Bulletins

      OF CANADA                                             DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

March 24, 2005 432 - 460                                                                                                                        Le 24 mars 2005

CONTENTS                                                     TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Canada Post Corporation

Richard G. Dearden

Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson

v. (30797)

Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada (F.C.)

Marie Crowley

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE:   21.01.2005

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care of Ontario

Leslie McIntosh

A.G. of Ontario

v. (30802)

Tom Mitchinson, Assistant Commissioner, Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario, et al.  (Ont.)

William S. Challis

Information and Privacy Commissioner / Ontario          

FILING DATE:   26.01.2005

Adam Ezer

Adam J. Ezer

v. (30724)

Yorkton Securities Inc., et al.  (B.C.)

H. Roderick Anderson

Anderson & Galati

FILING DATE:   08.03.2005

Patricia Aboud

Henri Simon

Simon & Associés

c. (30804)

Eplus Technology Inc.  (Qc)

François D. Gagnon

Kaufman, Laramée

DATE DE PRODUCTION:   08.03.2005

Her Majesty the Queen

Alain Préfontaine

A.G. of Canada

v. (30805)

Public Service Alliance of Canada (F.C.)

David Yazbeck

Raven, Allen, Cameron & Ballantyne

FILING DATE:   08.03.2005

Richard Elliott Seymour

Jim O’Neil

O’Neil Law Offices

v. (30806)

Her Majesty the Queen (N.S.)

Kenneth W.F. Fisk, Q.C.

A.G. of Nova Scotia

FILING DATE:   08.03.2005

D.B.S.

D. Smith

MacDonald & Partners

v. (30808)

S.R.G.  (Alta.)

Gordon H. Andreiuk

Laurier Law Office

FILING DATE:   08.03.2005

T.A.R.

D. Smith

MacDonald & Partners

v. (30809)

L.J.W.  (Alta.)

Gordon H. Andreiuk

Laurier Law Office

FILING DATE:   08.03.2005

Her Majesty the Queen

Jamie C. Klukach

A.G. of Ontario

v. (30812)

Douglas Randolph Crosby (P.E.I.)

Joel E. Pink, Q.C.

Joel E. Pink, Q.C. & Associates

FILING DATE:   10.03.2005

Barry Thomas Niedermier

Simon R. Buck

Wilson, Buck, Butcher and Sears

v. (30813)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

John M. Gordon

A.G. of British Columbia

FILING DATE:   10.03.2005

Pierre-Gilles Tremblay

Pierre-Gilles Tremblay

c. (30123)

Feu André Charest (Qc)

Éric Hardy

Ogilvy, Renault

DATE DE PRODUCTION:   10.03.2005

Monique Gadoury

Gilbert Nadon

Ouellet, Nadon & Associés

c. (30815)

Le procureur général du Canada (C.F.)

Pauline Leroux

P.G. du Canada

DATE DE PRODUCTION:   11.03.2005

John Major

Fergus J. O’Connor

v. (30817)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Suzanne Boucher

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE:   11.03.2005

Jack Chamberlain

Jack Chamberlain

v. (30819)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Ian McTavish

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE:   11.03.2005

Karl E. Weselan

Catherine M. Patterson

McCarthy, Tétrault

v. (30816)

Totten Sims Hubicki Associates (1997) Limited (Ont.)

John W. Montgomery

Johnston, Montgomery

FILING DATE:   14.03.2005

Ministry of Correctional Services

Sara Blake

A.G. of Ontario

v. (30820)

David Goodis, Senior Adjudicator, et al.  (Ont.)

William S. Challis

Information and Privacy Commissioner / Ontario

FILING DATE:   14.03.2005

Paul Houweling

Paul Houweling

v. (30832)

Houweling Nurseries Ltd., et al.  (B.C.)

Bruce M. Gordon

Norton, Stewart

FILING DATE:   14.03.2005

Navigation Madeleine Inc.

Francis Gervais

Deveau, Lavoie, Bourgeois, Lalande & Associés

c. (30821)

Administration de pilotage des Laurentides, et autre  (C.F.)

Guy P. Major

Saint-Pierre & Major

DATE DE PRODUCTION:   15.03.2005

Emilia M. Collins

Emilia M. Collins

                v. (30822)

Director of Asessment, et al (N.S.)

Randall R. Duplak, Q.C.

A.G. of Nova Scotia

FILING DATE:   15.03.2005

Restaurant Buonanotte Inc., et autres.

Jean Groleau

Fraser, Milner, Casgrain

c. (30824)

L’Honorable juge Guy Lecompte, J.C.Q., et autres (Qc)

L’Honorable juge Guy Lecompte, J.C.Q.

DATE DE PRODUCTION:   15.03.2005

9047-2713 Québec Inc., et autres.

Jean Groleau

Fraser, Milner, Casgrain

c. (30825)

L’Honorable juge Guy Lecompte, J.C.Q. et autres (Qc)

L’Honorable juge Guy Lecompte, J.C.Q.

DATE DE PRODUCTION:   15.03.2005

Antony Tsai

Antony Tsai

v. (30834)

Julian Fantino, et al.  (Ont.)

Robert J. Baldwin

City of Toronto

FILING DATE:   15.03.2005

MARCH 21, 2005 / LE 21 MARS 2005

                                                CORAM:  Chief Justice McLachlin and Binnie and Charron JJ.

La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Binnie et Charron

Marc Racicot

c. (30787)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.) (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Preuve - Ouï-dire - Agression sexuelle - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré sur la question de l’identité? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en statuant que l’erreur du juge de 1^ère instance sur la crédibilité de l’appelant n’était pas dominante? - Le tribunal peut-il rejeter en bloc tous les témoignages de la défense alors que la preuve démontre qu’il n’a pas examiné certains témoignages?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

The Health Services and Support ‐ Facilities Subsector Bargaining Association, The Health Services and Support ‐ Community Subsector Bargaining Association, The Nurses’ Bargaining Association, The Hospital Employees’ Union, The B.C. Government and Service Employees’ Union, The British Columbia Nurses’ Union, Heather Caroline Birkett, Janine Brooker, Amaljeet Kaur Jhand, Leona Mary Fraser, Pamela Jean Sankey‐Kilduff, Sally Lorraine Stevenson, Sharleen G.V. Decillia and Harjeet Dhami

                                                                                                v. (30554)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Civil - Labour Law - Collective Agreement - Labour Relations - Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 2 - Whether legislation which voids essential terms of a concluded collective agreement during the life of that agreement, and which prohibits the renegotiation of such terms, violates s. 2(d)  of the Charter  - Whether certain aspects of collective bargaining are protected by s. 2(d)  of the Charter  - Whether legislation which targets the collective agreements of the most female dominated sector of the economy constitutes a violation of s. 15  of the Charter , when that legislation is aimed at depressing wages which have been subject to pay equity processes?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                   The Halifax Insurance Company of Canada

                                                                                                v. (30671)

Innopex Limited, Aaron Wexel and Joshua Frankel (Ont.)

Sealed by order of Bastarache J. on January 26, 2005.

Teck Corporation

v. (30659)

                                      Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Statutes - Assessment - Interpretation - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Legislature of British Columbia “cannot change the meaning” of the federal  Income Tax Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5 ^th  Supp .) in applying the provisions of the B.C. Act - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by holding that the legislative intent was not relevant since s. 8(1)  of the Income Tax Act , R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 19 was clear and unambiguous - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that business taxes computed by reference to income were non-deductible “income taxes” irrespective of the purpose, history or operation of those taxes.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM: Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

Les juges Major, Fish et Abella

Sang Que Luc

                                                                                                v. (30600)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms   - Criminal law - Evidence - Search - Whether Court of Appeal erred in law by taking into consideration evidence on the trial proper, evidence which was not before the trial judge on the voir dire and was not relied upon by the Crown in their submissions - Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in deciding that even though the Applicant’s rights under s.8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated the evidence so obtained was still admissible - Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in not finding that there was a breach of s.9  of the Charter .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Kenneth David MacKay

                                                                                                v. (30643)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non Charter) - First degree murder - Jury instructions - Whether the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal erred in ruling that the jury was properly and adequately instructed - Whether the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal erred in ruling that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to consider the charge of first degree murder.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Gary Garnet Graham and Linda Lucille Gordon

                                                                                                v. (30626)

Heather M. Bonnycastle and Lana G. Lien (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence - Property law - Wills - Testamentary capacity - Whether a solicitor owes a duty of care to a third party beneficiary who is within the solicitor’s reasonable contemplation as a party who will be adversely affected by the solicitor’s  negligence in the preparation of a will, particularly where the testator does not have testamentary capacity and/or is under undue influence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Louise Helen Hockey‐Sweeney, by her Litigation Guardian, the Public Guardian and Trustee

                                                                                                v. (30707)

Lawrence Percival Sweeney (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Civil procedure - Pre-trial procedure - Evidence - Disclosure - Production of documents - Unrepresented litigants - When is it appropriate for trial courts in Canada to proceed to trial where one side has not been able to obtain documents that are needed to prove elements of the case? - What recourse do the parties, and trial judges, have when a trial is imminent and document production is still inadequate? - To what extent should judges give legal advice, guidance or assistance to unrepresented litigants?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM: Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

Standard Life Assurance Company

                                                                                                c. (30773)

Famous Players Inc. (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Responsabilité civile - Obligation de bonne foi - Droit des biens - Hypothèques - Hypothèque immobilière - Cession de bail et de loyers - Transaction entre un débiteur hypothécaire et son locataire pour mettre fin au bail intervenue à l’insu du créancier hypothécaire - Quelles sont les conditions pour qu’un tiers, en l’occurrence le locataire, ayant connaissance d’un contrat entre deux parties, engage sa responsabilité à l’égard de l’une d’elles en cas de contravention? - Quelle est l’étendue du fardeau de la partie qui veut établir la responsabilité d’un tiers? - L’existence d’un contrat antérieur permet-il à un tiers d’échapper au principe établi par cette Cour dans Trudel c. Clairol Inc. of Canada, [1975] 2 R.C.S. 236?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

Peter Cross

                                                                                                v. (30699)

                                                                     Roger Madore, Lucie Morrissette (Que.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural Law - Municipal Law - Appeal - Evidence - Council members - Disqualifications or removal - Act respecting Elections and Referendums in Municipalities, L.R.Q. c. E-2.2 - Whether the Respondents committed an act of misconduct justifying a declaration of inability pursuant to s. 306 of the Act? - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and law in rejecting the Applicant’s appeal?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Michael Divito

c. (30679)

Le ministre de la Justice du Canada et Les États-Unis d’Amérique,  représentés par le

Procureur général du Canada

- et entre -

                                                                             Michael Divito et Pierino Divito

                                                                                                c. (30679)

                                           Procureur général du Canada, Le ministre de la Justice du Canada et

                        Les États-Unis d’Amérique,  représentés par le Procureur général du Canada (Crim.) (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Extradition - Détention - Demande de mise en liberté en attendant la décision de l’appel - Le juge en chef d’une province est-il compétent en vertu de l’art. 680  du Code criminel  pour ordonner la constitution d’un banc de trois juges afin de réviser une décision rendue en vertu de l’art. 679 du Code par un juge unique ? - La notion d’intérêt public à l’art. 679(3) du Code est-elle à ce point vague et imprécise qu’elle ne peut orienter un débat judiciaire ni servir de base pour détenir un individu ?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

The Jesuit Fathers of Upper Canada

                                                                                                v. (30709)

Guardian Insurance Company of Canada and ING Insurance Company of Canada (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Insurance - Duty to defend - Applicant seeking declaration that Respondent insurers are required to defend and indemnify it for certain claims arising out of operation of residential school - Whether courts should broadly interpret meaning of word ‘claim’ - Information and detail to be brought to insured’s attention in order to engage insurer’s duty to defend and indemnify - Whether names of alleged victims have to be identified to insured during policy period.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Huguette Cousineau

                                                                                                v. (30694)

Jean‐Charles Perrier, JC Perrier et Assoc. Inc., Jacques A. Côté and Paul F. Lalonde (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law ‐ Civil procedure ‐ Application of the res judicata doctrine ‐ Whether the Applicant was barred by the doctrine of res judicata from raising allegations of fraud in her statement of claim - Whether the judgments rendered in the Superior Court of Justice and in the Court of Appeal constitute a denial of natural justice and evidence a lack of impartiality unduly favouring the interests of a judge of the Superior Court - Whether the Court of Appeal was impartial or unbiased in this case when one of the Respondents is a judge of the Superior Court of Justice.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

MARCH 24, 2005 / LE 24 MARS 2005

30489                    Marilyn Ortega, Lynn Dianne Russell, Sean Telesford Greaves, Shirwyn Victor Greaves, Rhonda Greaves and Jillisa Ortega, by her Litigation Guardian, Marilyn Ortega, and Nathaniel Russell, by his Litigation Guardian, Marilyn Ortega v. 1005640 Ontario Inc. carrying on business under the name and style of Calypso Hut 3, 1230 Sheppard Centre Inc., John Doe (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C38092, dated June 11, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C38092, daté du 11 juin 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence - Occupiers’ liability - Duty of care - Negligence - Causation - Murder committed in a parking lot of a nightclub located in a strip mall - Action in tort by family members of deceased alleging a breach of the Occupier’s Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, s. 3(1) - The issue of the standard of care for the provision of security by occupiers and the relationship between deterrence and causation are issues of public importance and ought to be reviewed by this Court.

 PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30510                    Inter‐Church Uranium Committee Educational Co‐Operative, of the City of Saskatoon, in the Province of Saskatchewan v. Atomic Energy Control Board, Cogema Resources Inc. (FC) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Numbers A‐528‐02 and A‐549‐02, dated June 4, 2004, is dismissed with costs to the respondent Cogema Resources Inc.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale, numéros A‐528‐02 et A‐549‐02, daté du 4 juin 2004, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de l’intimée Cogema Resources Inc.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes - Interpretation - Environmental law - Did the Federal Court of Appeal err in its interpretation of section 74  of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act , S.C. 1992, c. 37  by ruling that its provisions excluded the McClean Lake Project facilities from a mandatory environmental assessment under the Act.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30550                    Rou Lan Xie v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (FC) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐422‐03, dated June 30, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale, numéro A‐422‐03, daté du 30 juin 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Immigration Law - Whether the Refugee Protection Division can deny a person who faces torture refugee protection on the basis that the person has committed an economic crime - Whether the existence of a warrant for arrest for embezzlement for a sum of money issued by a country with a poor human rights record plus the possession by a person of money of a comparable amount, without more, amount to a serious reason to believe that the person has committed the crime of embezzlement - Whether this application for leave involves questions that by reason of their public importance and by reason of the importance of issues of law and mixed law and fact involved, ought to be decided by this Court.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30567                    Donald Williams v. Debbie White, Lynne Kantautas and the Durham Region Police Services Board, The Children’s Aid Society of Durham Region and Maria D’Assisi, Irene Johnson (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C36974, dated August 23, 2004, is dismissed with costs to the respondents Debbie White, Lynn Kantautas, the Durham Regional Police Services Board, The Children’s Aid Society of Durham Region, Maria D’Assisi and Irene Johnson

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C36974, daté du 23 août 2004, est rejetée  avec dépens en faveur des intimés Debbie White, Lynne Kantautas, le Comité des services policiers de la région de Durham, La Société de l’aide à l’enfance de la région de Durham, Maria D’Assisi et Irene Johnson.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Trial - Appeal - Mistrial - Abuse of process - Whether, where a party to a civil action receives ineffective assistance from their trial counsel, a miscarriage of justice has occurred, necessitating the ordering of a new trial - In what circumstances should a mistrial can be declared based upon a breakdown in the relationship between counsel - Whether it is an abuse of the court’s process to permit a party to a civil appeal to argue ineffectiveness of trial counsel as a ground of appeal where that party has exercised a direct right of action against trial counsel for negligence and that action has been settled, but no determination on the merits of that case against counsel has been made.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30593                    Zbigniew Belz, Gazeta Inc., Gazeta Magazine, Alicja Gettlich v. Elizabeth Rogacki (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Fish and Charron JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C39359, dated September 1, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C39359, daté du 1 septembre 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Libel and slander - Whether an appellate court in a libel case used a strict literalist reinterpretation of the words to characterize them as facts, notwithstanding an unchallenged determination by the jury they are opinions, resulting in the comments not being viewed in context, and thereby causing a serious upset to the appropriate balance between free speech and reputation values - Whether there should be a special rule for the fair comment defence where there are allegations of corrupt or dishonourable conduct, or of criminal matters.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30616                    The Attorney General of Nova Scotia representing Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Nova Scotia v. Terrance L. Smith (N.S.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, Number CA 202492, 2004 NSCA 106, dated September 15, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Nouvelle‐Écosse, numéro CA 202492, 2004 NSCA 106, daté du 15 septembre 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Crown law - Injunction - Interlocutory injunction -  Statutes - Interpretation - Proceedings Against the Crown Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 360, s. 16 - Employment law - Availability of interlocutory injunction against Crown officer - Characterization of injunction as mandatory or prohibitory - Jurisdiction - In conducting the preliminary assessment of the merits of the case for an injunction to mandate that an agreement be adhered to, should a court apply the lower threshold of the merits of the case typically applied in non-mandatory injunction cases to those applications for interlocutory mandatory injunctions in which the higher onus would otherwise apply - Whether dispute should have been resolved pursuant to the dispute resolution provisions specified in memorandum of agreement - Whether the lower courts could rely upon the dispute resolution procedures specified in memorandum of agreement to establish an illegal act on the part of the employer - Whether the ‘irreparable harm’ threshold for an interlocutory injunction should include an examination of the economic impact the loss of employment or income or benefits will have on an individual and his family - Whether interlocutory injunctive relief is available against the Crown or an officer of the Crown - If so, under what circumstances - Whether interlocutory injunctive relief is available to restrain the commission or continuation of an illegal act committed or threatened to be committed by an officer of the Crown - If so, whether an alleged breach of contract is such an illegal act.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30617                    The Attorney General of Nova Scotia representing Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Nova Scotia v. Dennis Connolly (N.S.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, Number CA 208848, 2004 NSCA 107, dated September 15, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Nouvelle‐Écosse, numéro CA 208848, 2004 NSCA 107, daté du 15 septembre 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Crown law - Injunction - Interlocutory injunction -  Statutes - Interpretation - Proceedings Against the Crown Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 360, s. 16 - Employment law - Availability of interlocutory injunction against Crown officer - Characterization of injunction as mandatory or prohibitory - Jurisdiction - In conducting the preliminary assessment of the merits of the case for an injunction to mandate that an agreement be adhered to, should a court apply the lower threshold of the merits of the case typically applied in non-mandatory injunction cases to those applications for interlocutory mandatory injunctions in which the higher onus would otherwise apply - Whether dispute should have been resolved pursuant to the dispute resolution provisions specified in memorandum of agreement - Whether the lower courts could rely upon the dispute resolution procedures specified in memorandum of agreement to establish an illegal act on the part of the employer - Whether the ‘irreparable harm’ threshold for an interlocutory injunction should include an examination of the economic impact the loss of employment or income or benefits will have on an individual and his family - Whether interlocutory injunctive relief is available against the Crown or an officer of the Crown - If so, under what circumstances - Whether interlocutory injunctive relief is available to restrain the commission or continuation of an illegal act committed or threatened to be committed by an officer of the Crown - If so, whether an alleged breach of contract is such an illegal act.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29776                    Frederick McLaughlin v. Air Canada (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

 The motion to quash the application for leave to appeal and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C37835, dated March 5, 2003, are dismissed without costs.

 La demande en annulation de la demande d’autorisation d’appel et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C37835, daté du 5 mars 2003, sont rejetées sans dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Pensions - Arrears - Interest - Applicant’s action for interest on disability pay retroactive to date of entitlement dismissed - Court of Appeal affirming decision - Whether Court of Appeal erred in law when it failed to find that the Respondent owed a fiduciary duty to the Applicant insofar as the Respondent was in possession of the Applicant’s property - Whether Court of Appeal erred in fact and law when it did not find that the Respondent’s pension plan created a trust relationship between the Respondent and the Applicant.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30578                    Jack Klundert v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Numbers C38037 and C38044, dated August 30, 2004, is dismissed without costs.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéros C38037 et C38044, daté du 30 août 2004, est rejetée sans dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Statutes - Assessment - Interpretation - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by removing the burden of proof of intent from the Crown in s. 239  of the Income Tax Act , R.S.C. 1985, c.1 (5th Supp .) - Whether the law on the level of mens rea in regard to section 239 under the Income Tax Act  is sufficiently settled since R. v. Paveley (1976), 30 C.C.C. (2d) 483 (Sask. CA.) - Whether an honest, but mistaken, belief about invalidity should have a different effect than a mistaken belief about applicability of the Income Tax Act  - Whether a belief of invalidity or applicability, if honestly held and proven so to the satisfaction of a jury, should have the same effect on state of mind no matter how arrived at - Whether the Court of Appeal confused reasonableness of the belief of the accused and availability of alternate legal remedies with the necessary intent, thereby setting-up a reasonableness test of a belief imposing a burden of proof upon the accused, which at criminal law can never be imposed in a complex statute like the Income Tax Act  where the issue is knowing by making a false statement.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30585                    Alexander Szabo c. Sa Majesté la Reine (Qc) (Criminelle) (Autorisation)

Coram:                    Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐10‐002382‐024, daté du 3 septembre 2004, est rejetée.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐10‐002382‐024, dated September 3, 2004, is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Preuve - Admissibilité - Exception au ouï-dire - Res gestae - Preuve d’identification - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en statuant que la fiabilité d’une preuve d’identification sous forme de ouï-dire n’est pas une condition de son admissibilité? - La déclaration proposée comme preuve d’identification et admissible en vertu de l’exception de res gestae à la règle interdisant l’admission de la preuve par ouï-dire est-elle assujettie à l’application de l’exigence de fiabilité de la méthode fondée sur des principes? -  Si oui, pour satisfaire l’exigence de fiabilité, la poursuite doit-elle établir par une preuve prépondérante que la déclaration ou les paroles proposées comme preuve d’identification ont une valeur probante minimale en tant que preuve d’identification?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30598                    Abattoir Saint‐Alexandre (1982) Inc. c. Travailleurs et travailleuses unis de l’alimentation et du commerce, section locale 503 (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 (Québec), numéro 200‐09‐004792‐047, daté du 29 octobre 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Quebec), Number 200‐09‐004792‐047, dated October 29, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail - Accréditation - Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Est-il manifestement déraisonnable pour un commissaire du travail du Québec de permettre une accréditation par quart de travail dans une entreprise? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que les décisions de la Commission des relations du travail sont suffisamment motivées et que l’équité procédurale est satisfaite?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30678                    Jean‐Pierre Jolicoeur c. Monique Dussault (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 500‐09‐013299‐037, daté du 22 octobre 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐013299‐037, dated October 22, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Code civil (Interprétation) - Enrichissement injustifié - Don par un conjoint de fait à l’autre conjoint durant l’union - Rupture subséquente de l’union de fait - Code civil du Québec, L.Q. 1991, ch.64, art. 1493 et ss; art. 1806 et ss - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en utilisant une approche restrictive des conditions d’application de l’enrichissement injustifié? - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle utilisé à tort une méthode de qualification du don qui en fait un acte juridique de donation, excluant ainsi tout recours pour enrichissement injustifié dans les cas de contributions en capital entre conjoints de fait?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

30684                    Paul Joseph Ricci v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C40752, dated October 14, 2004, is dismissed without costs.

 La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C40752, daté du 14 octobre 2004, est rejetée sans dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Statutes - Income tax - Assessment - Interpretation - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by removing the burden of proof of intent from the Crown in s. 239  of the Income Tax Act , R.S.C. 1985, c.1 (5th Supp .) - Whether the law is sufficiently settled on the level of mens rea in regard to s. 239 under the Income Tax Act  - Whether there is any logical reason why an honest, but mistaken, belief should not negative the necessary specific intent under s. 239(1) (a) and (d) of the Income Tax Act  - Whether the Court of Appeal confused the reasonableness of the belief of the accused and availability of alternate legal remedies with the necessary intent.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

14.03.2005

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the notice of intervention of Attorney General of British Columbia

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (30319)

Dennis Rodgers (Crim.) (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de l’avis d’intervention du procureur général de la Colombie-Britannique

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE  Time extended to March 8, 2005.      

14.03.2005

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondents’ response

The Regional Municipality of Halifax, et al.

v. (30719)

Marty David, et al.  (N.S.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la réponse des intimés

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE  Time extended to March 8, 2005.      

14.03.2005

Before / Devant:   BASTARACHE J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY / PAR:              British Columbia Civil Liberties Association

IN / DANS:            Sa Majesté la Reine

c. (30588)

James Kouri (Crim.) (Qc)

Requête en autorisation d'intervenir

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

À LA SUITE D’UNE DEMANDE de la British Columbia Civil Liberties Association visant à obtenir l’autorisation d’intervenir dans l’appel susmentionné;

ET APRÈS AVOIR LU la documentation déposée;

L’ORDONNANCE SUIVANTE EST RENDUE;

La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par la British Columbia Civil Liberties Association est rejetée.

UPON APPLICATION by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association 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 British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, is dismissed.

15.03.2005

Before / Devant:   BINNIE J.

Motions for leave to intervene

BY / PAR:              Attorney General of Ontario

Attorney General of British Columbia

Attorney General of Manitoba

Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law

IN / DANS:            C.D.

v. (30254)

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

- and between -

C.D.K.

v. (30314)

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

Requêtes en autorisation d'intervenir

GRANTED / ACCORDÉES

UPON APPLICATIONS by the Attorney General of Ontario, the Attorney General of British Columbia, the Attorney General of Manitoba and the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law 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, Attorney General of Ontario, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before March 29, 2005.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, Attorney General of British Columbia, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before March 29, 2005.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, Attorney General of Manitoba, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before March 29, 2005.

The motion to extend the time to apply for leave to intervene and for leave to intervene of the applicant, Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before March 29, 2005.

The request to present oral argument is deferred to a date following the perfecting of the appeal.

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 respondent any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellants and respondent by their intervention.

15.03.2005

Before / Devant:   BINNIE J.

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the application for leave

Rose Marie Watts, et al.

v. (30605)

Michael Wakerich and the firm Wakerich & Head, The Estate of Webster Macdonald Sr., deceased, Robert Calvert and the firm Dunphy Calvert & Walker, Greg Butler and the firm Vogel Butler Kazakoff  (Alta.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la demande d’autorisation d’appel

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

1.             This is an application by Rose Marie Watts, Contact Canada Tourism Services Ltd. and Contact Canada Tours Ltd. (the applicants) pursuant to Rule 64, for an order extending the time to serve and file a complete application for leave to appeal to February 24, 2005.

2.             On September 29, 2004, a notice of application for leave to appeal was filed from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta rendered on July 14, 2004.

3.             On January 6, 2005, a notice from the Registrar of intention to dismiss the application for leave for delay pursuant to Rule 64 was sent to the applicants noting that they had failed to serve and file all the documents required under Rule 25 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada for the application for leave to appeal.

4.             The applicants were advised that the Registrar may dismiss the application for leave to appeal as abandoned if the time for serving and filing the materials is not extended by a judge on motion.

5.             The applicants have offered no persuasive reason for the delay.

6.             IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion of the applicants is dismissed and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed as abandoned.

16.03.2005

Before / Devant:   BINNIE J.

Further order on motions for leave to intervene

BY / PAR:              Attorney General of Ontario

Attorney General of British Columbia

Attorney General of Manitoba

Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law

IN / DANS:            C.D.

v. (30254)

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

- and between -

C.D.K.

v. (30314)

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

Autre ordonnance relative aux requêtes en autorisation d'intervenir

FURTHER TO THE ORDER of Binnie J. dated March 15, 2005, granting leave to intervene to the Attorney General of Ontario, the Attorney General of British Columbia, the Attorney General of Manitoba and the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law, and having regard to the shortness of time before the hearing of this appeal;

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 these appeals.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the respondent is granted leave to file a reply factum not to exceed 5 pages in length on or before April 4, 2005.

17.03.2005

Before / Devant: THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Motion to state a constitutional question

Mirabel Anaya Castillo

v. (30534)

Antonio Munoz Castillo  (Alta.)

Requête en formulation d’une question constitutionnelle

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

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

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

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

1.             Does s. 12 of the Limitations Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-12, exceed the legislative competence of the Alberta Legislature to the extent that it purports to apply the law of Alberta to an accident that occurred outside of the province of Alberta, contrary to the territorial limits on provincial jurisdiction?

1.             L’article 12 de la Limitations Act, R.S.A. 2000, ch. L-12, excède‐t‐il la compétence législative de la législature de l’Alberta dans la mesure où il assujettit au droit albertain un accident survenu à l’extérieur de la province, contrairement à la limitation territoriale de la compétence provinciale?

14.03.2005

Sa Majesté la Reine

c. (30508)

Richard Lavigne  (Qc)

17.03.2005

National Trust Company

v. (30462)

Sandra Buschau, et al.  (B.C.)

17.03.2005

Le Forum des Maires de la Péninsule Acadienne et la Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick

c. (30545)

L’Agence canadienne de l’inspection des aliments

18.03.2005

Rogers Communications Incorporated

v. (30462)

Sandra Buschau, et al.

16.03.2005

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Alberta

IN/DANS:              Ivan Morris, et al.

v. (30328)

Her Majesty the Queen  (B.C.)

MARCH 24, 2005 / LE 24 MARS 2005

29759                    Pacific National Investments Ltd. v. Corporation of the City of Victoria (B.C.)

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

The motion to extend the time to apply for a re-hearing is allowed and the motion for a re-hearing is dismissed without costs.  The issue sought to be clarified by re-hearing is conclusively addressed by s. 50  of the Supreme Court Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26 .  In accordance with that section, interest at post-judgment rates accrues from the time of the trial judgment through to the judgment of this Court and beyond until paid.

La requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour présenter une demande de nouvelle audition est accueillie et la demande de nouvelle audition est rejetée, sans dépens.  L’article 50  de la Loi sur la Cour suprême , L.R.C. 1985, ch. S‐26 , répond de façon concluante à la question visée par la demande de nouvelle audition.  Conformément à cette disposition, l’intérêt court, au taux postérieur au jugement, de la date du jugement de première instance, jusqu’au jugement de la Cour, et par la suite jusqu’à la date du paiement.

                                                         SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

                                                             CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME

                                                                                                                  - 2004 -    

             10/06/04

                                                                                                          - 2005 -