Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

February 6, 2004 204 - 227                                                                  Le 6 février 2004

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Kirk Morgan Pynn

Bob Buckingham

Bob Buckingham Law Offices

v. (30129)

Her Majesty the Queen (N.L.)

Kathleen Healey

Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador

FILING DATE: 12.1.2004

Edward Robert Larwill

Chris G. Paliare

Paliare, Roland, Rosenberg, Rothstein

v. (30144)

Shane Lanham (B.C.)

Skorah Doyle

Mark M. Skorah

FILING DATE: 19.1.2004

Sydney Abrahams, et al.

Larry J. Levine, Q.C.

Levine, Sherkin, Boussidan

v. (30147)

Bank of Montreal (Ont.)

R. Bruce Smith

Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson

FILING DATE: 21.1.2004

The Ontario Judges’ Association, et al.

C. Michael Mitchell

Sack, Goldblatt, Mitchell

v. (30148)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario, as represented by the Chair of Management Board (Ont.)

Lori R. Sterling

Attorney General of Ontario

FILING DATE: 22.1.2004

Fullercon Limited

Martin Z. Black

v. (30135)

City of Ottawa, et al. (Ont.)

Daniel Leduc

Lang, Michener

FILING DATE: 19.1.2004

Darlene Yellow Old Woman

Priscilla E.S. Kennedy

Parlee, McLaws

v. (30019)

Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

Tudor A.H. Beattie, Q.C.

Attorney General of Alberta 

FILING DATE: 21.1.2004

John Jauvin

Pierre Sylvestre

Sylvestre, Charbonneau, Fafard & Associés

c. (30152)

Le Procureur général du Québec, et autres (Qc)

Mario Normandin

Bernard, Roy & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 23.1.2004

Antony Tsai

Antony Tsai

v. (30141)

Canadian Human Rights Commission, et al. (F.C.)

Philippe Dufresne

Canadian Human Rights Commission

FILING DATE: 23.1.2004

Andrew Davis

Gil D. McKinnon, Q.C.

v. (30155)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

John M. Gordon

Attorney General of British Columbia

FILING DATE: 27.1.2004

Allan Arthur Dunbar

Gil D. McKinnon, Q.C.

v. (30156)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Gregory J. Fitch

Attorney General of British Columbia

FILING DATE: 27.1.2004

Paramjit Singh Sodhi

James Lockyer

Lockyer, Campbell

v. (30154)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

David Finley

Attorney General of Ontario

FILING DATE: 30.1.2004

Luis Cornejo

Terry S. Guerriero

Terry S. Guerriero Law Office

v. (30158)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Susan Chapman

Attorney General of Ontario

FILING DATE: 26.1.2004

Ka-Fai Ng

Brian A. Beresh

Beresh, DePoe, Cunningham

v. (30159)

Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

Arnold Schlayer

Attorney General of Alberta 

FILING DATE: 26.1.2004

FEBRUARY 2, 2004 / LE 2 FÉVRIER 2004

                                                    CORAM:  Chief Justice McLachlin and Major and Fish JJ.

                                                          La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Major et Fish

Christiano Daniel Justin Paice

v. (30045)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

 Criminal Law - Defence - Statutes - Interpretation - Whether there is a consent fight at all when the deceased as in this case, and contrary to the situation in Jobidon was the aggressor throughout and delivered the first blow - Whether the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal was in error when it held that because the Applicant consented to fight it was not open to him to say that he did not provoke the assault on him, a required element of the self defence provision of section   34(1)  of the Criminal Code  - Whether the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal was in error when it equated the trial judge’s finding that when the Applicant delivered his blows he intended to cause serious bodily harm of more than a transient or trifling nature to an intention to cause grievous bodily harm, contrary to the express finding of the trial judge, such as to negate the self defence provision found in section   34(1)  of the Criminal Code .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Cecil Decorte

v. (30081)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

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

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Hardeep Singh Bajwa

v. (30055)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Unemployment insurance - Disqualification from receiving Employment Insurance benefits - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining the Applicant left his employment without just cause pursuant to ss. 29  and 30  of the Employment Insurance Act , S.C. 1996, c. 23  (the “Act ”)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Barbara Haight‑Smith

v. (30112)

Attorney General of Canada (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Administrative Law - Assessment - Appeal - Judicial review - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in dismissing application for an extension of time to commence an application for judicial review - Whether the Tax Court of Canada erred in not addressing the 1999 taxation year in the appeal - Whether the Tax Court of Canada erred in the assessment of total expenses to be allowed pursuant to ss. 18(12) of the Income Tax Act.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                  CORAM:  Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

                                                                       Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et Arbour

Richard Condo

v. (30042)

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

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

Kwok Yung Chan

v. (30007)

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

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

Lily Elaine Burnett

v. (29987)

Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.)

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

CORAM:  Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

                                                                  Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

Pierre‑Yves Deragon

v. (29972)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.) (Qc)

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

Christopher Carter et Gilles Dextradeur

c. (30060)

Louise Glegg

- et entre -

Smith & Nephew inc.

c. (30060)

Louise Glegg (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Libertés publiques - Responsabilité civile - Secret professionnel - Droit au respect de la vie privée - Accès au dossier psychiatrique dans le cadre d’une poursuite en responsabilité civile alors que des dommages au titre d’un préjudice psychologique sont réclamés - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en ordonnant au juge de première instance de déterminer quelles parties du dossier psychiatrique de l’intimée devaient être communiquées aux demandeurs?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Joanne Leonelli‑Contino

v. (30100)

Joseph Contino (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family law - Maintenance - Child Support Guidelines - Shared custody - Support payor paying Table amount for support of one child - Support payor increasing to 50 per cent his time with child - Impact on child support payments - Whether there is a presumption in favour of a child’s entitlement to support in accordance with the Guidelines or the parent’s entitlement to a reduction - Whether onus is on payor seeking deviation or on recipient - Whether all s. 9 factors are to be considered and given equal weight - Whether deviation from Guideline amount is discretionary if parental time exceeds 40 per cent - Whether evidence of child’s actual needs, conditions and means required before deviation will be granted, or is a formula to be applied in the absence of evidence - Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175, s. 9

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

FEBRUARY 5, 2004 / LE 5 FÉVRIER 2004

29739                    Communauté urbaine de Montréal et Raoul Lacombe c. Alain André et Lorraine Drouin (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Bastarache et Deschamps

 La requête pour ajouter des affidavits additionnels est accordée et la requête en réexamen de la demande d'autorisation d'appel rejetée le 10 juillet 2003, est rejetée.

 The motion to file supplementary affidavits is granted and the motion for reconsideration of the application for leave to appeal dismissed on July 10, 2003, is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Responsabilité civile - Dommages-intérêts - Responsabilité du Procureur général - Responsabilité des policiers - Poursuite abusive - Immunité - Quel est le critère de la responsabilité applicable partout au Canada à l’égard de la mise en œuvre par la police du processus criminel ? -  Interprétation de Nelles c. Ontario, [1989] 2 R.C.S. 170 et Proulx c. Québec (Procureur général), [2001] 3 R.C.S. 9.  

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29693                    Her Majesty the Queen v. T.S.C. (Ont.) (Criminal) (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 C36581, dated February 7, 2003, is dismissed.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C36581, daté du 7 février 2003, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law - Legislation - Interpretation - Sentencing - Sentence merger -  Requirement to provide samples of bodily samples for forensic DNA analysis - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in holding that the Respondent’s sentences did not merge pursuant to s. 139 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act thus rendering him ineligible for the data bank pursuant to s. 487.055  of the Criminal Code .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29836                    Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 38 v. Enmax Corporation, The Corporation of the City of Calgary and Alberta Labour Relations Board (Alta.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Numbers 0301‑0021AC and 0301‑0026AC, dated April 22, 2003, is dismissed with costs to the Respondents, Enmax Corporation and The Corporation of the City of Calgary.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Alberta (Calgary), numéros 0301‑0021AC et 0301‑0026AC, daté du 22 avril 2003, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimées, Enmax Corporation et The Corporation of the City of Calgary.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law  -  Labour and employment -  Bargaining rights -  Successorship - Successor employer - Common law rights of employees - Transfer of employees without consent - Labour relations - Labour Relations Code, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-1 - Statutory interpretation - Whether the successorship provisions in the labour relations statutes have the effect of eliminating the fundamental common law right of unionized workers to choose their employer - Whether the common law has been usurped in a labour law context - Whether a power to  transfer employees without their consent can be read into the successorship provisions of the labour relations statutes.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29849                    Cabot Insurance Company Limited and Rex Gilbert Moore, deceased by his administratrix, Muriel Smith v. Peter Ryan (N.L.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador, Number 01/118, dated April 30, 2003, is granted with costs to the applicants in any event of the cause.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de Terre‑Neuve et Labrador, numéro 01/118, daté du 30 avril 2003, est accordée avec dépens en faveur des demandeurs quelle que soit l'issue de l'appel.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Limitations of actions - Estoppel by convention - Settlement discussions - Whether estoppel in general, and estoppel by convention in particular, requires reliance by the party asserting the estoppel, and unconscionability on the part of the party sought to be estopped - Whether, if the Court of Appeal decision is allowed to stand, settlement claims prior to litigation would be discouraged, since they have at their basis the assumed truth of certain facts

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30024                    Michael Barton Fargey v. Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps 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 0303‑0161‑A, dated July 15, 2003, is dismissed.

 La demande de prorogation du délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Alberta (Edmonton), numéro 0303‑0161‑A, daté du 15 juillet 2003, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non-Charter) - Offences - Care and control of a motor vehicle - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the application for leave to appeal from the decision of the Summary Conviction Appeal Justice did not involve a question of law - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that if it did involve a question of law, it was not an issue of such importance as to warrant granting leave to appeal - Where it is established that the accused did not have the intention to drive, whether the potential that the accused might change his or her mind, can constitute the risk of danger that the vehicle will be put in motion and therefore establish care and control - Whether the offence of care and control can be proven by evidence of previous driving

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30027                    Marcel Gauthier c. Donald Caron, Sa Majesté du Chef du Québec et Carole Joly (Qc) (Civile) (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 500‑09‑013538‑038, daté du 8 septembre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de l'intimée, Sa Majesté du Chef du Québec.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‑09‑013538‑038, dated September 8, 2003, is dismissed with costs to the Respondent, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Quebec.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure – Procédure civile – Chose jugée – Intérêt juridique – Requête en autorisation d’appel – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erronément refusé la permission d’appel? – Les instances inférieures étaient-elles justifiées de conclure à l’existence de la chose jugée et à l’absence d’intérêt du demandeur?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

30033                    Rocky Blaine Bohnet v. Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

 The application for an extension of time is granted, the application to file an amended memorandum of argument and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Number 0201‑0137‑A, dated June 25, 2003, are dismissed without costs.

 La demande de prorogation du délai est accordée, la demande pour produire un mémoire amendé et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Alberta (Calgary), numéro 0201‑0137‑A, daté du 25 juin 2003,  sont rejetées sans dépens

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal Law - Right to Silence - Right to Counsel - What is the extent of disclosure that the state must provide a detained suspect in order for the suspect to exercise the right to counsel in a meaningful way - Is the obligation of disclosure that the state must provide a suspect in order for the suspect to exercise the right to counsel in a meaningful way different under ss. 10(a)  and 10(b)  of the Charter  - Should the right to counsel be restated or another opportunity to contact counsel be allowed, when a detained suspect admits to committing offences beyond what he was arrested for or what the police were originally questioning him about

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30037                    Carl Roy 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 (Québec), numéro 200‑10‑001260‑012, daté du 11 septembre 2003, est rejetée.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Quebec), Number 200‑10‑001260‑012, dated September 11, 2003, is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Charte canadienne  - Droit criminel - Preuve - Stupéfiants - Autorisation d’écoute électronique - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en maintenant la déclaration de culpabilité prononcée contre le demandeur malgré l’absence totale de motifs au soutien des demandes d’autorisation d’écoute électronique qui ont constitué la totalité de la preuve invoquée contre le demandeur? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en droit en ne rejetant pas la preuve ainsi constituée en vertu de l’article 24(2)  de la Charte , puisque toute la preuve recueillie l’a été en contravention de l’article 8  de la Charte ?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30053                    Michel Drapeau c. François Girard, Gaétan Gravel, Niv Fichman, Rhombus Média Inc., Carbone 14, Gilles Maheu et Danièle de Fontenay (Qc) (Civile) (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 500‑09‑009594‑003, daté du 19 septembre 2003, est rejetée avec dépens.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‑09‑009594‑003, dated September 19, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit des biens - Droit d’auteur - Législation - Interprétation - “Oeuvre créée en collaboration” au sens de l’art. 2  de la Loi sur le droit d’auteur , L.R.C. 1985, ch. C-42  - Quelle est la nature de la contribution du demandeur à l’oeuvre “Le Dortoir”? - La contribution fournie par le demandeur est-elle, en soi, suffisante pour lui conférer le statut de coauteur de l’oeuvre considérée dans son ensemble, à la lumière des dispositions législatives applicables et de leur interprétation par les tribunaux? - Dans l’affirmative, quelle est la nature du préjudice subi par le demandeur en raison de la mutilation, l’adaptation, la diffusion, la reproduction et la représentation en public non autorisée de son oeuvre, et quelle serait la réparation monétaire appropriée que le tribunal devrait accorder le cas échéant?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

29996                    Mike Barker, carrying on business as Mike Barker Auto Sales v. Zurich Insurance Company (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:    Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C30786, dated February 7, 2001, is dismissed with costs.  In any event, had such application been granted, the application for leave to appeal from the said judgment would have been dismissed.

La demande de prorogation du délai pour le dépôt d’une demande d’autorisation d’appel contre l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C30786, daté du 7 février 2001, est rejetée avec dépens.  Quoiqu’il en soit, même si la demande de prorogation avait été accueillie, la demande d’autorisation d’appel aurait été rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Damages - Evidence - Insurance - Claim refused - Verdict by jury - Insurer found liable - Punitive damages awarded - Court of Appeal finds jury’s award of punitive damages unfounded - Punitive damages set aside  - Does a Court of Appeal have power to set aside a verdict of a jury when the verdict found is undeniably founded and could not be founded otherwise than solely by reason that the jury refused to accord any credibility whatsoever to the witnesses for the defendant?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29957                    Sean Miguel Currie v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Crim.) (By Leave)

Coram:    Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C32981, dated June 5, 2002, is dismissed.  In any event, had such application been granted, the application for leave to appeal from the said judgment would have been dismissed.

La demande de prorogation du délai pour le dépôt d’une demande d’autorisation d’appel contre l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C32981, daté du 5 juin 2002, est rejetée.  Quoiqu’il en soit, même si la demande de prorogation avait été accueillie, la demande d’autorisation d’appel aurait été rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law ‑ Defences - Trial - Bias - Whether trial judge erred in refusing to charge the jury on the defence of self‑defence - Whether the trial judge’s actions in the case at bar give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26.1.2004

Before / Devant : MAJOR J.

UPON APPLICATION by the Canadian Aids Society for leave to intervene in the above appeal and pursuant to the order of November 13, 2003;

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said intervener shall not be entitled to oral representation at the hearing of the appeal.

26.1.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to January 5, 2004.

26.1.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to January 20, 2004.

27.1.2004

Before / Devant : IACOBUCCI J.

UPON APPLICATIONS by the Attorney General of Canada, the National Trust Company, Nicole Lacroix , R.M. Smallhorn, D.G. Halsall, S.J. Galbraith and S.W. (Bud) Wesley and Canadian Labour Congress and the Ontario Federation of Labour for leave to intervene in the above appeal and pursuant to the orders of January 5 and 19, 2004;

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said interveners are each granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding ten (10) minutes at the hearing of the appeal.

27.1.2004

Before / Devant : MAJOR J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the applicant for an order extending the time to serve  an application for leave to appeal to December 30, 2003;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The application for an order extending the time to serve an application for leave to appeal to December 30, 2003, is granted.

28.1.2004

Before / Devant : MAJOR J.

REFERRED / RÉFÉRÉES

UPON APPLICATIONS by the appellants, Edwidge Casimir and Roger Gosselin, et al. and the respondents, the Attorney General of Quebec and the Minister of Education for an order permitting the filing of additional evidence;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1) The applications permitting the filing of additional evidence be deferred to the hearing of the appeal.

2) It is further ordered that should the appellants and respondents proceed with the applications, the time used in so doing will be considered as part of the time allocated to counsel for the appellants and respondents at the hearing of the appeal.

À LA SUITE DES DEMANDES des appelants  Edwidge Casimir et Roger Gosselin, et al. et des intimés le procureur général du Québec et le ministre de l’éducation visant à obtenir une ordonnance pour la production d’éléments de preuve supplémentaires;

APRÈS AVOIR PRIS CONNAISANCE de la documentation déposée;

IL EST PAR LA PRÉSENTE ORDONNÉ CE QUI SUIT:

1) Les demandes relatives à la production d’éléments de preuve supplémentaires seront entendues lors de l'audition de l’appel.

2) Il est ordonné que le temps consacré par les appelants et les intimés à la présentation des demandes, s'ils y donnaient suite, soit retranché au temps qui leur a été attribué pour la présentation de leurs arguments lors de l'audition de l’appel.

27.1.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉES

UPON APPLICATIONS by the applicants for an order permitting the filing of a lengthy memorandum of argument and for an order waiving the filing fees;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motions are granted.

30.1.2004

Before / Devant : MAJOR J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to April 8, 2004.

8.1.2004

Glen Thomas Saunders

v. (30128)

Her Majesty the Queen (N.L.)

(As of Right)

23.1.2004

Daryl Milland Clark

v. (29976)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

2.2.2004

BY / PAR :             Attorney General of Prince Edward Island

IN/DANS:              The Attorney General of British Columbia, et al.

  v. (29508)

Connor Auton, an Infant, by his Guardian Ad Litem, Michelle Auton, et al. (B.C.)

                                                         SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

                                                             CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME

                                                                                                          - 2003 -

        04-07-2002

                                                                                                          - 2004 -