Bulletins

      OF CANADA                                             DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

March 19, 2004 433 - 459                                                                    Le 19 mars 2004

CONTENTS                                                     TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Stephen Fazekas

Stephen Fazekas

v. (30122)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

John Norris

Attorney General of Ontario

FILING DATE: 4.12.2003

J-Sons Inc., et al.

Charles J. Pelhan Q.C.

Monk, Goodwin

v. (30201)

N.M. Paterson & Sons Limited (Man.)

David M. Skwark

Fillmore & Riley

FILING DATE: 8.3.2004

Roger Callow

Roger Callow

v. (30196)

The Board of School Trustees of School district No. 45 (West Vancouver), et al. (B.C.)

Geoffrey J. Litherland

Harris & Company

FILING DATE: 5.3.2004

Maria Sokolowska

Maria Sokolowska

v. (30198)

Ottawa Police Service (Ont.)

Jeremy Wright

City of Ottawa

FILING DATE: 5.3.2004

Philip Neil Wiles

Philip J. Star, Q.C.

Pink, Nickerson, Star

v. (30199)

Her Majesty the Queen (N.S.)

Stanley W. MacDonald

Attorney General of Canada

FILING DATE: 8.3.2004

Oswald Duncan MacLeod Agent for Paul Joseph O’Leary and Duncan Ross Moodie

Oswald, Duncan, MacLeod

v. (30052)

Catherine Josephine MacLeod, et al. (Alta.)

Jocelyn Hill

Family Law Office

FILING DATE: 8.3.2004

Yvonne Montague, et al.

Yvonne Montague

v. (30191)

The Bank of Nova Scotia (Ont.)

David E. Leonard

McCarthy, Tétrault

FILING DATE: 2.3.2004

Bank of Nova Scotia

David E. Leonard

McCarthy, Tétrault

v. (30191)

Yvonne Montague, et al. (Ont.)

Yvonne Montague

FILING DATE: 8.3.2004

Apotex Inc.

Harry B. Radomski

Goodmans

v. (30193)

Merck & Co. Inc. (F.C.)

Judith Robinson

Ogilvy, Renaut

FILING DATE: 1.3.2004

Executive Director of the British Columbia Securities Commission

James A. Angus

British Columbia Securities Commission

v. (30205)

Carl Glen Anderson, et al. (B.C.)

Robert W. Taylor

Taylor, Veinotte, Sullivan

FILING DATE: 8.3.2004

Esa Holdings Ltd.

Tom F. Mayson

Fraser, Milner, Casgrain

v. (30157)

Caleron Properties Ltd., et al. (Alta.)

Jeff W. Moroz

Shea, Nerland, Calnan

FILING DATE: 2.3.2004

Richard Thibault

Richard Thibault

c. (30195)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Ont.)

Jennifer E. Briscoe

Attorney General of Canada

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 10.2.2004

Christian Savard, agissant en reprise d’instance pour C. Savard inc., et autre

Christian Savard

c. (30204)

Ville de Québec, autrefois Ville de Vanier (Qc)

Roger D. Pothier

Pothier, Delisle

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 9.3.2004

Titus Nguiagain

Titus Nguiagain

c. (30203)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qc)

Jean-Philippe Robitaille

Procureur général du Québec 

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 12.3.2004

R. Kent Remington, a.k.a. B. Kent Remington, a.k.a. Bary Kent Remington

Michael J. McCabe, Q.C.

Reynolds, Mirth, Richards & Farmer

v. (30207)

Robert G. Peters (Alta.)

Ariel Z. Breitman

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt

FILING DATE: 12.3.2004

MARCH 15, 2004 / LE 15 MARS 2004

                                                    CORAM:  Chief Justice McLachlin and Major and Fish JJ.

                                                          La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Major et Fish

NPV Management Limited

v. (29988)

Rex C. Anthony, J. Percy McDonald and Terrence Daley (N.L.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Procedure - Company law - Shareholders - Where facts support an oppression remedy under s. 241 of the Canadian Business Corporation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-44  (“CBCA ”), but the claim is “derivative in nature”, must leave be obtained under s. 239(1) to bring an action in the name of and on behalf of the corporation? - If so, are statutory complainants under s. 238, including the Applicant shareholder, deprived of the right to bring an oppression application under s. 241  of the CBCA ?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

William Patrick Thomson, Allen Scott Hamilton, Elizabeth Ann Craft and Alpha Charolotte Drunken Chief

v. (29974)

Her Majesty the Queen in the name of the Alberta Transportation and Safety Board and

Alberta Driver Control Board and Attorney General of Alberta (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional law - Division of powers - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred when it determined that Alberta’s Administrative License Suspension (ALS) scheme was validly enacted provincial legislation and that Alberta’s ALS program was not, in its pith and substance or in its effect, criminal law legislation and therefore not ultra vires - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the ALS program did not infringe on Charter  rights under ss. 7, 11(d) and 13.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Dennis Reid

v. (30057)

The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 2503 (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property Law - Statutes - Interpretation - Real Property - whether the lower courts’ interpretation of s. 164 of the Strata Property Act is correct with specific reference to the meaning of “significantly unfair” - whether the lower courts erred in giving mere directions to the Strata Council to enforce the Strata Property Act and the bylaws of Terra Vita instead of ordering the Strata Council to enforce the statutory provisions and the bylaws - whether the direction of the British Columbia Court of Appeal that the Strata Council should rectify the misuse of the Common Property renders section 3 and section 164 of the Strata Property Act unenforceable - whether the lower courts erred in failing to consider the common law pertaining to private nuisance

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Nicolaas Koks and Koks Euromotors Ltd.

v. (29929)

HIVO Enterprises Ltd., Harry Griffin and Wilhelmina Griffin and Margret Testroete (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial Law - Company Law - Shareholders’ Agreements - Whether the “shareholder oppression” remedy provisions in s. 242 and other provisions of the Alberta Business Corporations Act are, in effect, a “Charter of Rights ” for shareholders and should be interpreted with that principle in mind - Whether, on the facts of this case, the Court of Appeal erred in not upholding the Applicant’s rights as a shareholder in light of the principle described in paragraph (a) above - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not correcting the trial judge’s non‐consideration of the Respondents’ breach of a court order and subsequent interference with valuation evidence - Whether, in any event, the errors of the Court of Appeal are of such magnitude as to merit the consideration of this Court.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                  CORAM:  Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

                                                                       Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et Arbour

Kirkbi AG and Lego Canada Inc.

v. (29956)

Ritvik Holdings Inc./Gestions Ritvik Inc. (now operating as Mega Bloks Inc.) (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Trade marks - Functional trade marks - Passing off - Whether the owner of a trade-mark which meets the statutory definition of “trade-mark” and which has been found to have acquired secondary meaning should be disentitled to relief from passing off on the grounds that the claimed mark is primarily functional - Whether the holder of an unregistered trade-mark has exclusive rights in the trade-mark - Whether the Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, s. 7 (b) protects a right of property in goodwill from misrepresentation - Whether the principle behind statutory passing off under s. 7(b) is different from the principle behind common law passing off - Whether passing off in the Federal Court differs from passing off in the provincial courts - What is the significance of prior patents in determining whether a mark is a trade‐mark - Whether the elements of passing off had been proven.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Réserve de la Petite Nation Inc.

c. (30145)

Serge Bruneau, John Marshall, Éric Therrien, Éric Charbonneau, Gérard Sévigny, Guy Caubel, Alexandre Alarie, Ryan Ward, Paul Savard, Francis Alarie, Martin Beaucage, Gilles Caubel, le Procureur général du Québec et la Société de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec (Qc)

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

Arthur Webster

v. (30095)

Attorney General of Canada (F.C.)

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

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (30005)

Joshua Bernard (N.B.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional law -Native law - Indians - Treaty rights - Aboriginal land title -Whether the Respondent has a treaty right to harvest and sell logs from Crown lands - Whether the treaty right can be exercised by individuals without community authority - Whether  the Respondent exceeded the inherent limitation of the treaty in respect of an individual’s right to harvest resources in order to earn a moderate livelihood - Whether the treaty right was extinguished by pre‐confederation legislation in the Province of New Brunswick - Whether infringement of the treaty right by s. 67(1)(c) of the Crown Lands and Forest Act, S.N.B. 1980, c. C‐38.1, was justified - Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010 - R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456, R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 533, R. v. Sundown, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 393, Mitchell v. M.N.R., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                             CORAM:  Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

                                                                  Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

Q.S.B. Inc. (Santé Animale Breton)

c. (30133)

Ordre des pharmaciens du Québec (Crim.) (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Procédure - Appel - Définition de la notion de vente dans un contexte de droit professionnel - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que l’appel ne soulevait pas une question de droit ?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

George Ghanotakis

c. (30117)

Pierre Roy et Associés Inc. (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Procédure ‐ Faillite - Créancier et débiteur - Rôle du syndic - Procédure civile - Jugements & ordonnances - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en omettant de considérer le conflit d’intérêt du syndic et de son procureur ainsi que ses nombreuses lacunes à l’encontre de l’article 14.02  de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité  L.R.C., 1985 ch. B-3  ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en refusant au demandeur la permission d’en appeler en vertu de l’article 193  de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité  L.R.C., 1985 ch. B-3  ?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

La Brasserie Seigneuriale Inc. et La Brasserie Sleeman du Québec, dénomination de The Sleeman Brewing and Malting Co. Ltd.

c. (30138)

La Société des alcools du Québec (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Contrats - Résiliation - Les juges de la majorité ont-ils erré en déclarant que les deux motifs de résiliation de contrat invoqués par la Société des alcools du Québec étaient bien fondés ? - Est-ce que l’obligation de déchargement des produits à Laval faisait partie du contrat et, dans l’affirmative, cette exigence était-elle déraisonnable ? - Est-ce que l’obligation de Seigneuriale d’exporter de ses produits à l’extérieur de la province de Québec faisait partie du contrat ? - La décision de la Société des alcools du Québec d’annuler le contrat est-elle une mesure protectionniste illégale dictée par un représentant de l’Exécutif et dénaturant les exigences de la loi pour l’exploitation d’un permis de brasseur ?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

U L Canada Inc.

v. (30065)

Attorney General of Quebec and Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec (Qc)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Constitutional law - International law - Statutes - Interpretation - Civil rights - Freedom of expression - Division of powers - Provincial power to maker regulations to protect the dairy industry against competitors - Obligation to exercise delegated powers in accordance with international and interprovincial agreements - Whether s. 40(1)(c) of the Regulation respecting dairy products and substitutes, R.R.Q. 1981, c. P-30, r. 15, by imposing restrictions on the colour of margarine exposed, sold and distributed in the Province of Quebec, is ultra vires the powers of the Government of Quebec in light of the North American free trade Agreement, the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization and the Agreement on internal trade - Whether the impugned Regulation violates the guarantee of freedom of expression - Whether the Superior Courts have jurisdiction to declare legislation invalid due to unreasonableness - Whether the lower courts erred in finding that the impugned Regulation had incidental effects on international and internal trade.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION / DEMANDE DE RÉEXAMEN

                                                   CORAM:  Chief Justice McLachlin and Major and Fish JJ. /

La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Major et Fish

Sameer Mapara v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Crim.) (By Leave) (29750)

MARCH 16, 2004 / LE 16 MARS 2004

                                                    CORAM:  Chief Justice McLachlin and Major and Fish JJ.

                                                          La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Major et Fish

Stewart Roy Smith

v. (30049)

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

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 16, 2004/ LE 16 MARS 2004

CORAM:           Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel J.

Christian Vincent

c. (29634)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qc.) (Crim.)

Richard Gaudreau pour l’appelant.

Hélène Boucher et Pierre Lévesque pour l’intimée

DISMISSED / REJETÉE  

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Preuve - Procès - Directives au jury - Le juge de première instance a‐t‐il erré en droit en n’interrompant pas l’accusé systématiquement lorsqu’il plaidait hors la preuve? - Le juge de première instance a‐t‐il erré en droit en n’énumérant pas, lors de ses directives au jury, tous les faits que l’accusé avait plaidé hors la preuve, et en omettant d’instruire le jury de ces faits non prouvés? - Si le juge de première instance n’a pas ou a erré, quel sont les sources de compréhension ou de latitude qui doivent être appliquées dans le cas ou un accusé doit se défendre seul, n’ayant aucune expérience juridique et qui n’a pas les moyens d’avoir un avocat pour le représenter?  Comment devant la Justice peut‐il être certain d’avoir eu un procès ou des motifs équitables? - Que dit la Charte des droits et libertés?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

MARCH 18, 2004 / LE 18 MARS 2004

29917                    Caroline Martin v. Alberta Mental Health Board (Alta.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Number 0103‐0211‐AC, dated June 9, 2003, is dismissed.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Alberta (Calgary), numéro 0103‐0211‐AC, daté du 9 juin 2003, est rejetée.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30082                    Jean Chalifoux c. Centre communautaire juridique 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 500‐09‐011170‐016, daté du 7 octobre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐011170‐016, dated October 7, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Révision judiciaire - Norme de contrôle applicable - Le jugement de la Cour d’appel du Québec est-il manifestement déraisonnable dans sa qualification de la norme de contrôle appropriée? - La décision de l’arbitre est-elle injuste? - L’arbitre a-t-il dérogé au décret, au règlement et à l’Entente entre le ministre de la Justice du Québec et le Barreau du Québec intervenue le 6 juin 1990 en vertu de la Loi sur l’aide juridique, L.R.Q., c. A-14 ? - La décision de l’arbitre est-elle illogique et irrationnelle, démontrant un non-respect de l’usage interprétatif de la preuve?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

30105                    Robert Armstrong v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal) (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 C36973, dated September 17, 2003, is dismissed without costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C36973, daté du 17 septembre 2003, est rejetée sans dépens. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law - Interpretation - Whether section 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code  can ever apply in criminal cases to save convictions where a mandatory unsavoury witness warning is not given and Crown’s case is not overwhelming - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario, erred in applying the proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code  in the circumstances of this case where it was found that a mandatory Vetrovec warning was not given and the Crown’s case against the accused was not overwhelming.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

8.3.2004

Before / Devant : THE CHIEF JUSTICE

DISMISSED / REJETÉE  

UPON APPLICATION by the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada, for an order stating a constitutional question in the above appeals;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The application to state a constitutional question is dismissed.

8.3.2004

Before / Devant : ARBOUR J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉES

UPON APPLICATIONS by the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, the Canadian Association for Community Living, the Canadian Hearing Society and the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, the Hospital Employees’ Union, the British Columbia Government and Service Employees’ Union and the Health Sciences Association, and the Canadian Labour Congress, for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, Canadian Association for Community Living, the Canadian Hearing Society 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 .

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Hospital Employees’ Union, the British Columbia Government and Services Employees’ Union and the Health Sciences Association, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Canadian Labour Congress, 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 to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties.

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

9.3.2004

Before / Devant : ARBOUR J.

GRANTED IN PART / ACCORDÉE EN PARTIE

UPON APPLICATION by the Freehold Petroleum & Natural Gas Owners Association for an extension of time to apply for leave to intervene and for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

AND UPON APPLICATION by the respondents PanCanadian, Gulf and Amoco for an order granting leave to cross-examine the applicant’s deponent, Else Pedersen on her affidavit, in the event leave to intervene is granted;

HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion for an extension of time to apply for leave to intervene is granted.

The motion for leave to intervene is granted.  The intervener, the Freehold Petroleum & Natural Gas Owners Association, shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before April 1, 2004.

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

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

The motions for leave to cross-examine Else Pedersen are dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

The intervener shall not be entitled to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties.  In its material the intervener indicates that it intends to make submissions respecting the potential consequences this Court’s decision will have on an issue which is not otherwise going to be addressed by the appellants or respondents: the ownership of coal bed methane.  The role of an intervener does not generally involve or contemplate new issues being introduced or new evidence being adduced.  Accordingly, as the ownership of coal bed methane is not an issue properly before this Court on this appeal, the intervener should not address this issue in its submissions.   Similarly, the intervener should not make reference to the testimony provided by Mr. James Lewis at the trial level in the case of Borys v. C.P.R.,

[1951] 2 W.W.R. (NS) 145 (Alta S.C.); rev’d in part, [1952] 4 W.W.R. (NS) 481 (Applicant. Div.), aff’d, [1953] 7 W.W.R. (NS) 546 (P.C.), since this evidence was not adduced at trial and does not form part of the record on this appeal.

9.3.2004

Before / Devant : ARBOUR J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the applicant for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal to February 20, 2004;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The application for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal to February 20, 2004, is granted.

9.3.2004

Before / Devant : LEBEL J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉES

UPON APPLICATIONS by the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association, la Conférence des juges du Québec, the Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges, the Ontario Conference of Judges, the Judicial Justice of the Peace Association of British Columbia and the Association of Justices of the Peace 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 applicant, the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, la Conférence des juges du Québec, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length .

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

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

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Judicial Justice of the Peace Association of British Columbia, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

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

The 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 to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties.

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

La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par l’Association canadienne des juges des cours supérieures est accordée; la requérante aura le droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire de 20 pages.

La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par la Conférence des juges du Québec est accordée; la requérante aura le droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire de 20 pages.

La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par l’Association canadienne des juges des cours provinciales est accordée; la requérante aura le droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire de 20 pages.

La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par la Conférence des juges de l’Ontario est accordée; la requérante aura le droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire de 20 pages

La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par Judicial Justices of the Peace Association of British Columbia est accordée; la requérante aura le droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire de 20 pages.

La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par l’Association des juges de paix de l’Ontario est accordée; la requérante aura le droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire de 20 pages.

Les demandes visant à présenter une plaidoirie seront examinées après la réception et l’examen de l’argumentation écrite des parties et des intervenants.

Les intervenants n’auront pas le droit de produire d’autres éléments de preuve ni d’ajouter quoi que ce soit au dossier des parties.

Conformément au par. 59(1)(a) des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada, les intervenants paieront à l’appelant et aux intimés tous débours supplémentaires résultant de leur intervention.

9.3.2004

Before / Devant : IACOBUCCI J.

À LA SUITE DE LA DEMANDE de l’appelant visant à obtenir l’ajournement de l’audition de l’appel susmentionné prévue pour le 16 mars 2004;

ET APRÈS AVOIR LU la documentation déposée;

L’ORDONNANCE SUIVANTE EST RENDUE:

L’appel prévu pour le 16 mars 2004 est ajourné à la session du printemps 2004 et sera entendu le 17 juin 2004.

10.3.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Délai prorogé au 19 mars 2004.

10.3.2004

Before / Devant : ARBOUR J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

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

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan, 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 8, 2004.

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

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

Pursuant to Rule 59(1)(a) the intervener shall pay to the appellant and respondent any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondent by their intervention.

11.3.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

DISMISSED / REJETÉE 

12.3.2004

Before / Devant : LEBEL J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the applicant for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal to February 27, 2004;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The application for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal to February 27, 2004, is granted.

15.3.2004

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (29965)

Lynn Fice (Ont.)

5.3.2004

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (30079)

Marvin Sazant (Ont.)

1.3.2004

E.B.

v. (29890)

Order of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate in the Province of British Columbia (B.C.)

5.3.2004

Cabot Insurance Company Limited, et al.

v. (29849)

Peter Ryan (N.L.)

27.2.2004

BY / PAR :             Attorney General of Alberta 

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.)

5.3.2004

BY / PAR :             Procureur général du Canada  

Procureur général de la Nouvelle-Écosse

IN / DANS :           André Pelland

  c. (29805)

Fédération des producteurs de volailles du Québec, et autre (Qc)

11.3.2004

BY / PAR :             Procureur général du Québec  

IN / DANS :           Normand Martineau

  c. (29794)

Le Ministre du Revenu National (C.F.)

17.3.2004

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

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

18.3.2004

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major, 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

                                                                                                          - 2004 -