Bulletins

      OF CANADA                                             DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

March 4, 2004 335 - 414                                                                       Le 4 mars 2004

CONTENTS                                                      TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Sucha Singh Shergill

Sucha Singh Shergill

v. (30177)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

Stephane Bertrand

Attorney General of Canada

FILING DATE: 9.2.2004

La Municipalité d’Austin

Philippe Tremblay

Heenan, Blaikie

c. (30185)

Les Dix Capitaines Inc., et autres (Qc)

Gilles Viens

- et entre -

Procureur général du Québec 

Éric Dufour

Bernard Roy & Associés

c. (30185)

Les Dix Capitaines, et autres (Qc)

Gilles Viens

- et entre -

Association de préservation de la Baie Verte, et autre

André Durocher

Fasken, Martineau, Du Moulin

c. (30185)

Claude Vachon, et autres (Qc)

Olivier Laurendeau

Laurendeau, Herbert

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 20.2.2004

Frederick Leroy Barney

Peter R. Grant

Hutchins, Soroka & Grant

v. (30176)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as reprensented by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (B.C.)

Mitchell R. Taylor

A.G. of Canada

- and between -

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as reprensented by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Mitchell R. Taylor

A.G. of Canada

v. (30176)

William Richard Blackwater, et al. (B.C.)

Peter R. Grant

Hutchins, Soroka & Grant

FILING DATE: 9.2.2004

MARCH 1, 2004 / LE 1 MARS 2004

                                                    CORAM:  Chief Justice McLachlin and Major and Fish JJ.

                                                          La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Major et Fish

Jonathan Ching Chang

v. (30097)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal Law - Evidence - Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in exercise of its jurisdiction by allowing a Crown appeal from acquittal on issues of fact and mixed fact and law. - The scope and proper interpretation to be given to the provisions of s. 676  of the Criminal Code  - Given the testimony of the security guard that her intention was to uncover evidence of illegality and see charges laid, are there some circumstances in which a non‐police officer may be found to be an agent of the state and thus subject to the provisions of the Charter , which would not be inconsistent with this Honourable Court’s decision in Buhay.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Timothy Victor Waldron

v. (29983)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non-Charter) - Evidence - Search and Seizure - Warrants - Whether search warrant ought to have been quashed in order to protect the integrity of the prior authorization process - Whether amplification of record before authorizing judge was available to correct errors in affidavit in support of application for a search warrant.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

John Jeremiah Sinclair

v. (29981)

The Registrar of the Indian Register, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and the Attorney General of Canada (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Native law - Indian Register - Deletion of name - At what stage in the process does the deletion have legal effect? - Indian Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. I‐5, ss. 5(3) , 14.2  and 14.3  - Reference to Federal Court - Jurisdiction of Federal Court to entertain reference - Federal Court Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. F‐7, s. 18.3  - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in determining that the Applicant’s entitlement to registration, more particularly the status of his maternal grandmother, Isabelle Courteoreille, is a question of fact rather than a question of law - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred by refusing to address the practice issue raised in question two of the reference, namely the legality of the immediate denial of benefits upon a deletion decision under s. 5  of the Indian Act  - Whether the Respondent Registrar is bound by the decisions of the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Anne Marie Foreman

v. (30031)

818329 Ontario Limited, P.H. Suhan Welding Ltd., Cadith Entertainments Limited

and Frank DiMaria (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law – Labour law - Contracts – Damages  – Employment contract – “Shall not dismiss” clause – Dismissal of employee -- Breach of employment contract -- Employer and Employees Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.12 -- Whether the words “shall not dismiss” have meaning in a contract of employment – Whether there are consequences when an employer contracts and guarantees to refrain from dismissing an employee and breaches such a contract – Whether the appropriate Standard of Review was met by the Court of Appeal – To what extent the Court of Appeal can disregard the facts and inferences from the facts, as found by the trial judge, and substitute its own conclusions.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Assessor of Area #11 ‐ Richmond/Delta

v. (29910)

Annacis Auto Terminals (1997) Ltd. (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Jurisdiction - Municipal law - Assessment - Ability of a municipality to appeal an assessment where the assessor  neglects to place a party on the assessment roll - Ability of provincial assessor to assess lands belonging to the Crown in right of Canada that are occupied by a non-Crown agent - If an administrative official’s excess of statutory jurisdiction nullifies his determination, does a superior administrative tribunal have the power to cure the defective determination - Does the “preliminary questions” doctrine remain valid where legislation creates an administrative machinery but no privative clause.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Donald Spindler, John Gary Samuels and Donald Auld

v. (30032)

The Warden of Millhaven Institution (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  -- Administrative law -- Judicial review -- Jurisdiction -- Remedies -- Criminal law – Prisons – Detention -- Habeas corpus -- Statutory interpretation -- Corrections and Conditional Release Act and Regulations, S.C. 1992, c. 20  -- Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to follow a decision in R. v. Miller, ©1985a 2 S.C.R. 613, which guarantees to federal inmates the right to have the legality of restrictions on their liberty determined on habeas corpus -- Whether the effect of the decision of the Court of Appeal is to restrict the access of federal inmates to the remedy of habeas corpus -- Whether the merits of the application of habeas corpus ought to be decided by this Court, pursuant to section 784(3)  of the Criminal Code of Canada,  R.S. 1985, c. C-46  -- Whether the applicants are being illegally detained in a maximum-security penitentiary, contrary to the provisions of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and Regulations, supra., and contrary to sections 7  and 9  of the Charter .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                  CORAM:  Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

                                                                       Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et Arbour

Hermil Lebel

c. (30102)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.) (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Preuve - Procédure - Appel - Compétence - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en prétendant que la question de savoir quelle déduction peut être tirée des faits n’est pas une question de droit seulement mais plutôt une question mixte de droit et de fait ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en statuant que le juge de la Cour du Québec a eu raison de s’objecter aux questions posées au policier ?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

Attorney General of Saskatchewan

v. (30072)

Wilbert Colin Thatcher (Sask.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law – Parole eligibility – Change of venue – Respondent convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole for twenty-five years – Respondent having served nineteen years of sentence – Respondent bringing application to have parole ineligibility period reduced per s. 745.6  Criminal Code  and for change of venue – Judge granting change of venue –  Jury granting request to reduce parole ineligibility period –  Did trial judge err in charge to jury, in preventing applicant from relying on evidence from original trial as aid to examine and cross examine witnesses, in holding  evidence concerning victim’s character inadmissible, and / or  in finding Parliament intended venue of s. 745.6 applications to be determined or influenced by where an applicant intends to live if parole granted –  ss. 599 , 745.6 , 745.61(1) , 745.63(1)  of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

671905 Alberta Inc. and M‐I Drilling Fluids Canada Inc.

v. (29926)

Q Max Solutions Inc. (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Patents - Validity - Inventors - Enforceability - Innocent naming of wrong inventor - Named inventor was neither the inventor nor the legal representative of the inventor - Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding patent valid but unenforceable - Whether the patent should have been varied to reflect the true inventor absent notice of request for variation - Whether the Commissioner of Patents has jurisdiction to issue a patent to a person who is neither the inventor nor the legal representative of the inventor - Whether the person found to be the inventor by the lower courts was the inventor - Whether the inventive concept originated in his mind or was disclosed to him and his only contribution was to verify or confirm the utility of the inventive concept - Whether, in a petition for a patent, the innocent naming as inventors and petitioners of only persons who have no entitlement to the invention constitutes a material untrue allegation rendering a patent void pursuant to s. 53  of the Patent Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4  - Whether Apotex Inc. v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd., [2002] 4 S.C.R. 153, 2002 SCC 77, applied.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Club Juridique

c. (30110)

Procureur général du Canada (C.F.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail - Employeur et employé - Assurance-emploi - Contrat de louage - Emploi assurable - Le juge a-t-il erré dans l’application de l’article 5(1) de la Loi sur l’assurance-emploi? La travailleuse avait-elle un emploi non assurable en vertu de l’art. 5(2) de la Loi sur l’assurance-emploi?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Gaming Lottery Corporation

v. (29993)

Bank Leu Ag (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Securities - Good faith purchaser of a share certificate - Restriction on transferability - Whether the Court of Appeal’s decision is a doctrinally doubtful extension of common law estoppel, contrary to principle and good policy - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that only a very narrow type of transfer restriction on share certificates is valid and enforceable pursuant to the Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Julios Ambellidis

c. (30086)

Commission des lésions professionnelles et Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

 Droit du travail – Accidents du travail – Lien entre les troubles psychiques ou psychologiques du travailleur et l’accident du travail survenu antérieurement – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle eu raison de conclure que la Cour supérieure n’était pas justifiée d’intervenir à l’encontre de la décision de la Commission des lésions professionnelles?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

CORAM:  Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

                                                                  Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (30021)

René Luther Hamilton (Crim.) (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non Charter) - Offences - Counselling other persons to commit offences - Accused sells electronic documents over Internet including instructions to generate credit card numbers, to make and detonate bombs and to break and enter - Counselled offences not committed - Whether a mass distribution  over the internet of material that included documents objectively counselling the commission of serious offences constitutes an offence under s. 464(1) (b) of the Criminal Code  if the accused lacked specific intent that the purchasers of the information actually carry out the counselled offences  - Whether willful blindness or recklessness were sufficient to sustain a conviction under 464(1)(a) where all of the other elements of the offence were established and where the material in question was sold for profit in a mass distribution over the internet - Whether the anonymity and ability for mass distribution over the internet effectively immunizes an accused from prosecution under s. 464(1)(b) if his stated purpose is commercial gain rather than furtherance of other criminal activity?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Richard L. Corriveau

c. (29817)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel – Détermination de la peine – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré dans l’évaluation des principes relatifs à l’emprisonnement avec sursis? – La publicité entourant la tenue d’un procès et la situation familiale d’un délinquant doivent-elles être prises en considération lors de la détermination de la peine? – Les tribunaux peuvent-ils examiner les décisions rendues avant l’entrée en vigueur des nouvelles dispositions du Code criminel  portant sur la détermination de la peine afin d’établir l’échelle des peines relatives à une infraction?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Ville de Québec

c. (30101)

Hudson's Bay Company (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit fiscal - Droit municipal - Évaluation - Législation - Interprétation - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en concluant que l’intimée était un « occupant » au sens de l’art. 79 de la Loi sur la fiscalité municipale, L.R.Q., ch. F-2.1, omettant ainsi de tenir compte de la finalité de la loi ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en affirmant le contraire de ce qu’elle avait avancé dans Domtar Newsprint Ltd. c. Ville de Donnacona, [1981] C.A. 489 ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en interprétant la jurisprudence sur la notion d’occupant, en faisant complètement fi du contexte dans lequel s’inscrivent ces décisions démontrant ainsi une réelle incompréhension de la finalité de la loi?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

Ernst & Young, Clarkson Gordon, Zittrer, Siblin, Stein, Levine

v. (29902)

The Law Society of Upper Canada and Lawyer's Professional Indemnity Company

- and between -

Tillinghast, a Towers Perrin Company and Towers Perrin Inc.

v. (29902)

The Law Society of Upper Canada and Lawyer's Professional Indemnity Company (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Damages - Procedural law - Judgments and orders - Whether the “passing‐on” defence is available in common law actions in tort and contract - Whether in the circumstances of this case the Respondents have a loss recoverable from the Applicants - What is the test for determining whether a question of law can be answered on a preliminary motion, including a motion for summary judgment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Les Constructions du Saint‐Laurent Ltée

c. (30056)

Aluminerie Alouette Inc. (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Contrats - Dommages-intérêts - Construction - Changement dans les travaux - La Cour d’appel pouvait‐elle réhabiliter les témoignages écartés par le premier juge et conclure que D‐117 représente le coût réel de l’ensemble des travaux? - Le montant de la perte subie au sens de l’article 1073 C.c.B.-C. doit‐il correspondre au coût de l’ensemble des travaux ou au coût du travail additionnel? - Le montant du gain manqué au sens de l’article 1073 C.c.B.-C. doit‐il correspondre au gain anticipé lors de la signature du contrat ou au gain manqué résultant de l’inexécution de ses obligations par le cocontractant? - La Cour d’appel était‐elle justifiée de renverser les conclusions de fait du premier juge quant à la responsabilité de AAI pour le délai d’exécution, le temps supplémentaire, le temps d’attente, le nettoyage des fonds de carrière, l’enlèvement de la neige, les frais de siège social et le profit?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

Régent Lessard

c. (30115)

Ville La Prairie (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Révision judiciaire - Congédiement - Dans le cadre d’une demande en révision judiciaire où la norme de contrôle est l’erreur manifestement déraisonnable, le demandeur doit-il, sous peine de voir sa demande rejetée, produire tous les documents, pièces et transcriptions de témoignages rendues au procès ou, au contraire est-il bien fondé de ne produire que les seuls documents et témoignages pertinents et nécessaires à l’effet de démontrer le bien fondé de sa requête? - Considérant que la réponse à la première question soit celle de la production des seuls documents pertinents et nécessaires à l’effet de démontrer le bien fondé de la requête, la Cour d’appel du Québec devait-elle autoriser la requête du demandeur pour permission d’appeler?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

MARCH 4, 2004 / LE 4 MARS 2004

29598                    Thinh Duc Vu v. Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.) (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 of Alberta (Edmonton), Number 0003‐0498‐A1, dated December 12, 2002, is dismissed.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Alberta (Edmonton), numéro 0003‐0498‐A1, daté du 12 décembre 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Standard of review - Right to fair trial - Accused applying for order requiring federal Crown to fund defence counsel - Provincial legal aid plan found to pose substantial difficulties for effective representation -Whether a trial court has the jurisdiction to order publicly funded counsel for an accused where that person has not been denied coverage under a provincial legal aid plan or scheme - If so, what is the test for the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction; and what is the standard of review to later be used by an appellate tribunal asked to review a trial judge’s decision? - In a case where counsel for an accused is necessary for a fair trial, to what extent may a court enquire into and examine the background circumstances,  including (but not being limited to) the financial impact upon counsel of acting for an accused in the particular case, and the limitations and restrictions inherent in a provincial legal aid scheme or plan, in order to determine whether an accused will have the effective assistance of counsel in the proceedings; to what extent may a court make an order to address and remedy the difficulties which may arise in such fashion as to impede upon counsel’s ability to defend his or her client? - Does a provincial Court of Appeal acting under the Criminal Code  have the jurisdiction to declare any area of enquiry or controversy to be “not justiciable”?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29784                    Vasile (Willy) Dorus and Vianney Maria Dorus v. John G. Taylor, Mr. Michael P. Lipkewich, Mr. Dan B. Rogness, Mr. Howard C. Chu, Mr. David A. Thompson, Mr. Richard A. Mundie, Ms. Karen L. Dunfee, Mr. Larry A. Macwood, Mr. Norman B. Rudden and Mr. George Stevens (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

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

 The ancillary motions are granted.  The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA029211, dated March 20, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 Les requêtes accessoires sont accordées.  La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA029211, daté du 20 mars 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Intentional torts - Commercial law -  Company law - Corporate liability - Personal liability of corporate officers - Corporate veil - Unjust enrichment - No cause of action against personal defendants - Whether the directing minds of a company should be held personally liable for conspiracy if their acts are unlawful, malicious, dishonest and fraudulent -- Whether the directing minds of a company should be held personally liable for violating their own workers’ human and constitutional rights, even if they claim that only the company gains financially or otherwise - Whether the directing minds that commit unlawful, fraudulent or other harmful acts for which an ordinary person would be liable, should be able to hide behind the “corporate veil” and claim that they acted for the benefit of the company – Whether the indemnification offered by a company to its directors can be seen as an encouragement or invitation to put company profits above the law.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29796                    Xuan Vinh Dang v. Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Major and Fish 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 0003‐0499‐A0, dated December 12, 2002, is dismissed.

 La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Alberta (Edmonton), numéro 0003‐0499‐A0, daté du 12 décembre 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Standard of review - Right to fair trial - Accused applying for order requiring federal Crown to fund defence counsel - Provincial legal aid plan found to pose substantial difficulties for effective representation  - Whether a trial court has the jurisdiction to order publicly funded counsel for an accused where that person has not been denied coverage under the Provincial Legal Aid plan or scheme - If so: What is the test for the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction; and what is the standard of review to later be used by an appellate tribunal asked to review a trial judge’s decision? - In the case where counsel for an accused is necessary for a fair trial: To what extent may a court enquire into and examine the background circumstances - including (but not being limited to) the financial impact upon counsel of acting for an accused in the particular case, and the limitations and restrictions inherent in a provincial legal aid scheme or plan, in order to determine whether an accused will have the effective assistance of counsel in the proceedings; and to what extent may a court make an order to address and remedy the difficulties which may arise in such fashion as to impede upon counsel’s ability to defend his or her client? Does a provincial Court of appeal acting under the Criminal Code  have the jurisdiction to declare any area of enquiry or controversy to be “not justiciable”?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29881                    Corporation of the Town of Pelham and Robert Judge v. Robert Pedwell, Keith Pedwell, Mary Pedwell, Linda McLean and Landpark Homes Inc. (Ont.) (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 for Ontario, Number C30587, dated May 9, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C30587, daté du 9 mai 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Municipal law - Property law - Real property - Damages - New lots created by testamentary devise - Applicant Town passed by-laws with intent to halt development - Building permits denied pursuant to new by-laws - Applicant Town believed it was acting in the public interest - Whether Applicant Town believed the proposed scheme of development was illegal - Whether denial was in bad faith - Whether trial judge was entitled to determine whether septic permits were available at the relevant time - Whether Applicant Town had a duty of care to Respondent Landpark Homes Inc. - Whether damages awards amounted to punitive damages - Whether damages for lost profits were appropriate.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29893                    S. Paul Mantini v. Smith Lyons LLP and John R. Finley (Ont.) (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 for Ontario, Number C37943, dated May 14, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C37943, daté du 14 mai 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Contracts - Rules of construction - Intention of the parties - Partnership agreement - Breach of fiduciary duty - Arbitration - Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17 - Appropriate standard of appellate review for a lower court’s interpretation of a contract - Whether parties to a contract should be able to exclude access to the court for claims of breach of fiduciary duty and bad faith - Whether parties to a contract should be required to state their agreement in express language before the exclusion will be enforced.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29895                    Frank Abbott, Tim Nyhoff and Chance Chase v. Vaughn Collins, S. David Crane, James Hutchinson, Ronald Gentle, Steve Layton and Brett Mailloux (Ont.) (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 for Ontario, Number C38166, dated May 15, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C38166, daté du 15 mai 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Collective agreement – Arbitration - Jurisdiction - Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 15 - Public Service Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 47 - Statutory interpretation - Disciplinary actions of police - Residual jurisdiction of courts - Whether actions of police management, while appearing to be administrative or operational, were a disguised form of discipline - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its decision concerning how police officers are disciplined and the remedies available to those who are subjected to a disguised form of discipline - Whether, in the context of police services and discipline, the ruling of the Court of Appeal has effectively eliminated the civil court’s residual jurisdiction to resolve any dispute involving a case of disguised discipline and abuse of statutory powers - Whether the Court of Appeal erred as a matter of law in holding that the provisions of the Police Services Act, together with the limited provisions of the Collective Agreement, formed a complete code relating to police discipline, leaving no room for redress by court action, even when the allegations related to disguised discipline and abuse of statutory powers.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29904                    Candi Bi Ying Cai v. Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Major and Fish 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 0003‐0497‐A0, dated December 12, 2002, is dismissed.

 La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Alberta (Edmonton), numéro 0003‐0497‐A0, daté du 12 décembre 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Standard of review - Right to fair trial - Accused applying for order requiring federal Crown to fund defence counsel - Provincial legal aid plan found to pose substantial difficulties for effective representation - In order to decide the issue of the adequacy of the applicable Legal Aid schedule of fees to be paid to state-funded counsel in a particular time, is the issue a question of costs and if it is, what is the correct test to be applied by a trial judge when determining this issue? - Did the Court of Appeal err when it found that the trial judge applied the wrong test when it ruled such questions were not justiciable, and when it removed the stays of proceedings entered by the trial judge? - Does a trial judge err if he or she makes a determination of what publicly funded tariff rate of fees will be constitutionally necessary in order to give the accused a fair trial, and to meet the unique requirements of the particular case at hand?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29907                    Mark Marren and John Brown v. Echo Bay Mines Ltd. (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

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

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number 2003 BCCA 298, CA030088, dated May 16, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro 2003 BCCA 298, CA030088, daté du 16 mai 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Courts - Jurisdiction - Whether compliance with an enumerated ground for service ex juris gives rise to the presumption of a real and substantial connection in interprovincial disputes - Are there sufficient policy reasons in wrongful dismissal disputes for revising the private international law rule governing the locus of a breach of contract? - Are federal companies domiciled within each province and territory for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction simpliciter? - Did the British Columbia Court of Appeal correctly apply the law governing jurisdiction simpliciter to the facts of this case?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29909                    Apotex Inc. and Bernard Sherman v. Merck & Co. Inc., Merck Frosst Canada & Co. (FC) (Civil) (By Leave)

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

 The application for leave to appeal and the application for leave to cross‐appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐226‐00, dated May 26, 2003, are dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel et la demande d'autorisation d'appel incident de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‐226‐00, daté du 26 mai 2003, sont rejetées avec dépens. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Contempt of court - Civil contempt - Judgments and orders - Defendant continuing sales of infringing product after reasons issued but before final judgment signed and filed giving rise to counts of civil contempt - President of defendant corporation as “directing mind” authorizing conduct giving rise to contempt -  Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in finding that the requisite mental element of contempt under both branches of Rule 355 of the Federal Court Rules was the same in light of principles of fundamental justice enshrined in s. 7  of the Charter  - Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in finding that where contempt is alleged on the basis of interference with the orderly administration of justice, it was unnecessary to establish contumacious intent on the part of the accused - Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in concluding that a natural person and non-party to the underlying litigation could be found in contempt without a finding of contumacy - Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the acts committed by Apotex subsequent to January 9, 1995 did not constitute contempt of court - Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in reducing the penalty for contempt of court against Apotex or, alternatively, in failing to increase the penalty - Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in reducing the award of solicitor and client costs.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29932                    Dynamex Canada Inc. v. Adele Victoria Mamona, Randolph William Hepner, Robert Philip Cyr and Attorney General of Canada (FC) (Civil) (By Leave)

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

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐241‐02, dated June 4, 2003, is dismissed with costs to the respondents, Adele Victoria Mamona, Randolph William Hepner and the Attorney General of Canada.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‐241‐02, daté du 4 juin 2003, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimés, Adele Victoria Mamona, Randolph William Hepner et le Procureur général du Canada.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review ‐ Statutes - Interpretation - Whether two (2) standards of review were erroneously applied to a single decision - Whether the standard of reasonableness was erroneously applied because it involves a question of mixed fact and law.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29934                    City of Winnipeg, Brian Moore, in his capacity as the City Assessor under the Municipal Assessment Act, Robert McLachlan, Michele Colatruglio (also known as Mike Colatruglio) and Kelly Shields v. Manitoba Hotel Association Inc., Norwood Hotel Co. Ltd., Clipper Hotels Ltd., Magni‐Prince Enterprises Ltd. & Jo‐Car Enterprises Ltd., Gordon Hotels & Motor Inns Ltd., Canada Corporation of Manitoba Ltd., Cambridge Hospitality Corp., Dakota Village Motor Hotel Ltd. and Lakeview Management Inc. (Man.) (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 Manitoba, Number AI03‐30‐05486, dated June 9, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Manitoba, numéro AI03‐30‐05486, daté du 9 juin 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law – Pre-trial procedure – Motion to strike statement of claim pursuant to Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench Rule 25.11 – Allegation of tort of abuse of public authority – Whether, given the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Board of Manitoba to deal with matters entrusted to it by legislation and in respect of which it has considerable expertise, the decision of the Manitoba Court of Appeal is contrary to its own decisions and decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada – Whether Canadian courts have not been consistent in their decisions in similar circumstances, leaving confusion in the law which this Court should clarify?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30050                    Mervat S.A. Rashwan and Magdy A. Rashwan v. Joseph S. Farkas (Ont.) (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 for Ontario, Number M29556, dated September 19, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro M29556, daté du 19 septembre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Costs - Summary judgment dismissing action for damages - Appeal against the cost order - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal due to the fact that the Applicants had not contested the cost order in the context of their previous appeal - Whether a court of appeal may dismiss an appeal without giving reasons - Whether bias and impartiality on the part of the judges taint the decisions in this case

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29883                    Verdon Pelley and Pelley's Farm Limited v. Calvin Pelley (N.L.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

 The application for an extension of time is granted.  The application for leave to appeal and the application to cross‐appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador, Number 01/62, 2003 NLCA 6, dated January 22, 2003, are dismissed without costs.

 La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée.  La demande d'autorisation d'appel  et la demande d'appel incident de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de Terre‐Neuve et Labrador, numéro 01/62, 2003 NLCA 6, daté du 22 janvier 2003, sont rejetées sans dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Company law - Oppression remedies - Appellate court jurisdiction - Solicitor and client costs - Whether the appellate court erred in its interpretation of the evidence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

October 2, 2003

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to cross-appeal filed

29945                    Ferring Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada, Minister of Health and Apotex Inc. (FC) (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‐105‐03, dated June 19, 2003, is dismissed with costs to the respondents.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‐105‐03, daté du 19 juin 2003, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimés.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review Property law - Patents - Pharmaceutical preparations - New drug - Notice of Compliance - Patent list - Applicant using different brand name to overcome time requirements of s.4(4) of the  Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations - Statutes - Interpretation - Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133 - Whether the literal interpretation of section 4 of the Regulations may be set aside and  an Applicant denied the right to have a patent listed on the Patent Register in connection with a submission - Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that an Applicant that does not delay a previous drug submission is deemed to have missed its opportunity to list the patent such that it should be prevented from listing the patent with a subsequent submission - Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that a literal interpretation of section 4 would render the timing requirements of the Regulations meaningless?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30099                    Douglas Louie Schwartz v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (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 for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA026741, dated November 18, 2002, is dismissed.

 La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA026741, daté du 18 novembre 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law - Sentencing - Dangerous Offender Provisions - Long Term Offender Provisions - Whether the Sentencing Judge erred in law in finding that following a successful defence appeal, the prosecution can subject an accused to significantly increased potential period of incarceration through (a) initiating a dangerous offender proceeding, and (b) depriving offender of credit for punishment endured - Whether the British Columbia Court of Appeal erred in law or in mixed fact and law when it found that the Sentencing Judge’s failure to consider the long‐term offender provisions left no reasonable possibility that, had he considered them, he might have imposed a different sentence on Applicant.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29153                    Jean‐Roch Massé c. Le ministre du Revenu national (CF) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‐649‐00, daté du 26 septembre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐649‐00, dated September 26, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit fiscal – Impôt sur le revenu – Source de revenu – Revenu tiré de l’exploitation d’un bien – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en confirmant que le demandeur n’avait pas une expectative raisonnable de tirer un profit de l’exploitation d’un bien?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29947                    Swapan Kumar Mazumder v. Bell Canada, Tom Varga and Patti McIlveen (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C38701, dated June 18, 2003, is dismissed with costs to the Respondents, Bell Canada and Patti McIlveen.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C38701, daté du 18 juin 2003, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimées, Bell Canada et Patti McIlveen.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Pre-trial procedure - Summary judgment - Applicant’s action against Respondents dismissed - Evidence - Whether a duty of care is owed to a person charged with an offence by the Respondents, to provide complete and accurate information and documentation to the police as required by the terms of a search warrant

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29961                    Ajit Singh Grewall v. Her Majesty the Queen - and between - Sukhjit Singh Grewall v. Her Majesty the Queen - and between - Sandeep Singh Toor v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

 The applications for leave to appeal from the judgments of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Numbers C.A. 027893, C.A. 027902 and C.A. 027986, dated August 1, 2003, are dismissed.

 Les demandes d'autorisation d'appel des arrêts de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéros  C.A. 027893, C.A. 027902 et C.A. 027986, daté du 1er août 2003, sont rejetées.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Jury charge - Fresh evidence - Need for a limiting instruction in the charge to the jury where negative character evidence is led at trial - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a limiting instruction was not warranted in the charge to the jury with regards to the negative character evidence relevant to the Applicant Ajit Singh Grewall led at trial when that evidence also comprised after the fact conduct and that the trial judge did not err in admitting hearsay statements of the deceased found in her undated personal planner: “Reasons to Divorce A.G.” - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by not properly assessing the fresh evidence of a recanting witness and by failing to address the impact which the recantation  would have on the trier of fact pursuant to step three of the test in Palmer v. the Queen [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider whether the fresh evidence proffered was not incredible as opposed to simply not credible that the potential inadequacy of the Vetrovec (usavoury witness) caution at trial, must be taken into account when considering the Court of Appeal’s treatment of Palmer; -  Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to assessing the credibility of the fresh evidence by failing to consider the unreliable nature of the witness at trial when interpreting the standard to be met under the reasonably capable of belief branch of the Palmer test, and in applying that standard to the witness’ recantation and failing to consider evidence capable of supporting Bhander’s recantation.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29972                    Pierre‐Yves Deragon c. Sa Majesté la Reine (Qc) (Criminelle) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐10‐001778‐008, daté du 30 septembre 2003, est rejetée

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐10‐001778‐008, dated September 30, 2003, is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel ‐ Infractions - Preuve - Défense - Entrave à la justice - Fabrication et utilisation de faux - Divulgation de la preuve - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en concluant que la narration policière, préparée par le demandeur à la demande de la poursuite, pouvait constituer un faux document au sens des art. 321  et 366  du Code criminel , L.R.C. 1985, ch. C-46 ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en concluant que l’absence de mens rea du demandeur, d’avoir tenté de contrecarrer le cours de la justice en cherchant à influencer son confrère, n’était pas incompatible avec le verdict de culpabilité d’avoir contrecarré la justice en altérant la preuve? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit dans son interprétation du privilège de non‐divulgation de la preuve de documents, préparés par des avocats du poursuivant (“work product”), quant à l’opportunité de poursuivre une infraction lorsque l’accusation d’entrave à la justice concerne ladite infraction? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en concluant que le juge de première instance était justifié, dans les circonstances, de donner des directives sur la défense d’erreur de faits?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30020                    Paul Charles Forknall v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

 The motions for an extension of time and to file a lengthy memorandum are  granted.  The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number C.A. 027842, dated January 21, 2003, is dismissed.

 Les requêtes pour prorogation de délai et pour le dépôt d’un mémoire volumineux sont accordées.  La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro C.A. 027842, daté du 21 janvier 2003, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal  Law ‐  Trial - Trial by judge and jury - Jury charge - Applicant convicted of first degree murder - Whether there were errors in the charge to the jury - Causation - Did the appellate court err in stating there was no air of reality to the argument of the defence based on causation and abandonment - Did the appellate court err in ruling that it was  unnecessary for the trial judge to warn the jury about the reliability of the Applicant’s statements to the undercover police officers pursuant to the ruling in R. v. Hodgson, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 449 - Did the appellate court err in holding that the trial judge’s finding that the Applicant’s statements were made voluntarily made it unnecessary to consider the expansion or abolition of the person in authority rule, or to consider to the test set forth in the case of R. v. Clemente, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 758.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30054                    Phillip Chukwuma Ofume and Maureen Ngozi Ofume v. CIBC Mortgage Corporation (N.S.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

 The motion for a stay of execution and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, Number C.A. 209470, dated November 4, 2003, are dismissed.

 La requête de sursis d'exécution et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Nouvelle‐Écosse, numéro C.A.  209470, daté du 4 novembre 2003, sont rejetées.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural Law - Civil procedure - Appeal - Damages - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing motion for stay of execution.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30066                    The ship "Sabina", Sabina A.G., the owners of the ship "Sabina" and Carisbrooke Shipping Limited v. Champion International Corporation (FC) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐668‐02, dated October 2, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‐668‐02, daté du 2 octobre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

 Maritime law – Contract or fixture – Whether the lower courts erred in holding that there was a meeting of minds on all significant terms of the fixture or contract.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

20.2.2004

Before / Devant : THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the respondent for an order extending the time to serve and file its response to the application for leave to appeal to February 16, 2004;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

25.2.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to February 23, 2004.

25.2.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

25.2.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to April 8, 2004.

26.2.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended April 30, 2004.

27.2.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to February 11, 2004.

27.2.2004

Before / Devant : MAJOR 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 5, 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 5, 2004, is granted.

27.2.2004

Before / Devant : MAJOR J.

UPON APPLICATIONS by the Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General of Ontario, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Manitoba Human Rights Commission, for leave to intervene in the above appeal and pursuant to the order of January 22, 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.

1.3.2004

E.B.

v. (29890)

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

MARCH 4, 2004 / LE 4 MARS 2004

29320                    The Law Society of Upper Canada v. CCH Canadian Limited - and between - The Law Society of Upper Canada v. Thomson Canada Limited c.o.b. as Carswell Thomson Professional Publishing - and between - The Law Society of Upper Canada v. Canada Law Book Inc. and Canadian Publishers' Council and Association of Canadian Publishers, Federation of Law Societies of Canada, Société québécoise de gestion collective des droits de reproduction (COPIBEC) and The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (ACCESS COPYRIGHT) (F.C.)

2004 SCC 13 / 2004 CSC 13

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

The appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Numbers A‐806‐99, A‐807‐99, A‐808‐99, dated May 14, 2002, heard on November 10, 2003 is allowed. The cross-appeal is dismissed. Given the appellant’s success on the appeal and cross-appeal, it is entitled to costs throughout.

L’appel interjeté contre l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale, numéros A‐806‐99, A‐807‐99, A‐808‐99, en date du 14 mai 2002, entendu le 10 novembre 2003 est accueilli.  L’appel incident est rejeté.  L’appelant ayant gain de cause dans le cadre de l’appel principal et de l’appel incident, les dépens lui sont adjugés devant toutes les cours.

29166                    Brian Joseph Smith v. Her Majesty the Queen and Attorney General of Ontario (Crim.) (N.L.)

2004 SCC 14 / 2004 CSC 14

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

The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador, Number 85/64, dated January 31, 2002, heard on October 7, 2003 is dismissed.

L’appel interjeté contre l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de Terre‐Neuve et Labrador, numéro 85/64, en date du 31 janvier 2002, entendu le 7 octobre 2003 est rejeté.

29416                    Thomas Gifford v. Her Majesty the Queen and Canadian Bankers Association (F.C.)

2004 SCC 15 / 2004 CSC 15

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

The appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐191‐01, dated August 12, 2002, heard on November 14, 2003 is dismissed.  The reasonable and proper costs in this Court are to be paid to the appellant by the respondent and the costs awarded in the lower courts are upheld.

L’appel interjeté contre l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale, numéro A‐191‐01, en date du 12 août 2002, entendu le 14 novembre 2003 est rejeté.  L’intimée doit verser à l’appelant les frais raisonnables et convenables qu’il a engagés devant cette Cour et les dépens accordés par les tribunaux d’instance inférieure sont confirmés.

Law Society of Upper Canada v. CCH Canadian Limited et al. (F.C.) (29320)

Indexed as:  CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada /

Répertorié : CCH Canadienne Ltée c. Barreau du Haut-Canada

Neutral citation:  2004 SCC 13. / Référence neutre : 2004 CSC 13.

Judgment rendered March 4, 2004 / Jugement rendu le 4 mars 2004

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

Copyright – Infringement – Photocopying – Fax transmissions – Law Society providing custom photocopy service and maintaining self-service photocopiers in library for use by patrons – Legal publishers bringing copyright infringement actions against Law Society – Whether publishers’ headnotes, case summary, topical index and compilation of reported judicial decisions “original” works covered by copyright – If so, whether Law Society breached publishers’ copyright – Whether Law Society’s dealings with publishers’ works “fair dealings” – Whether Law Society’s fax transmissions of publishers’ works constitute communications “to the public” – Copyright Act , R.S.C. 1985, ss. 3(1)(f), 29.

Copyright – Works in which copyright may subsist – Meaning of “original” work – Whether headnotes, case summary, topical index and compilation of reported judicial decisions “original” works covered by copyright – Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, s. 2  “every original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work”.

The appellant Law Society maintains and operates the Great Library at Osgoode Hall in Toronto, a reference and research library with one of the largest collections of legal materials in Canada.  The Great Library provides a request-based photocopy service for Law Society members, the judiciary and other authorized researchers.  Under this “custom photocopy service”, legal materials are reproduced by Great Library staff and delivered in person, by mail or by facsimile transmission to requesters.  The Law Society also maintains self-service photocopiers in the Great Library for use by its patrons.  In 1993, the respondent publishers commenced copyright infringement actions against the Law Society, seeking a declaration of subsistence and ownership of copyright in specific works and a declaration that the Law Society had infringed copyright when the Great Library reproduced a copy of each of the works.  The publishers also sought a permanent injunction prohibiting the Law Society from reproducing these works as well as any other works that they published.  The Law Society denied liability and counterclaimed for a declaration that copyright is not infringed when a single copy of a reported decision, case summary, statute, regulation or a limited selection of text from a treatise is made by the Great Library staff, or one of its patrons on a self-service copier, for the purpose of research.  The Federal Court, Trial Division allowed the publishers’ action in part, finding that the Law Society had infringed copyright in certain works; it dismissed the Law Society’s counterclaim.  The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the publishers’ appeal in part, holding that all of the works were original and therefore covered by copyright.  It dismissed the Law Society’s cross-appeal.

Held:  The appeal should be allowed and the cross-appeal dismissed.  The Law Society does not infringe copyright when a single copy of a reported decision, case summary, statute, regulation or limited selection of text from a treatise is made by the Great Library in accordance with its access policy.  Moreover, the Law Society does not authorize copyright infringement by maintaining a photocopier in the Great Library and posting a notice warning that it will not be responsible for any copies made in infringement of copyright.

The headnotes, case summary, topical index and compilation of reported judicial decisions are all original works in which copyright subsists.  An “original” work under the Copyright Act  is one that originates from an author and is not copied from another work.  In addition, an original work must be the product of an author’s exercise of skill and judgment.  The exercise of skill and judgment required to produce the work must not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise.  While creative works will by definition be “original” and covered by copyright, creativity is not required to make a work “original”.  This conclusion is supported by the plain meaning of “original”, the history of copyright law, recent jurisprudence, the purpose of the Copyright Act  and the fact that this constitutes a workable yet fair standard.  While the reported judicial decisions, when properly understood as a compilation of the headnote and the accompanying edited judicial reasons, are “original” works covered by copyright, the judicial reasons in and of themselves, without the headnotes, are not original works in which the publishers could claim copyright.

Under s. 29  of the Copyright Act , fair dealing for the purpose of research or private study does not infringe copyright.  “Research” must be given a large and liberal interpretation in order to ensure that users’ rights are not unduly constrained, and is not limited to non-commercial or private contexts.  Lawyers carrying on the business of law for profit are conducting  research within the meaning of s. 29.  The following factors help determine whether a dealing is fair:  the purpose of the dealing, the character of the dealing, the amount of the dealing, the nature of the work, available alternatives to the dealing, and the effect of the dealing on the work.  Here, the Law Society’s dealings with the publishers’ works through its custom photocopy service were research-based and fair.  The access policy places appropriate limits on the type of copying that the Law Society will do.  If a request does not appear to be for the purpose of research, criticism, review or private study, the copy will not be made.  If a question arises as to whether the stated purpose is legitimate, the reference librarian will review the matter.  The access policy limits the amount of work that will be copied, and the reference librarian reviews requests that exceed what might typically be considered reasonable and has the right to refuse to fulfill a request.

The Law Society did not authorize copyright infringement by providing self‐service photocopiers for use by its patrons in the Great Library.  While authorization can be inferred from acts that are less than direct and positive, a person does not authorize infringement by authorizing the mere use of equipment that could be used to infringe copyright.  Courts should presume that a person who authorizes an activity does so only so far as it is in accordance with the law.  This presumption may be rebutted if it is shown that a certain relationship or degree of control existed between the alleged authorizer and the persons who committed the copyright infringement.  Here, there was no evidence that the copiers had been used in a manner that was not consistent with copyright law.  Moreover, the Law Society’s posting of a notice warning that it will not be responsible for any copies made in infringement of copyright does not constitute an express acknowledgement that the copiers will be used in an illegal manner.  Finally, even if there were evidence of the copiers having been used to infringe copyright, the Law Society lacks sufficient control over the Great Library’s patrons to permit the conclusion that it sanctioned, approved or countenanced the infringement.

There was no secondary infringement by the Law Society.  The Law Society’s fax transmissions of copies of the respondent publishers’ works to lawyers in Ontario were not communications to the public.  While a series of repeated fax transmissions of the same work to numerous different recipients might constitute communication to the public in infringement of copyright, there was no evidence of this type of transmission having occurred in this case.  Nor did the Law Society infringe copyright by selling copies of the publishers’ works.  Absent primary infringement, there can be no secondary infringement.  Finally, while it is not necessary to decide the point, the Great Library qualifies for the library exemption.

APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, [2002] 4 F.C. 213, 212 D.L.R. (4th) 385, 289 N.R. 1, 18 C.P.R. (4th) 161, [2002] F.C.J. No. 690 (QL), 2002 FCA 187, reversing in part a judgment of the Trial Division, [2000] 2 F.C. 451, 169 F.T.R. 1, 179 D.L.R. (4th) 609, 2 C.P.R. (4th) 129, 72 C.R.R. (2d) 139, [1999] F.C.J. No. 1647 (QL).  Appeal allowed and cross-appeal dismissed.

R. Scott Joliffe, L.A. Kelly Gill and Kevin J. Sartorio, for the appellant/respondent on cross-appeal.

Roger T. Hughes, Q.C., and Glen A. Bloom, for the respondents/appellants on cross-appeal.

Kevin L. LaRoche, for the intervener the Federation of Law Societies of Canada.

Thomas G. Heintzman, Q.C., and Barry B. Sookman, for the interveners the Canadian Publishers’ Council and the Association of Canadian Publishers.

Claude Brunet, Benoît Clermont and Madeleine Lamothe-Samson for the interveners Société québécoise de gestion collective des droits de reproduction (COPIBEC) and The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright).

Solicitors for the appellant/respondent on cross-appeal:  Gowling Lafleur Henderson, Toronto.

Solicitors for the respondents/appellants on cross-appeal:  Sim Hughes Ashton & McKay, Toronto.

Solicitors for the intervener the Federation of Law Societies of Canada:  Borden Ladner Gervais, Ottawa.

Solicitors for the interveners the Canadian Publishers’ Council and the Association of Canadian Publishers:  McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto.

Solicitors for the interveners Société québécoise de gestion collective des droits de reproduction (COPIBEC) and The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright):  Ogilvy Renault, Montréal.

_______________

Présents : La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps et Fish.

Droit d’auteur – Violation du droit d’auteur – Photocopie – Transmissions par télécopieur – Barreau offrant un service de photocopie et mettant des photocopieuses libre-service à la disposition des usagers de sa bibliothèque – Éditeurs juridiques poursuivant le Barreau pour violation de leur droit d’auteur – Les sommaires, le résumé jurisprudentiel, l’index analytique et la compilation de décisions judiciaires publiées sont-ils des œuvres « originales » protégées par le droit d’auteur?  – Dans l’affirmative, le Barreau a-t-il violé le droit d’auteur des éditeurs?  – L’utilisation par le Barreau des œuvres des éditeurs constituait-elle une « utilisation équitable »?  – La transmission par télécopieur, par le Barreau, des œuvres des éditeurs constituait-elle une communication des œuvres « au public » ? – Loi sur le droit d’auteur , L.R..C. 1985, ch. C-42, art. 3(1)(f), 29.

Droit d’auteur – Œuvres protégées par le droit d’auteur – Sens du terme œuvre « originale » – Les sommaires, le résumé jurisprudentiel, l’index analytique et la compilation de décisions judiciaires publiées sont-ils des œuvres « originales » protégées par le droit d’auteur?  – Loi sur le droit d’auteur, L.R.C. 1985, ch. C-42, art. 2  « toute œuvre littéraire, dramatique, musicale ou artistique originale ».

Le Barreau appelant assure le fonctionnement de la Grande bibliothèque d'Osgoode Hall, à Toronto, une bibliothèque de consultation et de recherche dotée d’une des plus vastes collections d'ouvrages juridiques au Canada.  La Grande bibliothèque offre un service de photocopie sur demande aux membres du Barreau et de la magistrature, et aux autres chercheurs autorisés.  Dans le cadre de ce service de photocopie, les membres du personnel de la Grande bibliothèque préparent et remettent sur place ou transmettent par la poste ou par télécopieur des copies d’ouvrages juridiques aux personnes qui en font la demande.  Le Barreau met aussi des photocopieuses libre‐service à la disposition des usagers de la Grande bibliothèque.  En 1993, les éditeurs intimés ont intenté des actions contre le Barreau pour violation du droit d'auteur afin d’obtenir un jugement confirmant l’existence et la propriété du droit d'auteur sur des œuvres précises et déclarant que le Barreau avait violé le droit d'auteur lorsque la Grande bibliothèque avait produit une copie de chacune de ces œuvres.  Les éditeurs ont en outre demandé une injonction permanente interdisant au Barreau de reproduire ces œuvres ou toute autre œuvre qu'ils publient.  Le Barreau a nié toute responsabilité et demandé à son tour un jugement déclarant qu’il n'y a pas de violation du droit d'auteur lorsqu'une seule copie d'une décision publiée, d'un résumé jurisprudentiel, d'une loi, d'un règlement ou d'un extrait limité d'un traité est imprimée par un membre du personnel de la Grande bibliothèque ou par un usager au moyen d'une photocopieuse libre-service, aux fins de recherche.  La Section de première instance de la Cour fédérale a accueilli en partie l’action des éditeurs, concluant que le Barreau avait violé le droit d’auteur sur certaines œuvres; elle a rejeté la demande reconventionnelle du Barreau.  La Cour d’appel fédérale a accueilli en partie l’appel des éditeurs, statuant que les œuvres en cause étaient toutes originales et protégées par le doit d’auteur.  Elle a rejeté l’appel incident du Barreau.

Arrêt : Le pourvoi est accueilli et le pourvoi incident est rejeté.  Le Barreau ne viole pas le droit d'auteur lorsque la Grande bibliothèque fournit une seule copie d'une décision publiée, d'un résumé jurisprudentiel, d'une loi, d'un règlement ou d'une partie restreinte d'un texte provenant d'un traité conformément à sa politique d'accès.  Par ailleurs, le Barreau n’autorise pas la violation du droit d'auteur en plaçant une photocopieuse dans la Grande bibliothèque et en affichant un avis où il décline toute responsabilité relativement aux copies produites en violation du droit d'auteur.

Les sommaires, le résumé jurisprudentiel, l'index analytique et la compilation de décisions judiciaires publiées sont tous des œuvres « originales » conférant un droit d'auteur.  Une œuvre « originale » au sens de la Loi sur le droit d'auteur  est une œuvre qui émane d'un auteur et qui n'est pas une copie d'une autre œuvre.  Elle doit en outre être le produit de l’exercice du talent et du jugement d’un auteur.  Cet exercice ne doit pas être négligeable au point qu'on puisse le qualifier d’entreprise purement mécanique.  Bien qu'une œuvre créative soit par définition « originale » et protégée par le droit d'auteur, la créativité n'est pas essentielle à l’originalité.  Cette conclusion s’appuie sur le sens ordinaire du mot « originale », l’historique du droit d’auteur, la jurisprudence récente, l’objet de la Loi sur le droit d’auteur  et le caractère à la fois fonctionnel et équitable de ce critère.  Bien que les décisions judiciaires publiées, considérées à juste titre comme une compilation du sommaire et des motifs judiciaires révisés qui l'accompagnent, soient des œuvres « originales » protégées par le droit d'auteur, les motifs de la décision en eux‐mêmes, sans les sommaires, ne constituent pas des œuvres originales sur lesquelles les éditeurs peuvent revendiquer un droit d'auteur. 

L’article 29  de la Loi sur le droit d’auteur  prévoit que l’utilisation équitable d’une œuvre aux fins de recherche ou d’étude privée ne viole pas le droit d’auteur.  Il faut interpréter le mot « recherche » de manière large afin que les droits des utilisateurs ne soient pas indûment restreints, et la recherche ne se limite pas à celle effectuée dans un contexte non commercial ou privé.  L'avocat qui exerce le droit dans un but lucratif effectue de la recherche au sens de l'art. 29.  Les facteurs suivants aident à déterminer si une utilisation est équitable : le but de l'utilisation, la nature de l’utilisation, l’ampleur de l’utilisation, la nature de l'œuvre, les solutions rechange à l'utilisation et l'effet de l'utilisation sur l'œuvre.  En l’espèce, l'utilisation des œuvres des éditeurs par le Barreau, dans le cadre du service de photocopie, était axée sur la recherche et équitable.  La Politique d'accès circonscrit adéquatement les copies que le Barreau effectuera.  Lorsque la fin poursuivie ne semblera pas être la recherche, la critique, le compte rendu ou l'étude privée, la demande de photocopie sera refusée.  En cas de doute quant à la légitimité de la fin poursuivie, il appartiendra aux bibliothécaires de référence de trancher.  La politique d'accès limite l'ampleur de l'extrait pouvant être reproduit, et les bibliothécaires de référence ont le droit de refuser une demande dont la portée excède ce qui est habituellement jugé raisonnable.

Le Barreau n'autorise pas la violation du droit d'auteur en mettant des photocopieuses à la disposition des usagers de la Grande bibliothèque.  Bien que l’autorisation puisse s'inférer d’agissements qui ne sont pas des actes directs et positifs, ce n'est pas autoriser la violation du droit d'auteur que de permettre la simple utilisation d'un appareil susceptible d'être utilisé à cette fin.  Les tribunaux doivent présumer que celui qui autorise une activité ne l’autorise que dans les limites de la légalité.  Cette présomption peut être réfutée par la preuve qu'il existait une certaine relation ou un certain degré de contrôle entre l'auteur allégué de l'autorisation et les personnes qui ont violé le droit d'auteur.  En l’espèce, aucune preuve n’établissait que les photocopieuses avaient été utilisées d'une manière incompatible avec les dispositions sur le droit d'auteur.  De plus, le Barreau, en affichant un avis où il décline toute responsabilité relativement aux copies produites en violation du droit d'auteur, n’a pas reconnu expressément que les photocopieuses seraient utilisées de façon illicite.  Enfin, même si la preuve établissait que les photocopieuses ont été utilisées pour violer le droit d'auteur, le Barreau n'a pas un contrôle suffisant sur les usagers de la Grande bibliothèque pour que l'on puisse conclure qu'il a sanctionné, appuyé ou soutenu la violation du droit d’auteur.

Il n’y a pas eu violation du droit d’auteur à une étape ultérieure de la part du Barreau.  En transmettant des copies des œuvres des éditeurs à des avocats de l'Ontario, le Barreau ne les a pas communiquées au public.  La transmission répétée d’une copie d'une même œuvre à de nombreux destinataires pourrait constituer une communication au public et violer le droit d'auteur, mais aucune preuve n'a établi que ce genre de transmission aurait eu lieu en l'espèce.  Le Barreau n’a pas non plus violé le droit d’auteur en vendant des copies des œuvres des éditeurs.  En l’absence de violation initiale du droit d’auteur, il ne peut y avoir de violation à une étape ultérieure.  Enfin, bien qu’il ne soit pas nécessaire de trancher cette question, la Grande bibliothèque est visée par l’exception prévue pour les bibliothèques.

POURVOI PRINCIPAL et POURVOI INCIDENT contre un arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale, [2002] 4 C.F. 213, 212 D.L.R. (4th) 385, 289 N.R. 1, 18 C.P.R. (4th) 161, [2002] A.C.F. n^o 690 (QL), 2002 CAF 187, qui a infirmé en partie un jugement de la Section de première instance, [2000] 2 C.F. 451, 169 F.T.R. 1, 179 D.L.R. (4th) 609, 2 C.P.R. (4th) 129, 72 C.R.R. (2d) 139, [1999] A.C.F. n^o 1647 (QL).  Pourvoi principal accueilli et pourvoi incident rejeté.

R. Scott Joliffe, L.A. Kelly Gill et Kevin J. Sartorio, pour l’appelant/intimé au pourvoi incident.

Roger T. Hughes, c.r., et Glen A. Bloom, pour les intimées/appelantes au pourvoi incident.

Kevin L. LaRoche, pour l’intervenante la Fédération des ordres professionnels de juristes du Canada.

Thomas G. Heintzman, c.r., et Barry B. Sookman, pour les intervenants Canadian Publishers’ Council et Association of Canadian Publishers.

Claude Brunet, Benoît Clermont et Madeleine Lamothe-Samson pour les intervenantes la Société québécoise de gestion collective des droits de reproduction (COPIBEC) et The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright).

Procureurs de l’appelant/intimé au pourvoi incident : Gowling Lafleur Henderson, Toronto.

Procureurs des intimées/appelantes au pourvoi incident : Sim Hughes Ashton & McKay, Toronto.

Procureurs des l’intervenante la Fédération des ordres professionnels de juristes du Canada : Borden Ladner Gervais, Ottawa.

Procureurs des intervenants Canadian Publishers’ Council et Association of Canadian Publishers : McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto.

Procureurs des intervenantes la Société québécoise de gestion collective des droits de reproduction (COPIBEC) et The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright) : Ogilvy Renault, Montréal.

Brian Joseph Smith v. Her Majesty the Queen (N.L.) (29166)

Indexed as:  R. v. Smith / Répertorié : R. c. Smith

Neutral citation:  2004 SCC 14. / Référence neutre : 2004 CSC 14.

Judgment rendered March 4, 2004 / Jugement rendu le 4 mars 2004

Present:  Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

Criminal law – Courts – Jurisdiction – Appeals – Death of appellant – Appellant convicted of second degree murder – Appellant filing notice of appeal but dying before appeal could be heard – Crown moving to abate appeal seven years after appellant’s death – Jurisdiction to hear criminal appeal where appellant dies – Whether Court of Appeal should exercise discretion to hear appeal.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder in 1985 and sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for ten years.  His notice of appeal was filed promptly but despite his efforts, it remained pending until his death in 1994.  In April 2001, the Crown moved to abate the appeal.  The Court of Appeal held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal notwithstanding the appellant’s death, but exercised its discretion against doing so.

Held:  The appeal should be dismissed.

When an appellant dies, the court retains jurisdiction to proceed “in the interests of justice”, but it is a jurisdiction that should be sparingly exercised.  The continuing jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in this case rested on the notice of appeal that was properly filed during the appellant’s lifetime.  An appellant exercises his or her “personal right” to appeal when the notice of appeal is filed.  The filing is the root of the appellate court’s jurisdiction.

When an interested party seeks to continue an appeal notwithstanding the death of the appellant (or, in the case of a Crown appeal, the respondent), a motion should be made for substitution of the personal representative or another interested party for the deceased.  The dead can neither give instructions nor are amenable to the direction of the court.  In this case, however, there is no application to quash the appeal for failure to substitute a live appellant.  Furthermore, as the appeal is to be dismissed in any event, it is unnecessary to burden the litigants with this additional procedure.

Once the appeal is properly constituted with a live appellant, the court must then consider whether to exercise its jurisdiction to hear the appeal despite it being rendered moot by the death of the accused, or to abate the appeal.  The general test is whether there exist special circumstances that make it “in the interests of justice” to proceed.  That question may be approached by reference to the following non‐exhaustive factors:  the presence of a proper adversarial context; the strength of the grounds of the appeal; the existence of special circumstances that transcend the death of the individual appellant/respondent, such as a legal issue of general public importance, a systematic issue related to the administration of justice, or collateral consequences to the family of the deceased, to other interested persons, or to the public; the expenditure of limited judicial (or court) resources; and whether continuing the appeal would go beyond the judicial function of resolving concrete disputes and involve the court in free‐standing legislative‐type pronouncements more properly left to the legislature itself.  Those cases in which it will be proper to exercise jurisdiction will be rare and exceptional.

In this case, it is evident that the appeal would proceed in an adversarial context.  Moreover, the grounds for appeal are serious in the sense that a court could have determined in the appellant’s lifetime that a new trial would be the correct result.  With respect to special circumstances, the written correspondence between the appellant and his various lawyers demonstrates that he did everything in his power to move the appeal ahead.  The appellant undoubtedly deserved his day in the Court of Appeal, and the denial of that opportunity, plus the possibility that he could have cleared his name, properly grieves the family.  However, it would not be within the mandate of an appellate court hearing the merits of this appeal to get to the bottom of the causes of the procedural delays in getting on with the appeal.  At the core of the appeal lie the Charter  arguments concerning the admissibility of the appellant’s out‐of‐court statements to the police.  There is nothing exceptional about the consequences to the appellant’s family that would flow from the resolution of these legal points.  Furthermore, there are no other issues of broader public importance or other collateral consequences of the verdict to justify the hearing of this appeal.  The fact that, even if successful, the outcome of the appeal during the appellant’s lifetime would have been a new trial rather than an acquittal, means that the result of an appeal at this stage would be inconclusive with respect to guilt or innocence.  Finally, there is no concern that continuation of this appeal would invade the law‐making function of the legislature.  In summary, the insurmountable problem for members of the appellant’s family is not that the continuation of the appeal would run afoul of some positive limitation on the Court’s jurisdiction or discretion, but that not enough can be said to differentiate this appeal from the general run of cases where an appellant has died to justify the exercise of the Court’s discretion in their favour. Weighing all of the factors together, some of which mitigate in favour of continuation of the appeal but most of which do not, the Court of Appeal concluded that this is not one of those “exceptional” cases in which discretion should be exercised in favour of a continuation.  No reason has been shown for this Court to interfere with the exercise of that discretion.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal (2002), 209 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181, 626 A.P.R. 181, 161 C.C.C. (3d) 353, [2002] N.J. No. 34 (QL), 2002 NFCA 8, granting an application for an order striking the accused’s notice of appeal.  Appeal dismissed.

Jerome P. Kennedy, for the appellant. 

Pamela J. Goulding, for the respondent.

Gillian Roberts and Kimberley Crosbie, for the intervener.

Solicitors for the appellant:  Simmonds, Kennedy, St. John’s, Nfld.

Solicitor for the respondent:  Department of Justice, St. John’s, Nfld.