Bulletins

      OF CANADA                                             DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

February 27, 2004 306 - 334                                                                Le 27 février 2004

CONTENTS                                                                    TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Gou Din Ho

Andrew I. Nathanson

Fasken, Martineau, DuMoulin

v. (30167)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Martha M. Devlin

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE: 2.2.2004

Jean Guy Bellegarde

Jean Guy Bellegarde

c. (30182)

Ville Île Perrot (Qc)

Bernard Synnott

Fasken, Martineau, DuMoulin

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 6.2.2004

Her Majesty the Queen

Karen Shai

Attorney General of Ontario

v. (30181)

Dimitre Dimitrov (Ont.)

Frank Addario

Sack, Goldblatt, Mitchell

FILING DATE: 13.2.2004

Timothy Seiler, et al.

Merle Campbell

Merle Campbell Law Corporation

v. (30183)

Brouwer Claims Canada & Company Ltd., et al. (B.C.)

Mark L. Tweedy

Harper, Grey, Easton

FILING DATE: 17.2.2004

Mervat S. A. Rashwan, et al.

Mervat S. A. And Magdy A. Rashwan

v. (30173)

Joseph S. Farkas (Ont.)

H.J.B.A. Dickie Q.C.

Borden, Ladner, Gervais

FILING DATE: 22.1.2004

James Thomas Johnston

James Thomas Johnston

v. (30142)

College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick (N.B.)

Deirdre L. Wade

Barrie, Spalding

FILING DATE: 11.2.2004

Issam Al Yamani

Barbara L. Jackman

v. (30184)

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

Donald MacIntosh

Attorney General of Canada

FILING DATE: 19.2.2004

Ring Contracting Ltd.

Henry S. Brown, Q.C.

Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson

v. (30186)

PCL Constructors Inc. (B.C.)

Brian Samuels

Samuels & Co.

FILING DATE: 19.2.2004

FEBRUARY 23, 2004 / LE 23 FÉVRIER 2004

                                                    CORAM:  Chief Justice McLachlin and Major and Fish JJ.

                                                          La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Major et Fish

Rofia Aghabeigi

v. (30016)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Food and drugs - Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, 1996, c. 19 - Conviction for importation and possession of a controlled substance - “Fresh evidence” rule - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the “fresh evidence” rule, preferring finality of the legal proceeding over the Applicant’s allegation that she was wrongfully convicted - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to ensure that the Applicant, who alleges a miscarriage of justice, was given a fair trial according to law.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

David Alexander Holmes

v. (30040)

University of Calgary (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Judgments and orders - Summary judgment - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the Respondent to trample the Applicant’s fundamental rights and civil liberties - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not allowing the Applicant to represent himself - Whether the trial judge erred in ignoring the evidence contained in the Applicant’s affidavit and in dismissing the action - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing an increase in costs

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Celestica Inc.

v. (29984)

ACE INA Insurance formerly known as Cigna Insurance Company of Canada (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Insurance - Comprehensive general liability policy - Defective components being installed by insured in power modules of photocopiers - Insured taking corrective action - Definition of “occurrence” -  Whether the manufacture and sale of a defective item by the insured, where the insured does not know that the item is defective, may be an occurrence within the definition of occurrence in the policy - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the loss sustained by the Applicant was not caused by an occurrence, as defined in the insurance policy issued to the Applicant by the Respondent.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                  CORAM:  Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

                                                                       Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et Arbour

Confédération des syndicats nationaux et Fédération de la santé et des services sociaux

c. (30069)

Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail et Procureur général du Québec (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Discrimination basée sur le sexe - Réseau de la santé et des services sociaux - Les questions que soulève la présente demande sont‐elles importantes au sens de l’article 40(1)  de la Loi sur la Cour suprême du Canada ? - La Cour supérieure et la Cour d’appel du Québec ont‐elles erré en statuant que l’exclusion des travailleurs du réseau de la santé et des services sociaux, composé en majorité de femmes, du champ d’application des règlements adoptés par la CSST et approuvés par le Gouvernement du Québec à l’égard d’autres catégories d’emploi ne constituait pas une discrimination interdite basée sur le sexe en vertu de l’article 15(1)  de la Charte canadienne ?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

Brent Francis, Regal Pacific Mortgage Corporation and Cynthia Ewanus

v. (30001)

The Owners: Condominium Plan No. 8222909 (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Commercial law  - Contracts - Real property - Remedies - Estoppel - Equity - Sale of condominiums - Ultra vires contract - The indoor management Rule in Turquand’s Case [Royal British Bank v. Turquand (1855), 5 E. & B. 248 (C.A.)]  -  Condominium Property Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. C-22 - Whether there is a need for guiding principles relating to the law of condominiums in Canada - Whether the laws of contracts and real property apply to the sale of condominiums under the Act - Whether the principles of equity and estoppel apply to the sale of condominiums - Whether courts can relieve a party from the consequences of an ultra vires contract - Whether the doctrine of estoppel applies to the buying and selling of real estate - Whether the Rule in Turquand’s Case applies when a large rental complex is legally transformed into a mixed‐use, multi‐ownership condominium.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Joseph Douglas Bellerose

v. (29954)

Bradley Gerald Bob (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Damages - Aggravated damages - Personal injury - Whether aggravated damages should be available as an “add‐on” to non‐pecuniary loss in personal injury cases and, if so, whether “indignation” respecting a defendant’s conduct should play any role in their availability or assessment - If aggravated damages are to be available separately in personal injury cases, whether they should be exempted from the trilogy “cap” for non‐pecuniary damages - Whether aggravated damages principles developed in the defamation context should apply without modification to claims for personal injury in tort

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Peter Deeb and Hampton Securities Limited

v. (29925)

Fred Metrick and Cecile Metrick (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Constituent elements of tort of abuse of process - Procedural law - Civil procedure - Summary judgment - Whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct test in determining whether the tort of abuse of process had been made out - Whether liability for abuse of process requires a definite act or threat in furtherance of the improper purpose outside of the steps taken in the conduct of the legal process - Whether the requirement of a “legal process” encompasses processes governed by self‐regulated professions - Whether this is a proper case for summary judgment

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                             CORAM:  Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

                                                                  Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

Sa Majesté la Reine

c. (30108)

G.R. (Crim.) (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Infractions - Appel - Compétence - Inceste - Infractions incluses - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en refusant de reconnaître l’existence d’infractions incluses à une accusation d’inceste? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en omettant d’exercer son pouvoir de substitution de verdict lui permettant de condamner l’intimé pour avoir commis ces infractions incluses?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

Canada Safeway Limited

v. (29930)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba (Man.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

 Taxation - Statutes - Assessment - Interpretation - Do bankers’ acceptances fall within the meaning of “sums or credits advanced or loaned” within s. 8(1)(d) of The Corporation Capital Tax Act C.C.S.M. c. C226?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Vicbir Holdings Ltd.

v. (29975)

Lorna B. Sutherland and Susan B. Dwyer (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial Law - Oppression Remedy - Is judicial discretion under the oppression sections of the CBCA and its provincial counterparts unlimited or must it be based on identifiable legal and equitable principles? - Are there inherent time limits in relation to matters that a complaint may raise on an application under the oppression sections of the CBCA; subsidiarily, do provincial statutes of limitations or rules as to civil law prescription apply? - What is the proper approach to valuation in such cases? - What method should be used in valuing the interests of minority shareholders? - What principles apply in valuing contingent tax liabilities and assets - in particular, embedded taxes (payable on the sale of securities) and refundable dividend tax on hand (RDTOH)?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION / DEMANDE DE RÉEXAMEN

                                             CORAM:  Chief Justice McLachlin and Bastarache and LeBel JJ. /

La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Bastarache et LeBel

André Pomerleau c. Sa Majesté la Reine, et autre (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation) (29520)

FEBRUARY 26, 2004 / LE 26 FÉVRIER 2004

29799                    Paletta International Corporation v. Canada Life Assurance Company (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C38060, dated April 2, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C38060, daté du 2 avril 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Contracts - Interpretation - Jurisdiction of appellate court to substitute its definition of a word in a contractual term with that of the lower court.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29818                    Darryl Williams 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 C24685, dated June 3, 2003, is dismissed.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C24685, daté du 3 juin 2003, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal Law - Fraud - Did the Court of Appeal err in failing to find that the destruction by the complainant of all the accused’s records relevant to the charges before the court was fatal and that the continued prosecution of the accused was a breach of his rights guaranteed and protected by section 7  of the Charter ? - Did the Court of Appeal err in ruling that in proving fraud, the Crown was under no duty or obligation to prove that the accused acted without authority in order to meet the burden of establishing a dishonest act? - In answering the aforesaid questions, did the Court of Appeal err in failing to determine whether the Crown was proceeding on the basis of “deceit”, “falsehood” and “other fraudulent means” and further, did the Court of Appeal err in failing to make a legal distinction between “deceit”, “falsehood” and “other fraudulent means”? - Did the Court of Appeal err in failing to find that the trial judge impermissibly reversed the onus by requiring the accused to prove he was authorized to do what he did? - Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that there need not be a causal link between a dishonest act and the deprivation, thereby allowing the prosecutor to rely on an alleged dishonest representation made after the alleged deprivation or risk of deprivation had taken place? - Did the Court of Appeal err in failing to find that the Crown had a duty to establish what that industry practice was before convicting the accused for paying a head hunting fee purported for insufficient services rendered? - Did the Court of Appeal err in failing to find that s. 11(b)  Charter  waivers were rendered nugatory by virtue of the conduct of the Crown which thwarted the accused’s efforts and by the conduct of the complainant for failing to advise that all fo the requested documents had been destroyed prior to criminal charges being laid and/or prior to the preliminary hearing?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29874                    The Great American Insurance Company and The Chateau Insurance Company v. Father Francis Reed, The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Sault Ste. Marie in Canada, The Continental Insurance Company, The Phoenix Assurance Company Limited, The Phoenix Assurance Company of Canada, The Continental Insurance Company of Canada and Ecclesiastical Insurance Office plc (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C35608, dated May 13, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C35608, daté du 13 mai 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law – Insurance – Duty to defend and indemnify – Plaintiff brought action against parish priest and Diocese alleging sexual assault – Settlement entered into with Plaintiff and third party insurers, other than Applicants – Whether the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal is in conflict with decisions of the Alberta and British Columbia Court of Appeal, as well as American appellate decisions – Whether there should be a presumption that the parties to an insurance contract intended to exclude, rather than to include, coverage for sexual assault claims arising from intentional misconduct – Whether the same term found in different parts of an insurance policy, or any other contract, should be accorded the same meaning unless there is some good and valid reason for doing otherwise – Whether the provisions of an insurance policy, or any other contract, should not be interpreted in a manner that creates unexplained anomalies – Whether a clause in an insurance policy, or any other contract, should not be interpreted in a manner that renders part of that clause meaningless – Whether a single word, such as “the”, should not be given governing weight without considering that word in the context of the insurance policy, or other contract, as a whole and in accordance with the presumed intention of the parties – Whether the question of insurance coverage for clergy members who allegedly commit sexual misconduct is a matter of national importance?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29941                    J.D. Irving, Limited v. General Longshore Workers, Checkers and Shipliners of the Port of Saint John, N.B. Local 273 of the International Longshoremen's Association and Port of Saint John Employers' Association, 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‐96‐02, dated June 13, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‐96‐02, daté du 13 juin 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial Review - Statutes - Statutory Interpretation - Whether the Canada Industrial Relations Board exceeded its jurisdiction and made a patently unreasonable decision when it purported to follow its previous case law, but, in fact, ignored and failed to correctly apply the most important criterion from such case law - Whether the Canada Industrial Relations Board’s decision was patently unreasonable because it leads to an unconstitutional result - Whether the  Canada Industrial Relations Board  has given a patently unreasonable interpretation to s. 34 of the Canada Labour Code by ignoring the clear wording of the statute and, in effect, creating a “statutory monopoly” in Canadian Ports, which prevents producers of goods from handling their goods themselves

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29982                    Jean (Guy) Tremblay v. Calgary Herald Group Inc. (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 0201‐0017‐AC, dated September 30, 2003, is dismissed without costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Alberta (Calgary), numéro 0201‐0017‐AC, daté du 30 septembre 2003, est rejetée sans dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Defamation - Procedural law - Limitations - Whether lower courts correctly disposed of case.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29987                    Lily Elaine Burnett v. Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number 2003 BCCA 394, CA030008, dated July 2, 2003, is dismissed without costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro 2003 BCCA 394, CA030008, daté du 2 juillet 2003, est rejetée sans dépens. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  – Civil – Workers compensation – Equality rights – Age discrimination – Widow of deceased worker with dependent child losing survivor pension when child no longer a dependent – Widow under age forty when pension terminated – British Columbia Workers’ Compensation Act providing for continuation of monthly pension only where surviving spouse is disabled or over age 40 when child ceases to be dependent – Whether application raises issues of public importance in Canada involving the interpretation and application of s. 15(1)  of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, such as to warrant leave to appeal – Whether B.C. Court of Appeal judgment inconsistent with decisions of courts in other jurisdictions across Canada – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , s.15(1) .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30007                    Kwok Yung Chan 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 C34828, dated August 19, 2003, is dismissed.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C34828, daté du 19 août 2003, est rejetée. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal  Law ‐ Narcotics - Possession for the purposes of trafficking - Attempted possession for the purposes of trafficking - Police conduct a “controlled delivery” of an intercepted shipment of heroin by replacing all but one gram of heroin with wooden blocks and a transmitter and tracing shipment - Whether use of a controlled delivery should only permit a conviction for lesser include offence of attempted possession for the purpose of trafficking.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30035                    Robert Lavigne v. Canada Post Corporation (F.C.) (Civil) (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 Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐596‐02, dated June 3, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‐596‐02, daté du 3 juin 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Administrative law - Privacy law - Jurisdiction - Collective agreement - Dispute arising from the application of a seniority tie-breaker clause in the collective agreement - Whether the Federal Court erred in finding that it lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae to hear the dispute - Whether the action arises under the Privacy Act, R.S.C., c. P-21, due to use of personal information in contravention with s. 7 of the Privacy Act - Whether procedural fairness can oust the exclusive jurisdiction of the grievance arbitrator

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30039                    Dominic Noël c. Sa Majesté la Reine (Qc) (Criminelle) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et Arbour

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Québec), numéro 200‐10‐001279‐012, daté du 9 septembre 2003, est rejetée.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Quebec), Number 200‐10‐001279‐012, dated September 9, 2003, is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Preuve - Procédure - Confession - Admissibilité - Libre et volontaire - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit sur l’étendue du droit de persuasion d’un policier visant à convaincre une personne détenue de passer aux aveux après que celle‐ci ait choisi d’exercer son droit au silence ? - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit sur l’étendue du droit d’un policier de persuader une personne détenue que l’interrogatoire qu’elle subit ne peut prendre fin que par une confession sans que le caractère libre et volontaire de celle‐ci ne soit vicié ? - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit sur l’étendue du droit d’un policier d’utiliser des scénarios et des hypothèses réducteurs de responsabilité juridique pour inciter une personne détenue à faire une confession libre et volontaire.

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30042                    Richard Condo 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 C38063, dated September 9, 2003, is dismissed.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C38063, daté du 9 septembre 2003, est  rejetée. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law - Elements of Offence - Aggravated Assault - Sentencing - Long Term Offender Designation - Did the prosecutor fail to prove the elements of the offence of aggravated assault? - At a dangerous or long‐term offender hearing can prior discreditable conduct be considered in determining whether an untried allegation of criminal offence has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? - Did the Court err in its reliance on hearsay to prove untried allegations? - In cases where the sentencing judge has declined to make a dangerous offender designation, does the accused retain the right to be heard prior to the judge making a long‐term offender designation?- How should "substantial risk" to re‐offend be interpreted for purposes of determining whether a long‐term offender designation should be made?- Is proof of a pattern of criminal behaviour necessary prior to designating an offender a long‐term offender? - What are the factors to be considered in determining the length of a long‐term supervision order? - When an accused has been designated a long‐term offender, are the general principles of sentencing still applicable to the sentencing of the accused for the predicate offences? - Does a sentencing judge retain the duty to consider the aboriginal background of an offender in sentencing an accused who has been designated a long‐term offender? - Did the Court err in  refusing to give a two for one credit for pre‐trial custody?- Are the general principles of sentencing applicable to the length of a long‐term supervision order?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30051                    Société en commandite Sainte‐Hélène c. G.M. Développement Inc. (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 (Québec), numéro 200‐09‐004179‐021, daté du 17 septembre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Quebec), Number 200‐09‐004179‐021, dated September 17, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit des biens - Bien immeubles - Droits réels - Titre de propriété - Servitude par destination du père de famille - Fond servant et fond dominant - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en répudiant la condition d’un aménagement physique ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré dans ses conclusions relatives à l’extinction de la servitude par les effets de la renonciation et de la clause de dation en paiement ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré dans son interprétation de l’article 1184 C.c.Q. sur la contribution du propriétaire du fonds dominant aux travaux nécessaires à la conservation de la servitude de stationnement?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30075                    B.F. and B.W. v. Minister of Community Services and Mi'kmaq Family and Children's Services of Nova Scotia (N.S.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, Number CA202056, dated November 12, 2003, is dismissed without costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Nouvelle‐Écosse, numéro CA202056, daté du 12 novembre 2003, est rejetée sans dépens. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family law - Infants - Child protection proceedings - Parents with limited intellectual ability requiring extensive family support services - Order for continued supervision of Applicants’ four children extending past maximum date for supervision orders under the Children and Family Services Act, S.N.S. 1990, c. 5, s. 43(4) - Whether trial court could extend the time limits  following an express finding that it was in the best interests of the children to do so -  Whether approach to appellate review undertaken by  Court of Appeal, and the refusal to remit the matter to the trial judge resulted in a breach of fundamental justice

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29432                    C.U. v. Marley McGonigle and the Director of Child Welfare for the Province of Alberta (Alta.) (Civil) (By Leave) 2004 SCC 12 / 2004 CSC 12

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major, Arbour and Fish JJ.

On September 18, 2003, a panel of this Court composed of Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ. dismissed an application for leave to appeal brought by the Applicant.  The Applicant now applies for reconsideration of her application for leave to appeal.

In her Amended Notice of Motion for Reconsideration of Application for Leave to Appeal, the Applicant argues that, in view of Gonthier J.’s retirement on August 1, 2003, this Court did not have jurisdiction to dismiss her application for leave to appeal on September 18, 2003.  The Applicant submits that s. 27(2)  of the Supreme Court Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26 , applies only to appeals and not to applications for leave to appeal.  In the alternative, the Applicant submits that her  application for leave to appeal was not “heard” prior to August 1, 2003.

Section 27(2) must be read in conjunction with s. 27(1)  of the Supreme Court Act .  These provisions read as follows:

27. (1) A judge who has heard a case for which judgment is delivered pursuant to paragraph 26(1)(a) and who is absent from the delivery of judgment may sign a copy of the opinion with which the judge concurs or, where the judge has written an opinion, give the opinion to a judge present at the delivery of judgment, which concurrence or opinion shall be announced or read in open court and then left with the Registrar or reporter of the Court.

(2) A judge who has resigned the office of judge, or who has ceased to hold office under section 9, shall, within six months thereafter, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be absent at the delivery of judgment in any case heard by that judge in which judgment has not been delivered during his tenure of office.

For the reasons that follow, however, it is unnecessary, in our view, to deal with the Applicant’s arguments under s. 27(2)  of the Supreme Court Act . 

Section 41.1(1)  of the Judges Act , R.S.C. 1985, c.  J-1 , adopted in 2001 by s. 20 of An Act to Amend the Judges Act and to amend another Act in consequence, S.C. 2001, c. 7, disposes of this matter.  This provision represents Parliament’s most recent expression of intent in this area and reads as follows:

41.1 (1) A judge of the Supreme Court of Canada who has retired may, with the approval of the Chief Justice of Canada, continue to participate in judgments in which he or she participated before retiring, for a period not greater than six months after the date of the retirement.

In our view, it is evident that s. 41.1(1)  of the Judges Act  applies equally to applications for leave to appeal and appeals. 

The Applicant’s application for leave to appeal was submitted to Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ. on July 14, 2003, prior to Gonthier J.’s retirement.  Judgment was subsequently issued on September 18, 2003, well within the six month window established by s. 41.1(1)  of the Judges Act . As a result, we are all of the view that under s. 41.1(1)  of the Judges Act , Gonthier J. was entitled to participate in the judgment dismissing the application for leave to appeal.

We are further of the view that the Applicant’s other arguments do not warrant reconsideration of her application for leave to appeal.

The Motion for Leave to File an Amended Notice of Motion for Reconsideration of Application for Leave to Appeal is granted and the Amended Motion for Reconsideration of Application for Leave to Appeal is dismissed.

_______________

Le 18 septembre 2003, une formation de la Cour, composée des juges Gonthier, Major et Arbour, a rejeté la demande d’autorisation d’appel présentée par la requérante.  Cette dernière sollicite maintenant le réexamen de cette demande.

Dans son Avis de requête modifié en réexamen de la demande d’autorisation d’appel, la requérante prétend que, compte tenu du départ à la retraite du juge Gonthier le 1^er septembre 2003, la Cour n’avait pas compétence pour rejeter sa demande d’autorisation d’appel le 18 septembre 2003.  La requérante plaide que le par. 27(2)  de la Loi sur la Cour suprême , L.R.C. 1985, ch. S-26 , s’applique uniquement aux appels et non aux demandes d’autorisation d’appel.  Elle soutient subsidiairement que sa demande d’autorisation n’a pas été « entendue » avant le 1^er août 2003.

Le paragraphe 27(2)  de la Loi sur la Cour suprême  doit être lu en corrélation avec le par. (1) du même article.  Voici le texte de ces dispositions :

27. (1) Dans le cas de l'application de l'alinéa 26(1)a), le juge ayant instruit l'affaire mais absent lors du prononcé du jugement peut signer une copie de l'exposé des motifs auxquels il souscrit ou remettre à un juge qui sera présent à l'audience publique le texte de l'exposé de ses propres motifs. Communication est faite à l'audience de son accord ou de son exposé, l'un ou l'autre étant ensuite consigné par le registraire ou l'arrêtiste de la Cour.

(2) Pour l'application du présent article, lorsque le jugement d'une affaire entendue par lui est rendu après qu'il a démissionné ou cessé d'exercer sa charge en raison de l'article 9, le juge intéressé est assimilé, pour les six mois qui suivent sa cessation de fonction, à un juge absent lors du prononcé du jugement.

Toutefois, pour les motifs qui suivent, il n’est pas nécessaire à notre avis de se pencher sur les arguments de la requérante fondés sur le par. 27(2)  de la Loi sur la Cour suprême .

Le paragraphe 41.1(1)  de la Loi sur les juges , L.R.C. 1985, ch.  J-1 , édicté en 2001 par l’art. 20 de la Loi modifiant la Loi sur les juges et une autre loi en conséquence, L.C. 2001, ch. 7, tranche la question.  Cette disposition, qui constitue l’expression la plus récente de l’intention du législateur à cet égard, est rédigée ainsi :

41.1 (1) Tout juge de la Cour suprême du Canada qui prend sa retraite peut, avec l'autorisation du juge en chef du Canada, continuer de participer aux jugements auxquels il participait avant sa retraite pendant une période maximale de six mois après celle‐ci.

Il est évident, selon nous, que le par. 41.1(1)  de la Loi sur les juges  s’applique autant aux demandes d’autorisation d’appel qu’aux appels.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de la requérante a été soumise aux juges Gonthier, Major et Arbour le 14 juillet 2003, soit avant le départ à la retraite du juge Gonthier.  Jugement a par la suite été rendu le 18 septembre 2003, bien à l’intérieur de la période de six mois prévue par le par. 41.1(1)  de la Loi sur les juges .  En conséquence, nous sommes tous d’avis que le juge Gonthier pouvait, en vertu du par. 41.1(1)  de la Loi sur les juges , participer au jugement rejetant la demande d’autorisation d’appel.

Nous sommes également d’avis que les autres arguments de la requérante ne justifient pas le réexamen de sa demande d’autorisation d’appel.

La Requête sollicitant l’autorisation de déposer un avis de requête modifié en réexamen de la demande d’autorisation d’appel est accueillie et la Requête modifiée en réexamen de la demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

13.2.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to December 30, 2003.

17.2.2004

Before / Devant : THE CHIEF JUSTICE

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

À LA SUITE DE LA DEMANDE des appelants visant à obtenir la formulation de questions constitutionnelles dans l’appel susmentionné;

ET APRÈS AVOIR LU la documentation déposée;

LES QUESTIONS CONSTITUTIONNELLES SUIVANTES SONT FORMULÉES:

1.             L’article 54 de la Loi sur les relation du travail, la formation professionnelle et la gestion de la main-d’oeuvre dans l’industrie de la construction, L.R.Q., ch. R-20, est-il, en totalité ou en partie, inapplicable ou inopérant pour cause de conflit avec la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité , L.R.C. 1985, ch. B-3 , et, en particulier avec l’art. 136 de cette loi ?

2.             L’article 316 de la Loi sur les accidents du travail et les maladies professionnelles, L.R.Q., ch. A-3.001, est-il, en totalité ou en partie, inapplicable ou inopérant pour cause de conflit avec la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité , L.R.C. 1985, ch. B-3 , et, en particulier avec l’art. 136 de cette loi ?

1.             Is s. 54 of An Act respecting labour relations, vocational training and manpower management in the construction industry, R.S.Q., c. R-20, inapplicable or inoperable in whole or in part, by reason of being in conflict with the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 , and in particular s. 136 thereof?

2.             Is s. 316 of An Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases, R.S.Q., c. A-3.001, inapplicable or inoperable in whole or in part, by reason of being in conflict with the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 , and in particular s. 136 thereof?

17.2.2004

Before / Devant : BINNIE J.

UPON APPLICATION by the appellant for an order for access to a copy of the sealed legal opinion and upon application by the respondent for orders sealing the sealed envelope containing the legal opinion and allowing counsel for the respondent to include the legal opinion at issue in this appeal in a sealed envelope for review by the Court;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1)             The appellant’s motion for access to a copy of the sealed legal opinion is dismissed with costs.

2)                  The respondent’s motion allowing counsel for the respondent to include the legal opinion at issue in this appeal in a sealed envelope for possible review by the Court (if the Court should think fit), is granted without costs.

18.2.2004

Before / Devant : IACOBUCCI J.

UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General of Canada, the Squamish Indian Band and Lax Kw’alaams Indian Band, the Haisla Nation, the First Nations Summit, the Dene Tha’ First Nation, Tenimgyet, also known as Art Matthews, Gitxsan Hereditary Chief, the Business Council of British Columbia, the Aggregate Producers Association of British Columbia, the British Columbia & Yukon Chamber of Mines, the British Columbia Chambers of Commerce, the Council of Forest Industries and the Mining Association of British Columbia, and the British Columbia Cattlemen’s Association  and pursuant to the order of November 24, 2003;

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said interveners, Squamish Indian Band and Lax Kw’alaams Indian Band, the Haisla Nation, the Dene Tha’ First Nation,  the British Columbia Cattlemen’s Association, are each granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding ten (10) minutes at the hearing of the appeal.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said intervener, Tenimgyet, also known as Art Matthews, Gitxsan Hereditary Chief, is granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding fifteen (15) minutes at the hearing of the appeal.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said interveners, the Attorney General of Canada, the First Nations Summit, the Business Council of British Columbia, the Aggregate Producers Association of British Columbia, the British Columbia & Yukon Chamber of Mines, the British Columbia Chambers of Commerce, the Council of Forest Industries and the Mining Association of British Columbia, are not granted permission to present oral argument in this appeal since they were granted oral argument not exceeding fifteen (15) minutes at the hearing of the appeal  Norm Ringstand, et al. v. The Taku River Tlingit First Nation, et al. (29146).

18.2.2004

Before / Devant : IACOBUCCI J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the intervener, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan, for an order extending the time to serve and file its factum and book of authorities to January 16, 2004 and for an order permitting the Attorney General for Saskatchewan to present oral argument at the hearing of this appeal.

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1) The motion to extend the time to serve and file the Attorney General for Saskatchewan’s factum and book of authorities to January 16, 2004 is granted.

2) The Attorney General for Saskatchewan is granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding fifteen (15) minutes at the hearing of the appeal.

19.2.2004

Before / Devant : THE CHIEF JUSTICE

UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General of Canada for directions;

HAVING READ the material filed and the submissions of the Attorney General of Canada and the interveners;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

3.                  The Attorney General of Canada shall serve forthwith a copy of the Notice of Amended Reference on the Attorneys General of the provinces, the Ministers of Justice of the governments of the territories, and the interveners granted leave to intervene in this reference;

4.                  Those provincial Attorneys General who have filed a notice of intervention may address the additional reference question without having to file a further notice of intervention.

5.                  Provincial Attorneys General or Ministers of Justice of the governments of the territories who have not intervened to date, but who now seek to do so, shall serve notice of their intention to intervene under s. 53(5)  of the Supreme Court Act  by February 27, 2004;

6.                  Interveners granted leave to intervene by the order of Iacobucci J. dated January 23, 2004, may address the additional reference question without applying for further leave to intervene;

7.                  The Attorney General of Canada is allowed to serve and file a supplementary factum of no more than 10 pages, a supplementary record and a book of authorities to address the additional reference question, no later than March 30, 2004;

8.                  By March 30, 2004, the Attorney General of Canada shall, at the cost of the Attorney General of Canada, file hard copies of all affidavits (both expert and personal), transcripts of cross-examinations and written interrogatories from the record of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Halpern v. Canada (Attorney General) (C39172 and C39174), and from the record of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Egale Canada Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (CA029017 and CA029048), without reproducing materials already filed in the Attorney General of Canada’s Record of October 30, 2003;

9.                  By March 30, 2004, the Attorney General of Canada shall, at the cost of the Attorney General of Canada, serve on all interveners and file with the Court an electronic version of all affidavits (both expert and personal), transcripts of cross-examinations and written interrogatories from the record of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Halpern v. Canada (Attorney General) (C39172 and C39174), and from the record of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Egale Canada Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (CA029017 and CA029048), and, without duplication, the materials filed in the Attorney General of Canada’s Record of October 30, 2003.  These materials can be served and filed electronically either by e-mail, or by delivering a disk containing data in a readable PDF format.  The Attorney General Canada shall serve forthwith an electronic version of the same materials on all interveners granted leave to intervene after March 30, 2004, if any;

10.              Persons not already granted leave to intervene in this reference shall serve and file their motions for leave to intervene by April 6, 2004;

11.              The Attorney General of Canada shall serve and file its responses to the motions for leave to intervene, if any, by April 13, 2004;

12.              Replies to the responses of the Attorney General of Canada, if any, shall be served and filed by April 16, 2004;

13.              All persons who have been or will be granted leave to intervene in this reference, and all provincial Attorneys General and territorial Ministers of Justice who have intervened or will intervene pursuant to s. 53(5)  of the Supreme Court Act , shall serve and file their materials addressing all four reference questions, by May 11, 2004.  At the same time, the Attorney General of Quebec, having already filed his factum, may, if he wishes, serve and file supplementary materials addressing the additional reference question;

14.              The Attorney General of Canada shall serve and file his reply factum of no more than 20 pages in response to the issues raised by all of the interveners, by June 8, 2004;

15.              The hearing of the Reference is scheduled for October 6, 7 and 8, 2004;          

16.              No variation is made to the order of Iacobucci J. dated January 23, 2004, regarding the terms of intervention or length of factum of any person granted leave to intervene under that order;

17.              No order as to costs is made at the present time.

À LA SUITE D’UNE DEMANDE de directives présentée par le procureur général du Canada;

APRÈS EXAMEN des documents déposés et des observations présentées par le procureur général du Canada et les intervenants;

IL EST ORDONNÉ CE QUI SUIT :

18.              Le procureur général du Canada doit sans délai signifier copie de l’Avis de renvoi modifié aux procureurs généraux des provinces, aux ministres de la Justice des gouvernements territoriaux et aux intervenants autorisés à participer au présent renvoi.

19.              Les procureurs généraux provinciaux qui ont déposé un avis d’intervention peuvent présenter des observations à l’égard de la question additionnelle faisant l’objet du renvoi sans être tenus de produire un autre avis d’intervention.

20.              Les procureurs généraux provinciaux et les ministres de la Justice des gouvernements territoriaux qui ne sont pas encore intervenus mais qui désirent le faire doivent signifier leur intention en ce sens en vertu du par. 53(5)  de la Loi sur la Cour suprême  d’ici le 27 février 2004.

21.              Les intervenants qui ont été autorisés à participer à l’instance par l’ordonnance du juge Iacobucci datée du 23 janvier 2004 peuvent présenter des observations à l’égard de la question additionnelle faisant l’objet du renvoi sans être tenus de demander à nouveau l’autorisation d’intervenir.

22.              Le procureur général du Canada est autorisé à signifier et déposer, au plus tard le 30 mars 2004, un mémoire additionnel d’au plus 10 pages, ainsi qu’un dossier et un recueil de sources supplémentaires à l’égard de la question additionnelle faisant l’objet du renvoi.

23.              D’ici le 30 mars 2004, le procureur général du Canada doit déposer, à ses frais et sur support papier, copie des documents suivants : les affidavits (souscrits par des experts ou d’autres personnes), les transcriptions des contre-interrogatoires et les interrogatoires écrits figurant dans le dossier de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario dans l’affaire Halpern c. Canada (Attorney General) (C39172 et C39174) et dans le dossier de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie-Britannique dans l’affaire Egale Canada Inc. c. Canada (Attorney General) (CA029017 et CA029048), sans reproduire les documents déjà déposés et figurant dans le Dossier du procureur général du Canada daté du 30 octobre 2003.

24.              D’ici le 30 mars 2004, le procureur général du Canada doit, à ses frais, signifier à tous les intervenants et déposer à la Cour une version électronique des documents suivants : les affidavits (souscrits par des experts ou d’autres personnes), les transcriptions des contre-interrogatoires et les interrogatoires écrits figurant dans le dossier de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario dans l’affaire Halpern c. Canada (Attorney General) (C39172 et C39174) et dans le dossier de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie-Britannique dans l’affaire Egale Canada Inc. c. Canada (Attorney General) (CA029017 et CA029048), et les documents déposés dans le Dossier du procureur général du Canada daté du 30 octobre 2003 qui ne figurent pas parmi les documents susmentionnés.  Ces documents peuvent être signifiés soit par courrier électronique soit par remise d’une disquette contenant les données en format PDF.  Le procureur général du Canada devra signifier sans délai une version électronique de ces documents à tous les intervenants qui, après le 30 mars 2004, pourraient être autorisés à intervenir.

25.              Les personnes qui n’ont pas déjà été autorisées à intervenir au présent renvoi ont jusqu’au 6 avril 2004 pour signifier et déposer leur requête sollicitant l’autorisation d’intervenir.

26.              Le procureur général aura jusqu’au 13 avril 2004 pour signifier et déposer ses réponses à ces requêtes, le cas échéant.

27.              Les répliques aux réponses du procureur général du Canada, le cas échéant, devront être signifiées et déposées au plus tard le 16 avril 2004.

28.              Toutes les personnes qui ont été ou seront autorisées à intervenir au présent pourvoi, ainsi que tous les procureurs généraux provinciaux et ministres de la Justice territoriaux qui sont intervenus ou qui interviendront en vertu du par. 53(5)  de la Loi sur la Cour suprême  doivent signifier et déposer d’ici le 11 mai 2004 leurs documents à l’égard des quatre questions du renvoi.  Comme le procureur général du Québec a déjà déposé son mémoire, il peut à son gré, d’ici cette même date, signifier et déposer des documents supplémentaires à l’égard de la question additionnelle faisant l’objet du renvoi.

29.              Le procureur général du Canada a jusqu’au 8 juin 2004 pour signifier et déposer son mémoire répondant aux points soulevés par tous les intervenants; ce mémoire ne doit pas compter plus de 20 pages.

30.              L’audition du Renvoi a été fixée aux 6, 7 et 8 octobre 2004.     

31.              Aucune modification n’est apportée à l’ordonnance du juge Iacobucci datée du 23 janvier 2004 en ce qui concerne les conditions d’intervention, notamment quant à la longueur des mémoires, que doivent respecter les personnes qui ont été autorisées à intervenir par cette ordonnance.

32.              Aucune ordonnance n’est rendue à l’égard des dépens à ce moment-ci.

19.2.2004

Before / Devant : THE CHIEF JUSTICE

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

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

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

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

1.         Do par. (a)(I), (ii) and (iii) of New Brunswick Order in Council 2002-110 interfere with the financial security of Provincial Court judges and thereby violate the principle of judicial independence guaranteed by the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 ?

2.         Do par. (a)(I), (ii) and (iii) of New Brunswick Order in Council 2002-110 interfere with the financial security of Provincial Court judges and thereby violate the principle of judicial independence guaranteed by s. 11( d )  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

3.         If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative, do par.(a)(I), (ii) and (iii) of New Brunswick Order in Council 2002-110 constitute a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

1.         Les paragraphes (a)(I), (ii) et (iii) du Décret en conseil du Nouveau-Brunswick 2002-110 portent-ils atteinte à la sécurité financière des juges de la Cour provinciale et contreviennent-ils, de ce fait, au principe de l'indépendance judiciaire garanti par le préambule de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 ?

2.         Les paragraphes (a)(I), (ii) et (iii) du Décret en conseil du Nouveau-Brunswick 2002-110 portent-ils atteinte à la sécurité financière des juges de la Cour provinciale et contreviennent-ils, de ce fait, au principe de l'indépendance judiciaire garanti par l'alinéa 11d)  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

3.         Si la réponse à la question précédente est affirmative, les paragraphes (a)(i), (ii) et (iii) du Décret en conseil du Nouveau-Brunswick 2002-110  constituent-ils une limite raisonnable prescrite par une règle de droit dont la justification peut se démontrer dans le cadre d'une société libre et démocratique en vertu de l'article premier de la Charte ?

19.2.2004

Simon Kwok Cheng Chow

v. (29919)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

23.2.2004

Le Procureur général du Canada 

c. (30187)

Le Procureur général du Québec (Qc)

(De plein droit / l’art. 36  Loi sur la Cour suprême )

                                                                               SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

                                                                                     CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME

                                                                                                           - 2003 -

        04-07-2002

                                                                                                           - 2004 -