations Board

(O’Brien, St. Aubin [dissenting] and Alcock, Members)

Respondent’s request to have 141 employees declared essential pursuant s. 10 of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, granted in part (75 employees declared essential)

30068                    Gouvernement du Maroc c. Rhita El Ansari (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et Arbour

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐012573‐028, daté du 1 octobre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐012573‐028, dated October 1, 2003, is dismissed with costs. 

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit international - Tribunaux - Compétence - Immunité de juridiction - Exception des activités commerciales - Loi sur l’immunité des États , L.R.C. (1985), ch. S-18  - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en droit en considérant qu’un État étranger et l’un de ses fonctionnaires en mission diplomatique étaient liés par un « simple contrat de travail » ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en droit en considérant qu’une personne qui résidait et travaillait en Ontario pendant plus de trois ans était, au moment de l’acte reproché, résidente ou domiciliée au Québec?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30094                    Solomon Windheim c. Banque Toronto Dominion, Miriam Windheim, Ellen Windheim et  les Promotions Taillon Ltée (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et Arbour

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel des arrêts de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéros 500‐09‐011265‐014 et 500‐09‐011266‐012, daté du 7 novembre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgments of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Numbers 500‐09‐011265‐014 and 500‐09‐011266‐012, dated November 7, 2003, is dismissed with costs. 

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Compétence des tribunaux d’appel - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en déclarant que le jugement de première instance contenait des erreurs manifestes et dominantes au sens de l’arrêt Housen c. Nikolaisen, [2002] 2 R.C.S. 235? - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en ne respectant pas la règle fondamentale audi alteram partem?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30095                    Arthur Webster v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐50‐03, dated October 21, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‐50‐03, daté du 21 octobre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Statutes - Interpretation - Did the Federal Court of Appeal err in its interpretation of s. 18.5 of the Federal Courts Act thereby insulating the Minister from any review or censure of process? - Does the Federal Courts Act as interpreted by the Federal Court of Appeal abrogate, abridge or infringe the rights or freedoms guaranteed in the Canadian Bill of Rights rendering the Federal Courts Act inoperative or invalid?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30107                    Joseph Marino and 1184464 Ontario Limited v. DBM Capital Corp. (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C39388, dated October 14, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C39388, daté du 14 octobre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law – Contract law – Mortgages – Real property – Power of sale – Right to redeem – Mortgages Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.40 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the agreement of purchase and sale in question became unconditional, and therefore a “sale” within the meaning of s. 22(1) of the Mortgages Act, occurred on May 3, 2002? – Whether the Court of Appeal erred further in finding that certain steps were necessary pre‐conditions for relief under s. 22(1) of the Act and those steps were not taken prior to the agreement of purchase and sale becoming unconditional? – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not addressing the issue of whether or not a conditional sale is a “sale” under s. 22 of the Act? – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the proper principles in its statutory interpretation of “sale” in s. 22 of the Act? – Whether the Court of Appeal, by reason of this decision, and its decision in other cases, has adopted differing approaches to the application and interpretation of s. 22 of the Act and the equitable remedies available to a mortgagor? – Whether the Court of Appeal, by reason of this decision, is inconsistent with the Supreme Court of Canada in its interpretation of contracts concerning the purchase and sale of land?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30114                    Abattoir A. Trahan Transformation Inc. et Abattoir St‐Alexandre (1982) Inc. c. Fédération des producteurs de porcs du Québec et Régie des marchés agricoles et alimentaires du Québec (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et Arbour

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel des arrêts de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéros 500‐09‐011134‐012 et 500‐09‐011135‐019, datés du 5 novembre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens à la Fédération des producteurs de porcs du Québec seulement.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgments of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Numbers 500‐09‐011134‐012 and 500‐09‐011135‐019, dated November 5, 2003, is dismissed with costs to Fédération des producteurs de porcs du Québec only. 

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Définition de la norme de contrôle de l’erreur manifestement déraisonnable - Décision de la Régie intimée à l’effet que la Fédération intimée a le pouvoir de modifier unilatéralement l’équation de rendement de l’appareil électronique utilisé par les demanderesses pour mesurer le poids des carcasses de porcs et leur classe de rendement - La Cour d’appel, à la majorité, a‐t‐elle erré en déclarant que la décision de la Régie n’était affectée d’aucune erreur de compétence ni d’aucune erreur manifestement déraisonnable justifiant l’exercice du pouvoir de révision judiciaire ?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30145                    Réserve de la Petite Nation Inc. c. Serge Bruneau, John Marshall, Éric Charbonneau, Gérard Sévigny, Guy Caubel, et Éric Therrien, Alexandre Alarie, Ryan Ward, Paul Savard, Francis Alarie, Martin Beaucage, Gilles Caubel, Procureur général du Québec et La Société de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et Arbour

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐013838‐032, daté du 19 novembre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens aux intimés sauf à la Société de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐013838‐032, dated November 19, 2003, is dismissed with costs to the respondents except La Société de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec. 

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Jugements et ordonnances - Procédure civile - Procédure préalable au procès - Opposabilité d’un jugement - Requête en intervention - Autorité de la chose jugée - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en refusant la permission d’appeler du jugement de première instance, lequel permet que soit attaqué indirectement le jugement rendu en 1938 sur lequel la demanderesse fonde son droit de propriété ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en considérant que la permission d’appeler ne pouvait être accordée du fait que le litige nécessitait l’examen d’une preuve au fond pour décider du sens et de la portée du jugement rendu en 1938 ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en considérant que l’intérêt de la justice ne justifiait pas que la permission d’appeler soit accordée du fait qu’il serait toujours loisible à la demanderesse de faire valoir, lors du procès au fond, les arguments de droit quant à l’effet du jugement rendu en 1938 ? - Est-ce que le principe de l’autorité de la chose jugée soulève une question d’intérêt national ? - Est-ce que la présente demande d’autorisation d’appel doit être accordée, bine que le jugement en cause soit de nature interlocutoire ? - Cette Cour possède-t-elle la compétence pour instruire tant le pourvoi contre la décision de la Cour d’appel de ne pas accorder l’appel que celui contre le jugement de la Cour supérieure de rejeter les requêtes en irrecevabilité de la demanderesse ?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30146                    Réjeanne Gagnon c. Ville de Montréal (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et Arbour

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐012110‐029, daté du 19 novembre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐012110‐029, dated November 19, 2003, is dismissed with costs. 

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Responsabilité civile - Droit municipal - Municipalité - Négligence - Dommages intérêts - Chute sur le trottoir de la ville - Piège - Danger inhérent - Les instances inférieures ont-elles commis une erreur dans l’interprétation de la notion de piège, de «dangerosité intrinsèque» et de «connotation d’anormalité et de surprise» tel qu’énoncé dans l’arrêt Rubis c. Grey Rocks Inn Ltd, [1982] 1 R.C.S. 452 ? - Les instances inférieures ont-elles commis une erreur en n’appliquant pas la norme de diligence ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant qu’il était impossible de déterminer si la plainte de la commerçante avait été transmise à l’intimée ? - Les instances inférieures ont-elles mal évalué la preuve ? - Les instances inférieures ont-elles commis une erreur relative au lien de causalité entre la négligence ou la faute de la Ville et la chute de la demanderesse?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30179                    Brent G. McClelland v. Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐403‐02, dated December 17, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‐403‐02, daté du 17 décembre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Business income - Deductions - Reasonable expectation of profit - Artistic endeavour - Whether a business exists during the development phase of an arts project - Whether individuals involved in the arts are engaged in a business when they are inventing and creating original works and must they sell before their endeavours qualify as a business - Whether the number of years spent on developing an arts project is relevant to the determination of the existence of a business - Where a personal element exists, to what extent is “subjective intent to profit” and “businesslike behaviour to support that intention” relevant to the determination of the existence of a business? - Whether it is important to encourage testimony, during trial, as to the unorthodox nature of the arts as business

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

2.4.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

2.4.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

2.4.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

2.4.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

2.4.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

2.4.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

2.4.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

2.4.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

2.4.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

2.4.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

2.4.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

2.4.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

2.4.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

2.4.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

2.4.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

2.4.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

5.4.2004

Before / Devant : BASTARACHE J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE  

5.4.2004

Before / Devant : BASTARACHE J.

UPON APPLICATIONS by the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of  Ontario, for leave to intervene in the above appeals and pursuant to the order of February 11, 2004

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said interveners are each granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding fifteen (15) minutes at the hearing of the appeal

5.4.2004

Before / Devant : BASTARACHE J.

UPON APPLICATIONS by the Attorney General of Ontario, the Attorney General of Quebec and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association,  for leave to intervene in the above appeal  and pursuant to the order of February 4, 2004;

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said interveners are each granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding fifteen (15) minutes at the hearing of the appeal.

À LA SUITE DES DEMANDES du Procureur général de l’Ontario, du Procureur général du Québec et de l’Association canadienne des libertés civiles, visant à obtenir l’autorisation d’intervenir dans l’appel susmentionné et suite à l’ordonnance du 4 février 2004;

IL EST EN OUTRE ORDONNÉ que la plaidoirie des intervenants soit ainsi limitée à quinze (15) minutes chacun.

6.4.2004

Before / Devant : DESCHAMPS J.

GRANTED IN PART / ACCORDÉES EN PARTIE

UPON APPLICATIONS by the Honourable Senator Serge Joyal and the Honourable Senator Mobina S.B. Jaffer, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, the Canadian Association of Professional Employees and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicants, the Honourable Senator Serge Joyal and the Honourable Senator Mobina S.B. Jaffer, is granted and the applicants shall be entitled to serve and file a joint factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, is dismissed.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicants, the Canadian Association of Professional Employees and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, is granted and the applicants shall be entitled to serve and file a joint factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

The motion to extend the time to apply for leave to intervene and for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

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

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

Pursuant to Rule 59(1)(a) the interveners shall pay to the appellants and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellants and respondents by their intervention.

7.4.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to March 24, 2004.

7.4.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to March 24, 2004.

7.4.2004

Before / Devant : THE CHIEF JUSTICE

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the appellant for an order stating constitutional questions in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS BE STATED AS FOLLOWS:

1.             Does s. 76.1(1) of The Highway Traffic Act, S.M. 1985-86, c. 3 (H60), as amended, to the extent that it authorizes a peace officer to question the driver of a motor vehicle about his or her prior alcohol consumption, infringe s. 10( b )  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

2.             If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

3.             Do the common law powers of a police officer, to the extent that those powers authorize the police officer to question the driver of a motor vehicle about his or her prior alcohol consumption, infringe s. 10( b )  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

4.             If the answer to question 3 is in the affirmative, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

1.             Dans la mesure où il autorise un agent de la paix à interroger le conducteur d’un véhicule automobile relativement à sa consommation préalable d’alcool, le par. 76.1(1) du Code de la route, L.M. 1985-86, c. 3 (H60), modifié, porte-il atteinte à l’al. 10 b )  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

2.             Dans l’affirmative, l’atteinte est-elle une limite raisonnable prescrite par une règle de droit, dont la justification puisse se démontrer dans le cadre d’une société libre et démocratique  conformément à l’article premier de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

3.             Dans la mesure où les pouvoirs que la common law confère à l’agent de police l’autorisent  à interroger le conducteur d’un véhicule automobile relativement à sa consommation préalable d’alcool, ces pouvoirs portent-ils atteinte à l’al. 10 b )  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

4.             En cas de réponse affirmative à la troisième question, l’atteinte est-elle une limite raisonnable prescrite par une règle de droit, dont la justification puisse se démontrer dans le cadre d’une société libre et démocratique conformément à l’article premier de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

7.4.2004

Before / Devant : THE CHIEF JUSTICE

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the respondent for an order extending the time to serve and file the motion to state constitutional questions and for an order stating constitutional questions in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE EXTENSION OF TIME IS GRANTED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS BE STATED AS FOLLOWS:

1.             Do ss. 76.1(1), 263.2 and 265 of The Highway Traffic Act, S.M. 1985-86, c. 3 (H60), as amended, to the extent that they authorize a peace officer to administer physical sobriety tests to the driver of a motor vehicle, infringe s. 10( b )  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

2.             If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

3.             Do the common law powers of a police officer, to the extent that those powers authorize the police officer to administer physical sobriety tests to the driver of a motor vehicle, infringe s. 10( b )  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

4.             If the answer to question 3 is in the affirmative, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

1.             Dans la mesure où ils autorisent un agent de la paix à faire subir des tests de sobriété au conducteur d’un véhicule automobile, le par. 76.1(1) et les art. 263.2 et 265 du Code de la route, L.M. 1985-86, c. 3 (H60), modifié, portent-ils atteinte à l’al. 10 b )  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

2.             Dans l’affirmative, l’atteinte est-elle une limite raisonnable prescrite par une règle de droit, dont la justification puisse se démontrer dans le cadre d’une société libre et démocratique  conformément à l’article premier de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

3.             Dans la mesure où les pouvoirs que la common law confère à l’agent de police autorisent ce dernier  à faire subir des tests de sobriété au conducteur d’un véhicule automobile, ces pouvoirs portent-ils atteinte à l’al. 10 b )  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

4.             En cas de réponse affirmative à la troisième question, l’atteinte est-elle une limite raisonnable prescrite par une règle de droit, dont la justification puisse se démontrer dans le cadre d’une société libre et démocratique conformément à l’article premier de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

8.4.2004

Before / Devant : IACOBUCCI J.

GRANTED IN PART / ACCORDÉE EN PARTIE

UPON APPLICATION by the appellants for an order striking the factum filed by the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada and for an order permitting the filing of a reply factum by the appellants;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1)             The motion striking the factum filed by the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada, is dismissed.

2)             The motion permitting the filing of a reply factum by the appelllants is granted.  The appellants reply factum shall be served and filed by April 16, 2004.

8.4.2004

Before / Devant : BINNIE J.

GRANTED IN PART / ACCORDÉE EN PARTIE

À LA SUITE D’UNE DEMANDE des intimées visant à obtenir le rejet du mémoire déposé par l’intervenante, la Commission des lésions professionnelles ou, subsidiairement, pour déposer un mémoire en réplique;

ET APRÈS AVOIR PRIS CONNAISSANCE de la documentation déposée;

IL EST PAR LA PRÉSENTE ORDONNÉ CE QUI SUIT:

1)             La demande des intimées visant à obtenir le rejet du mémoire déposé par l’intervenante, la Commission des lésions professionnelles, est rejetée.

2)             Les intimées et le Procureur général du Canada ont la permission de déposer un mémoire en réplique de 5 pages au plus tard le 29 avril 2004.

8.4.2004

Before / Devant : DESCHAMPS J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE 

8.4.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to March 22, 2004.

8.4.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to March 1, 2004.

8.4.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to April 2, 2004.

13.04.2004

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

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

                                                         SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

                                                             CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME

                                                                                                          - 2003 -

        04-07-2002