Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

January 16, 2004  44 - 72                                                                  Le 16 janvier 2004

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Richard L. Corriveau

William Noonan

Hickson, Noonan

c. (29817)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qc)

Paul Roy

P.G. du Québec

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 12.12.2003

Jonathan Ching Chang

Paul L. Moreau

Paul L. Moreau Professional Corp.

v. (30097)

Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

Donna R. Valgardson

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE: 19.12.2003

Darlene Cottrelle, et al.

Paul J. Bates

Cassels, Brock & Blackwell

v. (30109)

Alexander B. Gerrard (Ont.)

David I. Hamer

McCarthy, Tétrault

FILING DATE: 23.12.2003

Régent Lessard

Jean Carol Boucher

Boucher & Associés

c. (30115)

Ville La Prairie, et autres (Qc)

Richard Coutu

Dunton, Rainville

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 23.12.2003

Rofia Aghabeigi

J.M. Peter Firestone

Firestone & Tyhurst

v. (30016)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Kenneth J. Yule, Q.C.

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE: 23.12.2003

Joseph Marino, et al.

Calin Lawrynowicz

Lawrynowicz & Associates

v. (30107)

DBM Capital Corp. (Ont.)

Michael J. Valente

Scarfone Hawkins

FILING DATE: 23.12.2003

Hermil Lebel

Serge Morin

Boulianne, Morin

c. (30102)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qc)

Dominique Benoit

Bernard, Roy & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 23.12.2003

Robert Armstrong

Clayton C. Ruby

Ruby & Edwardh

v. (30105)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

David M. Lepofsky

A.G. of Ontario

FILING DATE: 23.12.2003

Lafferty, Harwood & Partners Ltd., et al. (Qc)

Mark Bantey

Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson

v. (30103)

Jacques Parizeau, et al. (Que.)

Yvan Bolduc

Heenan, Blaikie

FILING DATE: 23.12.2003

Adil Charkaoui

Johanne Doyon

Doyon, Morin

c. (30104)

Le Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’immigration, et autre (C.F.)

Daniel Latulippe

P.G. du Canada

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 24.12.2003

Joanne Leonelli - Contino

D. Smith

MacDonald & Partners

v. (30100)

Joseph Contino (Ont.)

Joseph Contino

FILING DATE: 24.12.2003

Tracey Ferguson

Kirk H. Wirsig

Hanson, Wirsig, Matheos

v. (30111)

John Lush (B.C.)

Deborah Taylor

Lindsay, Kenney

FILING DATE: 29.12.2003

Constantin Panousis

Marvin R. Bloos

Beresh, Depoe, Cunningham

v. (30073)

Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

Erika Bottcher

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE: 29.12.2003

Club Juridique

Club Juridique

c. (30110)

Procureur général du Canada (C.F.)

Bruno Levasseur

P.G. du Canada

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 29.12.2003

Stewart Roy Smith

Brian E. Devlin, Q.C.

O’Brien, Devlin, Markey, Macleod

v. (30049)

Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

David Marriot

A.G. of Alberta

FILING DATE: 29.12.2003

Barbara Haight-Smith

Barbara Haight-Smith

v. (30112)

Attorney General of Canada (F.C.)

Carl C. Januszczak

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE: 29.12.2003

Ferme Geléry Inc.

Johanne Brodeur

Brodeur, Lord, Hotte

c. (30116)

La Municipalité de Laverlochère, et autre (Qc)

Denise Descôteaux

Fontaine, Descôteaux, Beaudet

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 30.12.2003

Abattoir A. Trahan Transformation Inc., et autre

Marc Simard

Bélanger, Sauvé

c. (30114)

Fédération des producteurs de porcs du Québec (Qc)

Claude Savoie

Tremblay, Brosseau, Fleury, Savoie

DATE DE PRODUCTION : 31.12.2003

Lafontaine-Rish Medical Group Ltd., et al.

David B. Cousins

v. (30119)

Marta Erdelyi (Ont.)

Sylvia L. Tint

Wilson, Lewis

FILING DATE: 7.1.2004

Caroline Martin

Caroline Martin

v. (29917)

Alberta Mental Health Board (Alta.)

Craig Neuman

Neuman, Thompson

FILING DATE: 8.1.2004

Steven John Schneeberger

Christopher Elgin

Elgin, Cannon & Associates

v. (30124)

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

William B. Hardstaff

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE: 9.1.2004

JANUARY 12, 2004 / LE 12 JANVIER 2004

                                                    CORAM:  Chief Justice McLachlin and Major and Fish JJ.

                                                          La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Major et Fish

E.B.

v. (29890)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Vicarious liability - Residential school - Employee of religious community sexually assaulting minor on a regular and frequent basis over a period of four to five years -  Whether the Court of Appeal erred by overlooking and contradicting the trial judge’s factual findings - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by disregarding the operational characteristics of the Indian Residential School as a factor relevant to determining vicarious liability - Whether the Court of Appeal’s errors will prejudice pending claims of vicarious liability for sexual assault in the Indian Residential School context.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Dynamex Canada Inc.

v. (29932)

Adele Victoria Mamona and Randolph William Hepner and Robert Philip Cyr and the Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.)

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

Vasile (Willy) Dorus and Vianney Maria Dorus

v. (29784)

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.)

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

                                                                  CORAM:  Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

                                                                       Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et Arbour

Robert Lavigne

v. (30035)

Canada Post Corporation (F.C.)

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

The Great American Insurance Company and The Chateau Insurance Company

v. (29874)

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

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

Société en commandite Sainte‐Hélène

c. (30051)

G.M. Développement Inc. (Qc)

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

CORAM:  Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

                                                                  Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

Pierre Rémillard

c. (29833)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.) (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Preuve Agressions sexuelles d'une fillette de quatre ans - Confession - Admissibilité - Exclusion de la preuve - Le juge de procès doit-il exclure la confession jugée non libre et volontaire selon la procédure de l’article 24(2)  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  si, dans son analyse d’admissibilité des déclarations de l’accusé, il a déterminé que, parmi les critères et facteurs à prendre en considération, il y avait eu violation d’un droit garanti par la Charte , sans que cette violation ne soit formellement invoquée par l’accusé ?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

Dominic Gismondi

v. (29857)

The Corporation of the City of Toronto (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour Law - Employment Law - Municipal Law - Master and Servant - Termination of Employment - Notice Period - Reinstatement of Employment - Municipal manager of a former municipality unsuccessful in competitions for new management positions in a new city formed in part from the former municipality - Manager’s employment terminated - Manager given a termination package in accordance with a resolution of the new City Council adopted in advance of the job competitions - Whether a duty of fairness or doctrine of reasonable expectations applied to the competitions and hiring process  - Whether principles set out in Knight v. Indian Head School Division No. 19 (1990), 69 D.L.R. (4^th) 489 ought to have been applied or were misapplied - Whether statutory protections were breached - Whether failure by the respondent to follow its own rules and guidelines resulted in the applicant’s termination - Whether the respondent’s failure to accurately disclose the outcome of its own review supported additional damages - Whether applicant must show termination package was unreasonable.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Morris Feduk

v. (29903)

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool (Sask.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Contracts - Equitable set-off - Clean hands doctrine - Wheat Pool suing farmer for breach of two canola contracts - Farmer counterclaiming to recover amount withheld under barley and deferred delivery contracts - Trial judge finding that Wheat Pool not entitled to equitable set-off as it did not come to court with clean hands - Court of Appeal allowing claim for equitable set-off - Whether Court of Appeal applied test for clean hands doctrine that is not consistent with application of this equitable principle found in other provinces and in England.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Le ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration

c. (30025)

Léon Mugesera, Gemma Uwamariya, Irenée Rutema, Yves Rusi,

Carmen Nono, Mireille Urumuri et Marie-Grâce Hoho (C.F.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Droit de l’immigration - Droit criminel - Crimes contre l’humanité - Incitation à la haine, au meurtre ou au génocide - Quels sont les éléments essentiels qui doivent être établis pour qu’un acte d’incitation à la haine, au meurtre ou au génocide soit considéré comme un crime contre l’humanité aux fins de l’application de l’al. 19(1)j) de la Loi sur l’immigration? - Quelle approche un tribunal doit-il adopter pour décider si des paroles, prononcées dans un autre pays, constitueraient une infraction au Canada aux termes des sous-al. 27(1)a.1)(ii) ou 27(1)a.3)(ii) de la Loi sur l’immigration? - Aux termes de l’al. 52b)(i) de la Loi sur la Cour fédérale, quelle est l’étendue du pouvoir de la Cour d’appel fédérale lorsqu’elle siège en appel d’une décision de la Section de première instance relativement à une demande de révision judiciaire?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

JANUARY 12, 2004 / LE 12 JANVIER 2004

CORAM:               Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

Jacques Leduc

v. (29958)

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

Philip Campbell, Marlys A. Edwardh and Steven Skurka for the applicant.

J. John C. Pearson for the respondent.

DISMISSED / REJETÉE  

5.1.2004

Before / Devant : MAJOR J.

UPON APPLICATIONS by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Attorney General of Canada, for leave to intervene in the above appeal and cross-appeal and pursuant to the order of November 13, 2003;

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.

5.1.2004

Before / Devant : MAJOR J.

À LA SUITE DES DEMANDES de la Fédération des ordres professionnels de juristes du Canada et du Procureur général du Canada visant à obtenir l’autorisation d’intervenir dans l’appel susmentionné et suite à l’ordonnance du 4 novembre 2003;

IL EST EN OUTRE ORDONNÉ que la plaidoirie des intervenants soit ainsi limitée à quinze (15) minutes chacun.

5.1.2004

Before / Devant : IACOBUCCI 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 December 23, 2003;

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 is granted to December 23, 2003.

5.1.2004

Before / Devant : IACOBUCCI J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉES

UPON APPLICATION by the applicant for an order extending the time to serve an application for leave to appeal to November 24, 2003 and for an order accepting the application for leave to appeal as filed;

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 November 24, 2003 and accepting the application for leave to appeal as filed is granted.

5.1.2004

Before / Devant : IACOBUCCI J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

À LA SUITE D’UNE DEMANDE du demandeur visant à obtenir une prorogation de délai pour signifier et déposer une demande d’autorisation d’appel au 28 novembre 2003;

ET APRÈS AVOIR PRIS CONNAISSANCE de la documentation déposée;

IL EST PAR LA PRÉSENTE ORDONNÉ CE QUI SUIT:

La demande de prorogation de délai pour signifier et déposer une demande d’autorisation d’appel au 28 novembre 2003 est accordée.

5.1.2004   (Revised 9/1/2004)

Before / Devant : ARBOUR J.

UPON APPLICATIONS by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Canada, for leave to intervene in the above three appeals number 29252, 29253 and 29507 and pursuant to the order of September 22, 2003, revised on October 6, 2003;

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said interveners are granted permission to present a shared oral argument not exceeding fifteen (15) minutes on the day of the hearing in the appeals 29252 and 29253 and the said interveners are granted permission to present an oral argument not exceeding fifteen (15) minutes on the day of the hearing in the appeal 29507.

UPON APPLICATIONS by the World Sikh Organization of Canada and the Ontario Human Rights Commission, for leave to intervene in the above two appeals number 29252 and 29253 and pursuant to the order of September 22, 2003, revised on October 6, 2003;

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said interveners are each granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding fifteen (15) minutes on the day of the hearing of these appeals.

UPON APPLICATION by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association leave to intervene in the above  appeal number 29507 and pursuant to the order of November 6, 2003;

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said intervener is granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding fifteen (15) minutes on the day of the hearing of the appeal.

5.1.2004

Before / Devant : IACOBUCCI

GRANTED / ACCORDÉES

UPON APPLICATIONS by the Environment Voters, a Division of Animal Alliance of Canada, John Herbert Bryden, Member of Parliament and the Democracy Watch and the National Anti-Poverty Organization for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Environment Voters, a Division of Animal Alliance of Canada, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before January 20, 2004, and that the affidavit of Stephen Douglas Best be part the record of the intervener.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, John Herbert Bryden, Member of Parliament, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before January 20, 2004.

The motion to extend the time to apply for leave to intervene and for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Democracy Watch and the National Anti-Poverty Organization, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before January 20, 2004.

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

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

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

5.1.2004

Before / Devant : IACOBUCCI J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATIONS by the Attorney General of Canada, the National Trust Company, Nicole Lacroix and R.M. Smallhorn, D.G. Halsall, S.J. Galbraith and S.W. (Bud) Wesley for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Attorney General of Canada, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before January 26, 2004.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, National Trust Company, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before January 26, 2004.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, Nicole Lacroix, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before January 26, 2004.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicants, R.M. Smallhorn, D.G. Halsall, S.J. Galbraith and S.W. (Bud) Wesley, is granted and the applicants shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before January 26, 2004.

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

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

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

6.1.2004

Before / Devant : LEBEL J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

À LA SUITE D’UNE DEMANDE de l’intimée visant à obtenir le report de l’examen de la demande d’autorisation d’appel au 31 mars 2004;

ET APRÈS AVOIR PRIS CONNAISSANCE de la documentation déposée;

IL EST PAR LA PRÉSENTE ORDONNÉ CE QUI SUIT:

Vu les représentations faites par la Ville de Montréal, la demande d’autorisation d’appel ne sera pas soumise à une formation de cette Cour avant le 31 mars 2004.  D’ici cette date, la Ville de Montréal et toutes parties encore intéressées dans cette affaire devront indiquer la nature de leurs positions, quant à la demande d’autorisation d’appel, et présenter toutes représentations additionnelles qu’elles estimeront nécessaires à son sujet.  Le 31 mars 2004, la demande d’autorisation d’appel sera soumise par la registraire à une formation de la Cour.

6.1.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉES   Time extended to January 20, 2004.

6.1.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Délai prorogé au 20 janvier 2004.

7.01.2004

Before / Devant : IACOBUCCI J.

UPON APPLICATIONS by the Canadian Canola Growers Association, the Attorney General of Ontario, Ag-West Biotech Inc., the Council of Canadians, the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, the Sierra Club of Canada, the National Farmers Union, the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology and the International Center for Technology Assessment, the Canadian Seed Trade Association and BioteCanada for leave to intervene in the above appeal and pursuant to the order of October 23, 2003;

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said interveners, Canadian Canola Growers Association and the Attorney General of Ontario, 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, Ag-West Biotech Inc., is denied permission to present oral argument at the hearing of the appeal.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said interveners, Council of Canadians, the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, the Sierra Club of Canada, the National Farmers Union, the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology and the International Center for Technology Assessment, are 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, Canadian Seed Trade Association and  BioteCanada, are granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding fifteen (15) minutes to be divided by agreement between the parties or, failing agreement, to be divided equally, the submissions of Canadian Seed Trade Association to be limited to issue (3) of its factum.

7.1.2004

Before / Devant : IACOBUCCI 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 October 17, 2003;

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 is granted to October 17, 2003.

7.1.2004

Before / Devant : IACOBUCCI J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the appellant for an order extending the time to serve and file a notice of appeal as of right to December 22, 2003;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The application for an order extending the time to serve and file a notice of appeal as of right is granted to December 22, 2003.

8.1.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR 

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to December 22, 2003.

8.1.2004

Before / Devant : THE CHIEF JUSTICE

GRANTED IN PART / ACCORDÉES EN PARTIE

UPON APPLICATION by the appellant and the respondent for an order extending the time to serve and file the appellant’s factum to January 16, 2004; extending the time to serve and file the respondent’s factum to March 4, 2004; and alternatively for an order adjourning the hearing of the appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1) The appellant is granted an extension of time to serve and file its factum to January 16, 2004.

2) The respondent is granted an extension of time to serve and file its factum to February 27, 2004.

3) The motion to adjourn the appeal is dismissed.

8.1.2004

Before / Devant : IACOBUCCI J.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the applicant for and order expediting the determination of the application for leave to appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion to expedite the determination of the application for leave to appeal is granted.

9.1.2004

Before / Devant : THE REGISTRAR

GRANTED / ACCORDÉES   Time extended to January 7, 2004.

23.12.2003

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (30098)

Randolph Blake (Ont.)

(as of right)

14.1.2004

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

15.1.2004

DISMISSED WITH REASONS TO FOLLOW / REJETÉ AVEC MOTIFS À SUIVRE

JANUARY 12, 2004 / LE 12 JANVIER 2004

29292                    The Regional Manager of the Cariboo Forest Region, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia v. Roger William, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Xeni Gwet'in First Nations Government and on behalf of all other members of the Tsilhqot'in Nation,    Attorney General of Canada - and between - Attorney General of Canada and Roger William, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Xeni Gwet'in First Nations Government and on behalf of all other members of the Tsilhqot'in Nation,  The Regional Manager of the Cariboo Forest Region, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia and Attorney General of Ontario, Chief Dan Wilson, in his personal capacity and as representative of the Okanagan Indian Band, and all other persons engaged in the cutting, damaging or destroying of Crown timber at Timber Sale Licence A57614, Chief Ronnie Jules, in his personal capacity and as representative of the Adams Lake Band, Chief Stuart Lee, in his personal capacity and as representative of the Spallumcheen Indian Band, Chief Arthur Manuel, in his personal capacity and as representative of the Neskonlith Indian Band, David Anthony Nordquist, in his personal capacity and as representative of the Adams Lake Indian Band, the Spallumcheen Indian Band and the Neskonlith Indian Band, and all other persons engaged in the cutting, damaging or destroying of Crown Timber at Timber Sale Licence A38029, Block 2 (B.C.)

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

This appeal is remanded to the British Columbia Supreme Court to be dealt with in accordance with the reasons of this Court in British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band, 2003 SCC 71.

L’affaire est renvoyée à la Cour suprême de la Colombie-Britannique pour qu’elle soit tranchée conformément à l’arrêt de notre Cour Colombie-Britannique (Ministre des Forêts) c. Bande indienne Okanagan, 2003 CSC 71.

                                                         SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

                                                             CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME

                                                                                                          - 2003 -

        04-07-2002

                                                                                                          - 2004 -