Bulletins

      OF CANADA                                             DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

March 26, 2004 460 - 524                                                                    Le 26 mars 2004

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Grecon Dimter Inc.

François Marseille

Robinson, Sheppard, Shapiro

v. (30217)

J.R. Normand Inc., et al. (Que.)

Pierre C. Bellavance

Heenan, Blaikie, Aubut

FILING DATE: 12.3.2004

Audrey Sero

Richard B. Thomas

McMillan Binch

v. (30206)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

Wendy M. Yoshida

Attorney General of Canada

FILING DATE: 12.3.2004

Cyril Frazer

Richard B. Thomas

McMillan, Binch

v. (30216)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

Wendy M. Yoshida

Attorney General of Canada

FILING DATE: 12.3.2004

MARCH 22, 2004 / LE 22 MARS 2004

                                                    CORAM:  Chief Justice McLachlin and Major and Fish JJ.

                                                          La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Major et Fish

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (30064)

Ronald Woodcock (Crim.) (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Similar fact evidence - Respondent convicted of murder and other offences relating to two incidents -  First incident involving murder of victim and theft of car  - Second incident involving robbery of handguns from sporting goods store and murder of store owner - Crown tendering similar fact evidence of four robberies subsequently committed in City of London and another robbery committed in St. Thomas, following which Respondent and two co-accused apprehended  - After final robbery, weapons traced back to sporting goods store found in possession of Respondent and one co-accused - Trial judge erred in admitting similar fact evidence in relation to two of five robberies committed after murders - Trial judge erred in evaluating Respondent’s connection to robberies prior to determining whether robberies sufficiently similar to make it more likely that same person committed two murders -Trial judge overlooking dissimilarities with respect to two robberies -  Evidence connecting accused to two robberies insufficient — Evidence inadmissible and new trial required, despite trial judge's instruction to jury on similar fact evidence being overly generous to accused - Whether the factual review engaged in by the Court of Appeal amounted to impermissible re-weighing and ultimately a compartmentalized analysis of the circumstantial body of similar fact evidence presented by the Crown - Alternatively, whether the Court of Appeal effectively treated the admission of the impugned similar fact evidence of the first and fourth London robberies as presumptively fatal error, rather than applying a contextual analysis as required by s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Siemens Electric Ltd.

v. (30070)

Daishowa‐Marubeni International Ltd.

- and between -

Toshiba International Corporation

v. (30070)

Daishowa‐Marubeni International Ltd. (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Insurance - Insurable interest - Contractors - Whether the Court of Appeal’s holding that the insurable interest of a contractor or sub‐contractor, which is found to exist at the time of the act or omission that causes a loss, terminates upon the completion of a construction project, such that it does not exist at the time of the discovery of the loss, raises an issue of public importance - Whether the Court of Appeal’s holding that the “date of loss” for the purpose of determining the existence of an insurable interest in property is the date upon which the damage is discovered raises an issue of public importance.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Canada Industrial Relations Board

v. (29994)

Via Rail Canada Inc. and George Cairns and Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and United Transportation Union (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Stay of proceedings - Whether the test to be applied by a court on an application for a stay of proceedings where constitutional and Charter issues are raised applies equally to a stay application involving a decision of a specialized and expert tribunal responsible for the superintendence of a discreet legislative scheme, where no constitutional or Charter issues is raised - Whether the pragmatic and functional approach and consideration of the statutory functions of the tribunal sought to be stayed, which characterizes the standard of review jurisprudence applicable to Applications for Judicial Review on the merits of a decision of a specialized and expert administrative tribunal, should guide a reviewing court in deciding whether to grant a stay or proceedings pending such review - How does the presence of broad statutory remedial and review powers bestowed upon a specialized and expert tribunal impact upon the court’s exercise of discretion in granting a stay of that tribunal’s proceedings

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Norampac Inc.

v. (30008)

Michael Hilton (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Master and servant - Wrongful dismissal - Commercial law - Contracts - Whether  the appeal court erred in upholding the finding of the trial judge that requesting an employee to be on-call one weekend out of six amounts to constructive dismissal when the only reason of the employee for refusing the request is that he would not find alternate care for his children - Whether the individual preferences for childcare are the concern of an employer.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Phil Shragge

v. (30078)

Peter Pond Holdings Ltd. (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial Law - Procedural Law - Statutes - Contracts - Securities - Courts - Appeal - Interpretation - What are the rules to be used and applied to delineate the rights and obligations of investors within the context of angel investors and venture capitalists? - How is “one year” defined within the Statue of Frauds in the context of an agreement where the parties have a reference to time beyond one year, but can be determined within one year? - What is the proper role of trial courts as front line adjudicators versus the supervisory role of appellate courts?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                  CORAM:  Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

                                                                       Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et Arbour

Roy Allan Sabotiak

v. (29841)

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

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

Sandra Murray

v. (29999)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (Ont.)

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

Gouvernement du Maroc

c. (30068)

Rhita El Ansari (Qc)

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

Joseph Marino and 1184464 Ontario Limited

v. (30107)

DBM Capital Corp. (Ont.)

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

Brent G. McClelland

v. (30179)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

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

                                                             CORAM:  Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

                                                                  Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

Dominique Briand

c. (30143)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.) (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Procédure - Preuve - Conflit d’intérêts en matière criminelle - Admissibilité - Témoigne d’expert - La communication privilégiée «avocat-client» qui vient à la connaissance d’une tierce partie en raison d’une indiscrétion ou d’un manquement déontologique de l’avocat de l’accusé et sans le consentement et la participation de ce dernier est-elle admissible en preuve ? - Le Ministère public peut-il, à des fins judiciaires, informer et / ou mettre en présence un expert de la teneur d’une telle communication ? - Tout tribunal, que ce soit en vertu de la common law ou de la Charte , a-t-il juridiction pour interdire l’utilisation, la propagation et l’admissibilité d’une telle communication, autant lors du procès qu’à l’occasion des procédures préalables au procès ? - Lorsqu’un accusé allègue le conflit d’intérêts à l’encontre de son procureur, est-il dans l’obligation, sur la question «d’impact négatif», de démontrer, en appel, que ce dernier a agit de façon déraisonnable et que le verdict aurait été autre, c’est-à-dire rencontrer les critères qui sont applicables lorsqu’on soulève l’incompétence de l’avocat? - Si ce n’est pas le cas, quels sont les critères applicables, en pratique, pour déterminer s’il y a «impact négatif»? - Est-ce qu’un alibi inexact et préjudiciable obtenu en contravention de l’article 10b)  de la Charte  est admissible en preuve, par l’entremise de la troisième étape de l’arrêt Stillman, du fait que la poursuite dispose de témoins oculaires qui placent l’accusé sur la scène du crime ? - Est-ce que l’arrêt Stillman laisse subsister la distinction, faites dans Collins et Black, entre la déclaration auto-incriminante obtenue en violation de l’article 10b)  de la Charte  et les autres éléments de preuve traditionnellement qualifiés de matériels ?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

Lafferty, Harwood & Partners Ltd. and The Estate of Richard Lafferty

v. (30103)

Jacques Parizeau and Lucien Bouchard (Que.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Civil law - Civil liability - Defamation - Freedom of expression - Right to safeguard of one’s reputation - Whether the lower courts erred in determining that the defamatory comments constituted a fault - Whether the lower courts erred in assessing the moral and punitive damages.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Transport Robert (1973) Ltée

v. (30130)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  (non-criminal) - Section 7 - Absolute liability - Regulatory Offences - Whether a statute which creates an absolute liability offence, but which precludes imprisonment as a possible penalty, offends section 7  of the Charter  - Whether a regulatory statute which creates an absolute liability offence, but which precludes imprisonment as a possible penalty, offends section 7  of the Charter  - What is the nature of the stigma which must be attached to a conviction for a regulatory offence for that offence to offend the security of the person guaranteed by s. 7  of the Charter .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Daniel Lajoie et Suzanne Vincent

c. (30048)

Camping du Lac des Pins Inc. et La Compagnie d’assurance Continental du Canada (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Responsabilité civile – Les tribunaux inférieurs ont-ils erré en concluant que l’état tétraplégique du demandeur résultait de sa propre négligence et que le camping intimé n’avait pas commis de faute?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

MARCH 25, 2004 / LE 25 MARS 2004

30049                    Stewart Roy Smith v. Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.) (Crim.)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Major and Fish JJ.

An oral hearing is ordered for April 19, 2004 to decide whether this application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Edmonton), Number 0203‐0262‐A3, dated October 28, 2003, should be granted.

Une audition est ordonnée pour le 19 avril 2004 pour décider si cette demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l’Alberta (Edmonton), numéro 0203‐0262‐A3, daté du 28 octobre 2003, doit être accordée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal - Criminal Law (Non Charter) - Appeals - Procedural Law - Whether a Court of Appeal must acceded to a request for further argument by a judge who is a member of the appellate panel - Whether the verdict of guilty was unreasonable or unsupported by evidence or based on a misapprehension of the evidence - Whether denying further argument before the Court of Appeal breached s. 7  of the Charter  or the rules of natural justice.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

MARCH 25, 2004 / LE 25 MARS 2004

29721                    Apotex Inc. v. A.B. Hassle, Astrazeneca AB, Astrazeneca Canada Inc. and The Minister of National Health and Welfare (FC) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Major and Fish JJ.

The applicant's motion to file supplemental materials is granted and the applications for leave to appeal from the judgments of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐563‐02, dated February 18, 2003, October 3, 2003 and November 3, 2003, are dismissed with costs to the respondents, A.B. Hassle, Astrazeneca AB and Astrazeneca Canada Inc.

La requête de la demanderesse pour déposer des documents additionnels est accordée et les demandes d'autorisation d'appel des arrêts de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‐563‐02, datés du 18 février 2003, 3 octobre 2003 et 3 novembre 2003, sont rejetées avec dépens en faveur des intimées, A.B. Hassle, Astrazeneca AB et Astrazeneca Canada Inc. 

NATURE OF THE CASE (1^st application)

Property law - Patents - Pharmaceutical preparations  - Infringement of patent - Procedural law - Appeals - Evidence on appeal - Threshold for admission of new evidence on appeal

PROCEDURAL HISTORY (1^st application)

NATURE OF THE CASE (2^nd and 3^rd applications)

Procedural Law - Appeal - Evidence - Admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal - Whether Court of Appeal decision not to admit fresh evidence will  require litigants to meet an impossibly high threshold for the admission of new evidence on appeal - Property law ‐ Patents - Pharmaceutical preparations - Notice of Compliance Regulations - Construction of patent claim - Infringement -Whether a new standard for the role of the disclosure portion of the patent specification in patent construction ought to be enunciated - Whether rule limiting disclosure only in cases where there is an apparent ambiguity in the claims should be eliminated

PROCEDURAL HISTORY (2^nd and 3^rd applications)

29986                    H.G. v. Her Majesty the Queen (Sask.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Major and Fish JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan, Numbers C.A. 551 and 557, dated September 16, 2003, is dismissed.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Saskatchewan, numéros C.A. 551 et 557, daté du 16 septembre 2003, est rejetée. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non Charter) - Sentencing - Court of Appeal substitutes  imprisonment  for sentence in the community with conditions - The degree of deference which an appellate court  should show to a trial judge concerning the imposition of a conditional sentence of imprisonment -  The extent to which conditional sentences of imprisonment are available for the offense of sexual assault -  The extent to which an accused’s failure to acknowledge guilt and plead guilty can be used to trump other sentencing factors -  The extent to which particular attention is required to the non-incarceration of aboriginal offenders if they do not come from an economically disadvantaged background.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30041                    Christopher Charles Branson v. Susan Eloise Trylinski‐Branson (Alta.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Major and Fish JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Number 01‐00232, dated October 9, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Alberta (Calgary), numéro 01‐00232, daté du 9 octobre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family law - Maintenance - Reciprocal enforcement of maintenance order - Procedural law - Judgments and orders -International law - Conflict of laws - Foreign judgment -  Australian order for child support - Payee and children residing in Alberta - Australian payor served with Notice to Disclose while visiting children in Alberta - Whether a Canadian court may assume jurisdiction over a foreign national through its domestic procedure - Whether a Canadian Court may usurp the jurisdiction of a foreign court through its domestic procedure

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30073                    Constantin Panousis v. Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Major and Fish JJ.

The motion to extend the time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Edmonton), Number 0203‐0453‐A3, dated September 30, 2003, is dismissed.

La requête 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 0203‐0453‐A3, daté du 30 septembre 2003, est rejetée. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal Law - Section 11(b) Right to Trial Within a Reasonable Time - What duty does the Crown have to each co-accused to safeguard their right to trial within a reasonable time where one or more of the co-accused causes unreasonable or unmeritorious delay ? - How should such delay be attributed in a s. 11(b)  Charter  application where the Crown could have taken reasonable steps to avoid the delay but did not? - Must an accused take active steps to force his prosecution forward or is it sufficient if, having caused no delay himself, that at every relevant point he advises the Court and the Crown of potential delay-causing problem, and of his continuing reliance on his s. 11(b)  rights? - Did the Court of Appeal err when it did not correct or reverse the decision of the trial judge who ruled that because the Applicant had not initiated and proceeded with special judicial steps to force his prosecution forward, he had in effect waived the unreasonable or unmeritorious delay caused by a co-accused? - In determining if there has been a s. 11(b)  breach, may a simple mathematical formula be employed to determine the outcome?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30081                    Cecil Decorte v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Major and Fish JJ.

The motion to extend the time and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C39020, dated September 12, 2003, are granted.

La requête de prorogation de délai et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C39020, daté du 12 septembre 2003, sont accordées. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal - Police - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in holding that members of the First Nations Anishinabek Police Service were police officers capable of undertaking a R.I.D.E. program not on reserve territory - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in failing to hold that the evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful stop and detention was not admissible as its admission offended section 7 , 9  and 24  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29971                    North Fraser Harbour Commission, General Chemical Canada Ltd. v. Environmental Appeal Board, Attorney General of British Columbia, Canadian Pacific Railway, Deputy Director of Waste Management, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA027158, dated July 29, 2003, is granted with no order as to costs.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA027158, daté du 29 juillet 2003, est accordée sans ordonnance relative aux dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Company law - Amalgamation - Liability of amalgamated company for polluting activities of constituent entity - Statutes - Interpretation -  Retrospective and retroactive enactments- Pollution control - Whether environmental legislation with legislative purpose to make polluters pay applies retroactively - Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that terms of amalgamation agreement precluded BC Hydro from being named as a “responsible person” under the Waste Management Act, R.S.B.C. c. 482 for environmental contamination caused by one of the pre-amalgamation entities

 PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29973                    Government of Saskatchewan v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (Sask.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

The motion for a stay of execution is dismissed with costs. The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan, Number C.A. No. 624, dated October 3, 2003, is granted with costs to the applicant in any event of the cause. 

La requête en sursis est rejetée avec dépens. La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Saskatchewan, numéro C.A. No. 624, daté du 3 octobre 2003, est accordée avec dépens en faveur du demandeur quelle que soit l'issue de l'appel. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional law - Statutes - Statutory instruments - Whether the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan erred in law in holding that the issue of the paramountcy of a federal law could be ruled upon as a point of law alone, without any factual foundation, pursuant to a motion made under rule 188 of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench Rules - Whether the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan erred in law in ruling that section 6 of The Tobacco Control Act, S.S. 2001, c. T‐14.1, conflicts with section 30  of the Tobacco Act , S.C. 1997, c. 13 , and is thereby inoperative pursuant to the doctrine of federal legislative paramountcy.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

15.3.2004

Before / Devant : IACOBUCCI J.

DISMISSED / REJETÉE 

À LA SUITE D’UNE DEMANDE de l’appelante visant à obtenir une ordonnance permettant la production de documents additionnels ainsi que des cassettes audio;

ET APRÈS AVOIR PRIS CONNAISSANCE de la documentation déposée;

L’ORDONNANCE SUIVANTE EST RENDUE;

La demande permettant la production de documents additionnels ainsi que des cassettes audio est rejetée.

15.3.2004

Before / Devant : IACOBUCCI J.

GRANTED IN PART / ACCORDÉE EN PARTIE

À LA SUITE DE LA DEMANDE du Procureur général du Québec visant à obtenir une prorogation de délai pour produire et signifier une requête en intervention; l’autorisation d’intervenir dans le présent dossier; l’autorisation de produire et signifier un mémoire et à présenter une plaidoirie orale d’une durée de 15 minutes; l’abrégement des délais pour répondre et pour traiter de la requête en intervention; l’ajournement de l’audition de l’appel dans l’appel susmentionné;

ET APRÈS AVOIR LU la documentation déposée;

L’ORDONNANCE SUIVANTE EST RENDUE;

1)         La demande de prorogation de délai pour produire et signifier une requête en intervention est accordée.

2)         La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par le Procureur général du Québec est accordée; la plaidoirie de l’intervenant est limitée à quinze (15) minutes lors de l’audition de l’appel.

3)         La demande pour le dépôt d’un mémoire est rejetée.

16.3.2004

Before / Devant : LEBEL J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the intervener, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia, for an order extending the time to serve and file a notice of intervention to March 5, 2004, pursuant to subrule 61(4) of the  Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada; to serve and file the factum to March 31, 2004 and to present an oral argument of 15 minutes at the hearing of the appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

16.3.2004

Before / Devant : LEBEL J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the intervener, the Attorney General of Prince Edward Island, for an order extending the time to serve and file a notice of intervention to February 2, 2004, pursuant to subrule 61(4) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

17.3.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR  

DISMISSED / REJETÉE   

17.3.2004

Before / Devant : LEBEL J.

UPON APPLICATIONS by the Canadian Association for Community Living and the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, the British Columbia Coalition of People with Disabilities, the Families for Early Autism Treatment of Ontario, the Autism Society Canada, the Families for Effective Autism Treatment of Alberta Foundation, the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund and the DisAbled Women’s Network Canada, Ms. Michelle Dawson, the Society Making Autism Readily Treatable and the Friends of Children with Autism for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

After reviewing the material filed in support, it appears that not all these motions should be granted.  I am of the view that the motion of the British Columbia Coalition of People with Disabilities, which belongs to the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, fails to indicate any distinct perspective which would be of assistance to the Court and should be dismissed.  The applications of the Families for Early Autism Treatment of Ontario and the Families for Effective Autism Treatment of Alberta Foundation raise the same issues and the same perspectives.  They should be granted leave to intervene, but will have to file a joint factum.  The motion of the Society Making Autism Readily Treatable should not be allowed as it seeks to introduce new issues and additional evidence in the record.  The other applications should be granted.

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Canadian Association for Community Living and the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before April 16, 2004.

The motions for leave to intervene by the applicants, the Families for Early Autism Treatment of Ontario and the Families for Effective Autism Treatment of Alberta Foundation, are granted and the applicants shall be entitled to serve and file a joint factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before April 16, 2004.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Autism Society Canada, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before April 16, 2004.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund and the DisAbled Women’s Network Canada, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before April 16, 2004.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, Ms. Michelle Dawson, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before April 16, 2004.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Friends of Children with Autism, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before April 16, 2004.

The motions for leave to intervene of the British Columbia Coalition of People with Disabilities and the Society Making Autism Readily Treatable are dismissed.

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. 

17.3.2004

Before / Devant : ARBOUR J.

DISMISSED WITH COSTS / REJETÉE AVEC DÉPENS

À LA SUITE DE LA DEMANDE des demandeurs visant à obtenir un sursis d’exécution;

ET APRÈS AVOIR LU la documentation déposée;

L’ORDONNANCE SUIVANTE EST RENDUE:

Une demande de sursis d’exécution du jugement de la Cour d’appel a déjà été rejetée par le juge Forget de cette cour.  En l’absence de circonstances spéciales, la Cour n’examinera pas une nouvelle demande de sursis.

Dans l’arrêt Esmail c. Petro-Canada, [1997] 2 R.C.S. 3, la Cour a été saisie d’une demande fondée sur l’art. 65.1, après que la juge Weiler de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario eût rejeté la demande qui lui avait été présentée.  Le juge Sopinka a conclu qu’en l’absence de « circonstances spéciales » la personne, dont la demande de sursis fondée sur l’art. 65.1 a été rejetée par un juge de la Cour d’appel, ne peut pas réitérer cette demande devant la Cour (par. 2) :

Lorsqu’il a édicté le par. 65.1(1) pour conférer aux juges de la juridiction inférieure le pouvoir d’accorder un sursis, le législateur n’avait pas l’intention de permettre régulièrement la présentation de demandes successives.  La modification visait à permettre aux plaideurs de présenter leur demande à la cour qui venait d’examiner l’affaire.  Souvent, l’emplacement de la juridiction inférieure se prête mieux au jugement rapide de l’affaire.  C’est seulement dans des circonstances spéciales qu’il devrait être permis de présenter successivement une demande à un juge de la juridiction inférieure et à un juge de notre Cour.  [Je souligne.]

Le juge Forget s’est demandé si, en tant que juge unique de la Cour d’appel, il avait compétence pour accorder un sursis qui reviendrait à statuer, quoique temporairement, le contraire de ce qu’avait statué une formation plénière de la Cour.  De toute façon, il aurait rejeté au fond la demande de sursis.

En supposant que les doutes que le juge Forget a exprimés au sujet de sa compétence constituent le type de circonstances spéciales qui justifieraient la Cour de procéder à un nouvel examen de la même requête, je suis d’avis que les requérants n’ont pas établi le bien-fondé d’un sursis.  Dans l’arrêt RJR — MacDonald Inc. c. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 R.C.S. 311, la Cour a statué que, pour obtenir une ordonnance de sursis fondée sur le par. 65.1 de la Loi sur la Cour suprême, il faut démontrer (1) qu’il y a une « question sérieuse à juger », (2) que le refus d’accorder le redressement sollicité causera un préjudice irréparable et (3) que la prépondérance des inconvénients est favorable à la personne qui sollicite le redressement.

Les requérants n’ont pas démontré qu’ils subiraient un « préjudice irréparable » si le défendeur était autorisé à engager des procédures disciplinaires contre eux et à les forcer à produire les documents en question.

Par conséquent, je suis d’avis de rejeter la demande de sursis, avec dépens.

A motion for a stay of the judgment of the Court of Appeal has already been dismissed by Forget JA of that Court.  Absent special circumstances, this Court will not enter-entertain a successive motion for a stay.

In Esmail v. Petro-Canada, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 3.  a motion was brought under s. 65.1  before this Court after Weiler J.A. of the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed one which had been brought before him. Sopinka J. held that absent “special circumstances”, a person whose request for a stay under s. 65.1 had been denied by a judge of the Court of Appeal could not make a second or “successive” application before this Court (at para. 2):

In enacting s. 65.1(1) to give judges of the court appealed from jurisdiction to grant a stay, Parliament did not intend that successive applications be routinely permitted. The purpose of the amendment was to enable litigants to apply to the court that had recently dealt with the matter.  Often the court appealed from is more conveniently located so as to permit the matter to be dealt with more expeditiously.  It is only in special circumstances that successive applications to a judge of the court appealed from and a judge of this Court should be permitted.  [Emphasis added.]

Forget JA questioned whether as a single judge of the Court of Appeal, he had jurisdiction to enter a stay, the effect of which would be to decide, albeit on a temporary basis, the opposite of what a full panel of the Court had decided. In any event, he would have denied the stay on the merit.

Assuming that the doubts expressed by Forget JA as to his competence amount to the kinds of special circumstances that would justify this Court entertaining the same motion afresh, I am of the view that the Applicants have not made a case for a stay.  In  RJR — MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, this Court held that in order for a stay to be granted under s. 65.1 of the Supreme Court Act, it must be shown (1) that there is a “serious question to be tried”, (2) that irreparable harm will result if the relief is not granted and (3) that the balance of inconvenience favours the person seeking relief.

The Applicants have not shown they would suffer  “irreparable harm” if the defendant is allowed to proceed with disciplinary proceedings against them and thus force them to produce the documents in issue.

I would therefore dismiss the motion for a stay, with costs.

17.3.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR  

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to June 25, 2004.

17.3.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR  

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to January 23, 2004.

17.3.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR  

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE 

18.3.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR  

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

18.3.2004

Before / Devant : LEBEL J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to March 30, 2004.

18.3.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR  

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to April 2, 2004.

19.3.2004

Theresa Marche and Gary Fitzgerald

v. (29754)

The Halifax Insurance Company (N.S.)

22.3.2004

Le ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration

c. (30025)

Léon Mugesera, Gemma Uwamariya, Irenée Rutema, Yves Rusi, Carmen Nono, Mireille Urumuri et Marie-Grâce Hoho (C.F.)

11.3.2004

BY/PAR:                Procureur général de l’Ontario

IN/DANS:              Normand Martineau

  c. (29794)

Le ministre du Revenu national (C.F.)

15.3.2004

BY / PAR :             Attorney General of British Columbia

IN / DANS :           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.)

16.3.2004

BY / PAR :             Attorney General of Manitoba

IN / DANS :           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.)

17.3.2004

BY / PAR :             Procureur général de l’Ontario

IN / DANS :           Procureur général du Québec, et autres

  c. (29822)

Raymond Chabot Inc., és qualités de syndic à la faillite de D.I.M.S. Construction Inc. (Qc)

18.3.2004

BY / PAR :             Attorney General of Canada

IN / DANS :           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.)

22.3.2004

BY / PAR :             Attorney General of Ontario

Attorney General of Quebec 

IN / DANS :           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.)

19.3.2004

Coram:    Les juges Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps et Fish

DISMISSED WITH COSTS / REJETÉE AVEC DÉPENS 

19.4.2004

Coram:    The Chief Justice McLachlin and Iacobucci, Major, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish JJ.

DISMISSED / REJETÉE 

22.3.2004

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

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

23.3.2004

Coram:    Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish JJ.

DISMISSED, NO ORDER AS TO COSTS, REASONS TO FOLLOW / REJETÉE, SANS ORDONNANCE QUANT AUX DÉPENS, MOTIFS À SUIVRE

23.3.2004

Coram:    La Juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps et Fish

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

24.03.2004 - 25.3.2004

Coram:    McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish JJ.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

MARCH 25, 2004 / LE 25 MARS 2004

29426                    Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of St. George’s v. John Doe  (“a pseudonym”) and John Doe (“a pseudonym”) - and between - John Doe  (“a pseudonym”) and John Doe (“a pseudonym”) v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of St. George’s - and - Alphonsus Penney, Raymond Lahey,  Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of St. John’s, James MacDonald and the Roman Catholic Church - and - Attorney General of Canada and Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (N.L.) 2004 SCC 17 / 2004 CSC 17

Coram:    McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish JJ.

The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador, Number 00/76, 00/77, dated August 23, 2002, heard on January 14, 2004 and the cross-appeal are dismissed with costs of the appeal and cross-appeal to the respondents/appellants on cross-appeal, John Doe  and John Doe, payable by the appellant/respondent on cross-appeal, Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of St. George’s on a solicitor-client basis.

L’appel interjeté contre l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de Terre‐Neuve et Labrador, numéro 00/76, 00/77, en date du 23 août 2002, entendu le 14 janvier 2004 et l’appel incident sont rejetés avec dépens, payables sur la base procureur-client par l’appelante/intimée à l’appel incident Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of St. George’s aux intimés/appelants à l’appel incident, M. Untel et M. Untel, tant à l’égard de l’appel que de l’appel incident.

28967                    Ville de Montréal c. La Société d’énergie Foster Wheeler Ltée ‐ et ‐ Barreau du Québec et Association du Barreau canadien (Qc) 2004 SCC 18 / 2004 CSC 18

Coram :                  La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel et Fish

L’appel interjeté contre l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐008782‐997, en date du 11 octobre 2001, entendu le 12 novembre 2003 est rejeté avec dépens.

The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐008782‐997, dated October 11, 2001, heard on November 12, 2003 is dismissed with costs.

29321                    City of Calgary v. United Taxi Drivers’ Fellowship of Southern Alberta, Rashpal Singh Gosal,  Haringer Singh Dhesi, Aero Cab Ltd. and Air Linker Cab Ltd. - and - Attorney General of Alberta (Alta.) 2004 SCC 19 / 2004 CSC 19

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish JJ.

The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Number 17693, dated May 29, 2002, heard on December 8, 2003 is allowed with costs throughout.

L’appel interjeté contre l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Alberta (Calgary), numéro 17693, en date du 29 mai 2002, entendu le 8 décembre 2003 est accueilli avec dépens devant toutes les cours.

MARCH 26, 2004 / LE 26 MARS 2004

29095                    Pertti Tulikorpi v. Attorney General of Ontario, Administrator of the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre and Administrator of the Whitby Mental Health Centre - and - Attorney General of Canada, Ontario Review Board, Nunavut Review Board, Mental Health Legal Committee and Mental Health Legal Advocacy Coalition (Ont.) (Crim.) 2004 SCC 20 / 2004 CSC 20

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish JJ.

The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C34987, dated May 31, 2001, was heard on November 5, 2003 and the Court on November 7, 2003 delivered the following judgment:

The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C34987, dated May 31, 2001, heard on November 5, 2003 is allowed, reasons to follow.  The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and an expedited hearing before the Ontario Review Board in accordance with the reasons which will shortly follow is ordered.  The order setting aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal is stayed pending the Board's decision on the expedited hearing.

On this day, reasons were delivered and the judgment delivered on November 7, 2003 was restated as follows:

The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C34987, dated May 31, 2001, heard on November 5, 2003 is allowed.  The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and an expedited hearing before the Ontario Review Board in accordance with the general principles set out in the reasons for judgment.  The order setting aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal is stayed pending the Board's decision on the expedited hearing.

The constitutional questions are answered as follows:

1.             Does s. 672.54 (c) of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 , infringe s. 7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

Answer:  No.

2.             If so, 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 ?

Answer:  It is unnecessary to decide this question.

L'appel contre l'arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C34987, en date du 31 mai 2001, a été entendu le 5 novembre 2003 et la Cour a prononcé le 7 novembre 2003 le jugement suivant :

L'appel entendu le 5 novembre 2003 à l'encontre de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C34987, en date du 31 mai 2001, est accueilli, avec motifs à suivre.  L'arrêt de la Cour d'appel est annulé et il est ordonné à la Commission ontarienne d'examen de tenir dans les plus brefs délais une audience conformément aux motifs qui seront déposés sous peu.  La prise d'effet de l'ordonnance annulant l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel est suspendue jusqu'à ce que la Commission ait tenu son audience et rendu sa décision.

Aujourd'hui, la Cour a déposé des motifs et reformulé comme suit le jugement rendu le 7 novembre 2003 :

L'appel entendu le 5 novembre 2003 à l'encontre de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C34987, en date du 31 mai 2001, est accueilli.  L'arrêt de la Cour d'appel est annulé et il est ordonné à la Commission ontarienne d'examen de tenir dans les plus brefs délais une audience conformément aux principes généraux énoncés dans les motifs de jugement.  La prise d'effet de l'ordonnance annulant l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel est suspendue jusqu'à ce que la Commission ait tenu son audience et rendu sa décision.

Les questions constitutionnelles reçoivent les réponses suivantes :

1.             L’alinéa 672.54c) du Code criminel , L.R.C. 1985, ch. C-46 , porte-t-il atteinte aux droits garantis par l’art. 7  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

Réponse :  Non.

2.             Dans l’affirmative, s’agit-il d’une atteinte constituant une limite raisonnable, établie par une règle de droit et justifiée dans le cadre d’une société libre et démocratique au sens de l’article premier de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

Réponse :  Il n’est pas nécessaire de répondre à cette question.

29254                    Michael Roger Pinet v. Attorney General of Ontario and Administrator of St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital - and - Attorney General of Canada, Ontario Review Board, Nunavut Review Board, Mental Health Legal Committee and Mental Health Legal Advocacy Coalition (Ont.) (Crim.)

2004 SCC 21 / 2004 CSC 21

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish JJ.

The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C35777, dated February 22, 2002, was heard on November 5, 2003 and the Court on November 7, 2003 delivered the following judgment:

The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C35777, dated February 22, 2002, heard on November 5, 2003 is allowed, reasons to follow.  The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and an expedited hearing before the Ontario Review Board in accordance with the reasons which will shortly follow is ordered.  The order setting aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal is stayed pending the Board's decision on the expedited hearing.

On this day, reasons were delivered and the judgment delivered on November 7, 2003 was restated as follows: