This Bulletin is published at the direction of the Registrar and is for general information only. It is not to be used as evidence of its content, which, if required, should be proved by Certificate of the Registrar under the Seal of the Court. While every effort is made to ensure accuracy, no responsibility is assumed for errors or omissions. |
|
Ce Bulletin, publié sous l'autorité de la registraire, ne vise qu'à fournir des renseignements d'ordre général. Il ne peut servir de preuve de son contenu. Celle‐ci s'établit par un certificat de la registraire donné sous le sceau de la Cour. Rien n'est négligé pour assurer l'exactitude du contenu, mais la Cour décline toute responsabilité pour les erreurs ou omissions. |
|
|
|
Subscriptions may be had at $200 per year, payable in advance, in accordance with the Court tariff. During Court sessions it is usually issued weekly. |
|
Le prix de l'abonnement, fixé dans le tarif de la Cour, est de 200 $ l'an, payable d'avance. Le Bulletin paraît en principe toutes les semaines pendant les sessions de la Cour. |
|
|
|
The Bulletin, being a factual report of recorded proceedings, is produced in the language of record. Where a judgment has been rendered, requests for copies should be made to the Registrar, with a remittance of $10 for each set of reasons. All remittances should be made payable to the Receiver General for Canada. |
|
Le Bulletin rassemble les procédures devant la Cour dans la langue du dossier. Quand un arrêt est rendu, on peut se procurer les motifs de jugement en adressant sa demande à la registraire, accompagnée de 10 $ par exemplaire. Le paiement doit être fait à l'ordre du Receveur général du Canada. |
|
|
|
CONTENTS TABLE DES MATIÈRES
Applications for leave to appeal filed
Applications for leave submitted to Court since last issue
Oral hearing ordered
Oral hearing on applications for leave
Judgments on applications for leave
Judgment on motion
Motions
Notice of reference
Notices of appeal filed since last issue
Notices of intervention filed since last issue
Notices of discontinuance filed since last issue
Appeals heard since last issue and disposition
Pronouncements of appeals reserved
Rehearing
Headnotes of recent judgments
Agenda
Summaries of the cases
Notices to the Profession and Press Release
Deadlines: Appeals
Judgments reported in S.C.R. |
242 - 245
246 - 252
-
-
253 - 259
-
260 - 263
-
-
-
264
265 - 267
-
-
-
-
-
-
268
- |
Demandes d'autorisation d'appel déposées
Demandes soumises à la Cour depuis la dernière parution
Audience ordonnée
Audience sur les demandes d'autorisation
Jugements rendus sur les demandes d'autorisation
Jugement sur requête
Requêtes
Avis de renvoi
Avis d'appel déposés depuis la dernière parution
Avis d'intervention déposés depuis la dernière parution
Avis de désistement déposés depuis la dernière parution
Appels entendus depuis la dernière parution et résultat
Jugements rendus sur les appels en délibéré
Nouvelle audition
Sommaires des arrêts récents
Calendrier
Résumés des affaires
Avis aux avocats et communiqué de presse
Délais: Appels
Jugements publiés au R.C.S. |
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FILED |
|
DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION D'APPEL DÉPOSÉES |
The Halifax Insurance Company of Canada
Geoffrey D.E. Adair, Q.C.
Adair, Morse
v. (30671)
Innopex Limited, et al. (Ont.)
Craig Burgess
Torkin, Manes, Cohen, Arbus
FILING DATE: 14.12.2004
NAV Canada
Michel G. Ménard
Lapointe, Rosenstein
v. (30731)
Inter-Canadien (1991) Inc., et al. (Que.)
Gordon Levine
Kugler, Kandestin
- and between -
Aéroports de Montréal
Gerald N. Apostolatos
Langlois, Kronström, Desjardins
v. (30731)
Wilmington Trust Company, et al. (Que.)
Bertrand Giroux
Brouillette, Charpentier, Fortin
- and between -
Greater Toronto Airports Authority
Robert E. Charbonneau
Borden, Ladner, Gervais
v. (30731)
Administration de l’Aéroport International MacDonald-Cartier d’Ottawa, et al. (Que.)
Richard L. Desgagnés
Ogilvy, Renault
- and between -
Ottawa MacDonald-Cartier International Airport Authority
Richard L. Desgagnés
Ogilvy, Renault
v. (30731)
Wilmington Trust Company and Wilmington Trust Corporation, et al. (Que.)
Bertrand Giroux
Brouillette, Charpentier, Fortin
FILING DATE: 14.01.2005
NAV Canada
Michel G. Ménard
Lapointe, Rosenstein
v. (30732)
Inter-Canadien (1991) Inc., et al. (Que.)
Gordon Levine
Kugler, Kandestin
- and between -
Aéroports de Montréal
Gerald N. Apostolatos
Langlois, Kronström, Desjardins
v. (30732)
Renaissance Leasing Corporation, et al. (Que.)
Bertrand Giroux
Brouillette, Charpentier, Fortin
- and between -
Greater Toronto Airports Authority
Robert E. Charbonneau
Borden, Ladner, Gervais
v. (30732)
Administration de l’Aéroport International MacDonald-Cartier d’Ottawa, et al. (Que.)
Richard L. Desgagnés
Ogilvy, Renault
- and between -
Ottawa MacDonald-Cartier International Airport Authority
Richard L. Desgagnés
Ogilvy, Renault
v. (30732)
Renaissance Leasing Corporation, et al. (Que.)
Bertrand Giroux
Brouillette, Charpentier, Fortin
FILING DATE: 14.01.2005
Aéroports de Montréal
Gerald N. Apostolatos
Langlois, Kronström, Desjardins
v. (30742)
Newcourt Credit Group (Alberta) Inc., et al. (Que.)
Pierre Bourque., c.r.
Desjardins, Ducharme, Stein, Monast
- and between -
St. John’s International Airport Authority, et al.
Richard L. Desgagnés
Ogilvy, Renault
v. (30742)
Newcourt Credit Group (Alberta) Inc., et al. (Que.)
Pierre Bourque., c.r.
Desjardins, Ducharme, Stein, Monast
- and between -
Greater Toronto Airports Authority
Robert E. Charbonneau
Borden, Ladner, Gervais
v. (30742)
Greater London International Airport Authority, et al. (Que.)
Richard L. Desgagnés
Ogilvy, Renault
FILING DATE: 14.01.2005
J. A.
J.A.
v. (30736)
T.R. (Man.)
Michael Thomson
Tapper, Cuddy
FILING DATE: 24.01.2005
Calvin Pearson
Gregory Lafontaine
Lafontaine & Associates
v. (30702)
Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
Shawn Porter
A.G. of Ontario
FILING DATE: 26.01.2005
Sudesh Mishra
Sudesh Mishra
v. (30741)
Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)
Peter A. Eccles
A.G. of British Columbia
FILING DATE: 28.01.2005
Myfam Holdings Ltd., et al.
H. Rod Anderson
Harper, Grey, Easton
v. (30744)
Shideh Rohani, et al. (B.C.)
Darrell W. Robert, Q.C.
Miller, Thomson
FILING DATE: 31.01.2005
Scott Irwin Simser
Scott Simser
v. (30746)
Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)
John H. Simms, Q.C.
A.G. of Canada
FILING DATE: 31.01.2005
Ice Consultants Inc., et al.
Geoff R. Hall
McCarthy, Tétrault
v. (30748)
Microvoice Applications Inc. (Ont.)
Neil S. Abbott
Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson
FILING DATE: 31.01.2005
Sandra Sullivan, et al.
Osborne G. Barnwell
v. (30768)
Durham Regional Services Police Board (Ont.)
Kirk F. Stevens
Lerners
FILING DATE: 31.01.2005
Attorney General of Canada, et al.
Paul Vickery
A.G. of Canada
v. (30759)
Marlene Cloud, et al. (Ont.)
Russell M. Raikes
Cohen, Highley
- and between -
The New England Company
Robert B. Bell
Borden, Ladner, Gervais
v. (30759)
Marlene C. Cloud, et al.
Russell M. Raikes
Cohen, Hichley
FILING DATE: 01.02.2005
Citadelle, Coopérative de producteurs de sirop d’érable
Madeleine Renaud
McCarthy, Tétrault
c. (30771)
Régie des Marchés Agricoles et Alimentaires du Québec, et autres (Qc)
Gaëtan Ouellet
DATE DE PRODUCTION: 01.02.2005
Produits alimentaires Jacques et Fils Inc., et autres
Karl Delwaide
Fasken, Martineau, DuMoulin
c. (30772)
Régie des Machés Agricoles et Alimentaires du Québec, et autres (Qc)
Gaëtan Ouellet
DATE DE PRODUCTION: 01.02.2005
Standard Life Assurance Company
Isabelle Poirier
De Grandpré, Joli-Coeur
c. (30773)
Famous Players Inc. (Qc)
Mark Schrager
Davies, Ward, Phillips & Vineberg
DATE DE PRODUCTION: 02.02.2005
François Binette
Guy Quirion
c. (30752)
Sa Majesté la Reine (Qc)
Steve Magnan
P.G. du Québec
DATE DE PRODUCTION: 03.02.2005
Alain Brault
Christopher R. Mostovac
Starnino, Mostovac
c. (30760)
Le Sous Ministre du Revenu du Québec (Qc)
Mario Laprise
Veillette, Larivière
DATE DE PRODUCTION: 04.02.2005
Société en Commandite CDTI de Montréal
Claude G. Leduc
Mercier, Leduc
c. (30753)
Tecsys Inc. (Qc)
Simon Potter
McCarthy, Tétrault
DATE DE PRODUCTION: 07.02.2005
Annie Schneider
Annie Schneider
c. (30761)
Sa Majesté la Reine (N.-É.)
Lloyd Lombard
Public Prosecution Service
DATE DE PRODUCTION: 07.02.2005
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE
|
|
DEMANDES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
FEBRUARY 14, 2005 / LE 14 FÉVRIER 2005
CORAM: Chief Justice McLachlin and Binnie and Charron JJ.
La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Binnie et Charron
Leon Grinshpun
v. (30700)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law (Non Charter) - Procedural law - Private information - Whether Provincial Court judge erred in the exercise of her discretion not to permit process to issue - Did the lower courts err in refusing to grant the application of mandamus - Criminal Code R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 504, 507.1
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 28, 2003 Provincial Court of British Columbia (Maughan J.) |
|
Applicant’s application for the issuance of a process pursuant to s. 507.1 of the Criminal Code denied |
|
|
|
January 23, 2004 Supreme Court of British Columbia (McEwan J.) |
|
Applicant’s application for review of the decision of Maughan J. dismissed |
|
|
|
November 17, 2004 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Prowse, Ryan and Donald JJ.A.) |
|
Applicant’s application to call fresh evidence dismissed; Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
December 29, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Li Liang
v. (30587)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (N.B.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter - Criminal - Criminal law - Sentencing - Evidence - Was the Applicant subject to an unreasonable delay from the time of the issuance of an arrest warrant to her subsequent arrest? - Did the trial judge improperly consider evidence of the Applicant’s previous contact with the victim in sentencing?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 30, 2004 Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Cumming J.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Applicant convicted of criminal harassment contrary to s.264(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46September 28, 2004 Court of Appeal of New Brunswick (Drapeau C.J.N.B., Deschênes and Robertson JJ.A) |
|
Appeal against conviction dismissed; Leave to appeal against sentence refused |
|
|
|
November 18, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Pro Swing Inc.
v. (30529)
Elta Golf Inc. (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
International law - Conflict of laws - Enforcement of foreign judgment - Whether the decision engrafts a new condition onto the common law requirement for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment set out in Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077, as it was expanded to encompass judgments from other countries in Beal v. Saldanha, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 416- Whether a non-monetary judgment may be enforced in Canada and whether additional conditions are required has yet to be considered by This Honourable Court - Whether the court of appeal erred in law in its application of the test in Uniforêt Pate Port-Cartier Inc. v. Zerotech Technologies Inc., [1998] 9 W.W.R. 688 (B.C.S.C.), and, if not reviewed by This Honourable Court, will create confusion and uncertainty in the application of the doctrine of comity to emerging cross-border business relations - Whether the court of appeal erred in law by mis-applying the doctrine of comity.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 22, 2003 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Pepall J.) |
|
Applicant’s motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that consent decree and the contempt order are valid and enforceable in Ontario granted |
|
|
|
June 30, 2004 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Moldaver, Gillese and Blair JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed, order of motions judge set aside and the motion is dismissed with costs; cross-appeal dismissed without costs |
|
|
|
September 28, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
CORAM: Major, Fish and Abella JJ.
Les juges Major, Fish et Abella
Serendip Physiotherapy Clinic and Sutha Kunaratnam
v. (30706)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law (non Charter) - Search and seizure - Health records - Patient files being seized at a physiotherapy clinic pursuant to a warrant - Whether a justice of the peace issuing a warrant pursuant to s. 487 of the Criminal Code is obliged to consider and apply the same safeguards concerning the compulsory disclosure of confidential medical information as prescribed in R. v. O’Connor and R. v. Dyment - Whether there are common law requirements that make it incumbent upon a judicial officer to consider and take steps to protect the privacy interests of patients when the police wish to search for and seize health records - Whether, absent conditions to protect the privacy interests of patients, a search warrant is ultra vires.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 16, 2003 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Ferguson J.) |
|
Applicants’ application to quash search warrant granted |
|
|
|
November 16, 2004 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Rosenberg, Armstrong and Blair JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed; order quashing search warrant set aside and application dismissed |
|
|
|
December 23, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Robert Tranchemontagne
v. (30615)
Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program of the Ministry of Community, Family and Children's Services (Ont.)
AND BETWEEN:
Norman Werbeski
v.
Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program of the Ministry of Community, Family and Children's Services
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law - Forum - Jurisdiction of tribunal - Jurisdiction of appellate court - Choice of forum - Applications for disability benefits within tribunals exclusive jurisdiction - Human rights issues within jurisdiction of tribunal and Human Rights Commission - Argument that disability support program contravened Human Rights Code - Court of Appeal dismissed appeal on the basis that a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission was a more appropriate procedure - Whether an administrative appeal tribunal with jurisdiction over a properly constituted appeal within its mandate has an inherent or implied discretion to decline to exercise that jurisdiction if it forms the view that one or more issues raised in the appeal are better addressed in another forum - If so, what test should apply to determine when such a discretion exists and how it should be exercised - If not, whether an appellate court nonetheless has a discretion to stay the appeal to the tribunal on the ground that another procedure or forum is more appropriate, or on any other ground - What test should apply to determine when such a discretion exists and how it should be exercised - Whether an appellate court sitting in review of the decision of an administrative appeal tribunal has the discretion to make an order that the tribunal could not have made - What test should apply to determine when such a discretion exists and how it should be exercised - In circumstances of concurrent jurisdiction, what is the test for determining when the applicant’s choice of forum will prevail - Whether the essential nature of the dispute, practical considerations, or the existence of a comprehensive statutory scheme of review have a role in determining whether the applicant’s choice of forum will prevail - How a comprehensive scheme of review is to be identified.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 24, 2001 Social Benefits Tribunal (Collins, Presiding Member) |
|
Applicant Werbeski’s appeal from denial of income support under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act denied |
|
|
|
September 12, 2001 Social Benefits Tribunal (Dodds, Presiding Vice Chair) |
|
Applicant Tranchemontagne’s appeal from the denial of income support under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act denied |
|
|
|
March 25, 2003 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Then J., Cameron J. and Desotti J.) |
|
Appeals dismissed |
|
|
|
September 16, 2004 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Labrosse, Weiler and Charron JJ.A.) |
|
Appeals dismissed |
|
|
|
November 19, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Wanda Young
v. (30670)
Leslie Bella, William S. Rowe and Memorial University of Newfoundland (N.L.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural law - Actions - Appeal - Torts - Negligence- Damages -Appeal from award of damages by civil jury - Each of three judges on Court of Appeal writing separate, partially concurring reasons - Respondents found liable to Applicant for damages for negligence in reporting her to Child Protection Services for suspected child sexual abuse - Court of Appeal overturning jury decision - Whether action lies against the Respondent - Whether paragraph 80 of the Court of Appeal judgment correctly summarize the ultimate result of the appeal - What is the proper test for appellate interference with findings of negligence by a civil jury? - Interpretation of the duty to report in ss. 38(1)(2) and (6) of the Child Welfare Act, S.N. 1992, c-57. s.1 - Whether a claim for loss of reputation may proceed by way of negligence - Was the Applicant’s claim for general damages a “case of the nature of” Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd. (1995) 2 S.C.R. 229 or one of the exceptional circumstances to the judicially mandated cap?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
September 9, 2003
Supreme Court of Newfoundland & Labrador
(Barry J.)
Limited publication ban regarding any personal sexual information provided by the Applicant, otherwise proceedings to be conducted in open courtroom
November 13, 2003
Supreme Court of Newfoundland & Labrador, Trial Division
(Barry J.)
Applicant awarded $841,938.75 by jury for claim in negligence resulting from report made to Child Protection Services
October 11, 2004
Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador
(Roberts J.A.[dissenting, concurring in part], Welsh and Rowe JJ.A.[dissenting in part])
Appeal allowed; cross appeal dismissed
December 7, 2004
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
CORAM: Major, Fish and Charron
Les juges Major, Fish et Charron
Zbigniew Belz, Gazeta Inc., Gazeta Magazine, and Alicja Gettlich
v. (30593)
Elizabeth Rogacki (Ont.)
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
December 4, 2002 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Dyson J.) |
|
Respondent’s action in defamation granted; Respondent awarded general damages of $150,000 and aggravated damages of $100,000 |
|
|
|
September 1, 2004 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Doherty, Moldaver, and Feldman JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
November 1, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
CORAM: Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.
Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps
Anahit Cilinger
c. (30703)
Procureur général du Québec (Qc)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Procédure - Procédure civile - Actions - Recours collectif - Autorisation - Recours en dommages-intérêts résultant de l’impossibilité pour les personnes du groupe visé par le recours de bénéficier de traitements de radiothérapie pour le cancer du sein à l’intérieur d’un délai adéquat - En matière de recours collectif pour une action en responsabilité extracontractuelle contre l’État, la question de la détermination de la nature politique ou opérationnelle des actes ou omissions allégués à titre de faute doit-elle être décidée au stade de l’autorisation ou laissée à l’appréciation du juge qui bénéficie de l’ensemble de la preuve lors de l’audition au mérite? - Les faits allégués quant à l’existence d’une violation de l’art. 7 de la Charte et appuyés d’une preuve prima facie d’une atteinte à l’intégrité physique et psychologique des membres du groupe visé sont-ils suffisants, à l’étape de l’autorisation, pour justifier les conclusions recherchées?
HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES
Le 9 mars 2004 Cour supérieure du Québec (Le juge Bishop) |
|
Requête de la demanderesse en autorisation d’un recours collectif rejetée à l’égard du Procureur général du Québec et accordée à l’égard des centres hospitaliers visés |
|
|
|
Le 4 novembre 2004 Cour d’appel du Québec (Les juges Beauregard, Gendreau et Otis) |
|
Appel de la demanderesse rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 31 décembre 2004 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée |
|
|
|
Frederick McLaughlin
c. (29776)
Air Canada (Ont.)
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
January 29, 2002 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Kerr J.) |
|
Applicant’s action for interest on disability pay retroactive to the date of his entitlement to such pay dismissed |
|
|
|
March 5, 2003 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Weiler, Rosenberg and Feldman JJ.A) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
May 5, 2003 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
December 14, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Motion to quash application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Jean‐Pierre Jolicoeur
c. (30678)
Monique Dussault (Qc)
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
Le 7 mars 2003 Cour supérieure du Québec (Le juge Landry ) |
|
Action du demandeur accueillie; intimée condamnée à payer 35 012,38$ au demandeur pour enrichissement injustifié. |
|
|
|
Le 22 octobre 2004 Cour d’appel du Québec (Les juges Beauregard, Delisle et Hilton ) |
|
Appel de l’intimée accueilli et action du demandeur rejetée. |
|
|
|
Le 17 décembre 2004 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée
|
|
|
|
JUDGMENTS ON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE |
|
JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION |
FEBRUARY 17, 2005 / LE 17 FÉVRIER 2005
30448 Aerotech Herman Nelson Inc., Paul R. Sigurdson v. Kellog Brown & Root Inc. (Man.) (Civil) (By Leave)
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie and Charron JJ.
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba, Number AI03‐30‐05461, dated May 4, 2004, is dismissed with costs.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Manitoba, numéro AI03‐30‐05461, daté du 4 mai 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Contracts - Statutes - Interpretation - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of and failure to apply the International Sale of Goods Act - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Respondent was entitled to rescind the contract in question despite the Respondent’s use of the goods - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the damages based on an amount of foreign currency be converted into Canadian currency as of the date of the reasons for decision in the court of first instance.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
September 20, 2002 Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba (McKelvey J.) |
|
Respondent’s action for fraud and entitlement for recision of the contract with Applicants, granted; Applicants’ counterclaim dismissed |
|
|
|
May 4, 2004 Court of Appeal of Manitoba (Scott C.J.M., Twaddle, Steel JJ.A [dissenting in part]) |
|
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed
|
|
|
|
August 3, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
November 24, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Motion to extend time to file and/or serve the leave application filed |
|
|
|
30472 Zoe Childs, Andrew Childs, Pauline Childs, Heather Lee Childs and Jennifer Christine Childs v. Desmond Desormeaux, Julie Zimmerman, Dwight Courrier (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie and Charron JJ.
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C38836, dated May 19, 2004, 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 l'Ontario, numéro C38836, daté du 19 mai 2004, est accordée avec dépens en faveur des demandeurs quelle que soit l'issue de l'appel.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Torts - Negligence - Social host liability - Whether a duty of care is owed by social hosts to person injured by the negligence of an impaired driver who had consumed alcohol at hosts’ residence - Whether there are policy grounds to limit or negate such duty - Whether a social host duty of care and the resulting tort are novel - Whether the appellate court erred by substituting its findings of fact and mixed findings of fact and law for the findings of the trial judge absent a finding if palpable and overriding error.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 30, 2002 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Chadwick J.) |
|
Action asserting social host liability against Respondents, Julie Zimmerman and Dwight Courrier, dismissed |
|
|
|
May 19, 2004 Court of Appeal for Ontario (O'Connor A.C.J.O., Weiler and Sharpe JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
August 16, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed
|
|
|
|
30508 Sa Majesté la Reine c. Richard Lavigne (Qc) (Criminelle) (Autorisation)
Coram: La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Binnie et Charron
La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐10‐002682‐035, daté du 15 juin 2004, est accordée.
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐10‐002682‐035, dated June 15, 2004, is granted.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit criminel - Détermination de la peine - Produits de la criminalité - Possibilité d’infliger une amende compensatoire en remplacement d’une ordonnance de confiscation en vertu de l’art. 462.37 du Code criminel, L.R.C. 1985, ch. C-46 - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en statuant qu’un juge pouvait considérer la capacité de payer d’un accusé lorsqu’il lui inflige une amende compensatoire? - Interprétation des art. 462.37(3) et 734(2) du Code criminel.
HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES
Le 27 octobre 2003 Cour du Québec, Chambre criminelle (Le juge Marchand) |
|
Sentence : intimé condamné à une peine de 19 mois d’emprisonnement et à une amende compensatoire de 20 000 $ |
|
|
|
Le 15 juin 2004 (rectifié le 16 juin 2004) Cour d’appel du Québec (Les juges Baudouin, Proulx et Rochon) |
|
Appel de la demanderesse à l’encontre du montant de l’amende compensatoire infligé à l’accusé par le premier juge rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 14 septembre 2004 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée
|
|
|
|
30545 Forum des maires de la Péninsule acadienne c. Agence canadienne de l'inspection des aliments (CF) (Civile) (Autorisation)
Coram: La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Binnie et Charron
La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‐467‐03, 2004 CAF 263, daté du 22 juillet 2004, est accordée avec dépens en faveur des demandeurs quelle que soit l'issue de l'appel.
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐467‐03, 2004 CAF 263, dated July 22, 2004, is granted with costs to the applicants in any event of the cause.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Législation - Interprétation - Droit administratif - Recours - Compétence - Loi sur les langues officielles, L.R.C. 1985, ch.31 - Contravention par l’intimée aux parties IV et VII de la loi -Redressements ordonnés par la Cour fédérale - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en jugeant que la partie VII de la loi, et notamment son article 41, ne créent pas d’obligation ou de droit susceptibles d’être sanctionnés par les tribunaux?
HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES
Le 8 septembre 2003 Cour fédérale (Le juge Blais) |
|
Demande accueillie; ordonnance de rétablir des postes et autres mesures de redressement. |
|
|
|
Le 22 juillet 2004 Cour d’appel fédérale (Les juges Richard, Décary et Noël) |
|
Appel accueilli en partie; aucune ordonnance jugée appropriée hormis les dépens. |
|
|
|
Le 29 septembre 2004 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée.
|
|
|
|
30462 Rogers Communications Incorporated v. Sandra Buschau, (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)
Coram: Major, Fish and Abella JJ.
The applications for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA030787, dated May 18, 2004, are granted with costs to the applicants in any event of the cause.
Les demandes d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA030787, daté du 18 mai 2004, sont accordées avec dépens en faveur des demanderesses quelle que soit l'issue de l'appel.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Labour law - Pensions - Was the British Columbia Court of Appeal correct in finding that the rule in Saunders v. Vautier (1841), 4 Beav. 115, (1841), 49 E.R. 282, aff’d (1841) 41 E.R. 482 (Ch.), permits the termination of a modern pension trust without the intervention of the court - If so, does the employer have an interest in respect of the trust - What is the nature and scope of an employer’s obligation to act in good faith in the administration of a pension plan.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY (First Application)
April 25, 2002
Supreme Court of British Columbia
(Loo J.)
Respondent’s application for an order requiring the Applicant to produce pension plan-related documents, granted
May 1, 2003
Supreme Court of British Columbia
(Loo J.)
Respondents’ application for termination of the pension plan granted
February 20, 2004
Court of Appeal for British Columbia
(Newbury, Low and Thackray JJ.A.)
Petitioners given three months to make further submissions
May 18, 2004
Court of Appeal for British Columbia
(Newbury, Low and Thackray JJ.A.)
Appeal allowed; order terminating pension plan set aside; petition brought under Trust and Settlement Variation Act dismissed; Applicant declared without interest in trust
June 29, 2004
Court of Appeal for British Columbia
(Newbury, Low and Thackray, JJ.A.)
Costs of the appeal awarded to Respondents
August 10, 2004
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
PROCEDURAL HISTORY (Second Application)
April 25, 2002
Supreme Court of British Columbia
(Loo J.)
Application for an order requiring the Respondent to produce pension plan-related documents, granted
May 1, 2003
Supreme Court of British Columbia
(Loo J.)
Application for termination of pension plan, granted
February 20, 2004
Court of Appeal for British Columbia
(Newbury, Low and Thackray JJ.A.)
Saunders v. Vautier applies; employer’s consent nor required; petitioners given three months to make further submissions
May 18, 2004
Court of Appeal for British Columbia
(Newbury, Low and Thackray JJ.A.)
Appeal allowed; order terminating pension plan set aside; petition brought under Trust and Settlement Variation Act dismissed; Respondent declared without interest in trust
June 29, 2004
Court of Appeal for British Columbia
(Newbury, Low and Thackray, JJ.A.)
Costs of the appeal awarded to Respondents
August 16, 2004
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
30515 Serge Côté c. Commission administrative des régimes de retraite et d'assurances, Procureur général du Québec (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)
Coram: Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps
La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐014056‐030, daté du 17 juin 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐014056‐030, dated June 17, 2004, is dismissed with costs.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit administratif - Compétence - Contrôle judiciaire - Législation - Interprétation - Dommages-intérêts - Compétence implicite d’un arbitre - Erreur commise par une commission administrative (CARRA) - Prise de retraite sur la foi de cette erreur - Loi sur le régime de retraite des employés du gouvernement et des organismes publics, L.R.Q. ch.R-10, art. 179 à 186 - Loi sur le régime de retraite des enseignants, L.R.Q. ch.R-11 - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en infirmant le jugement de la Cour supérieure et, par le fait même, en refusant d’admettre que le Tribunal d’arbitrage institué par cette loi a juridiction pour adjuger une réclamation en dommages-intérêts?
HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES
Le 30 mai 2003 Arbitre substitut (Ferland, Gilles) |
|
Rejet de la demande de révision d’une rente corrigée à la baisse par la CARRA; refus de compétence quant aux dommages. |
|
|
|
Le 24 novembre 2003 Cour supérieure (Le juge Vaillancourt) |
|
Révision judiciaire accordée; arbitre déclaré compétent pour trancher tout le litige, dont les dommages; litige retourné à l’arbitre. |
|
|
|
Le 17 juin 2004 Cour d’appel du Québec (Les juges Morin, Dalphond et Hilton) |
|
Appel accueilli; requête en révision judiciaire rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 16 septembre 2004 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée |
|
|
|
30532 Corporation Sun Media c. Société de transport de Montréal, Publications Métropolitaines Inc. (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)
Coram: Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps
La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐013768‐031, daté du 15 juillet 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐013768‐031, dated July 15, 2004, is dismissed with costs.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Charte canadienne (civil) – Libertés publiques – Libertés de presse et d’expression – Contrat d’exclusivité conclu par la Société de transport de Montréal quant à la distribution d’un quotidien gratuit dans des stations de métro – La conclusion du contrat est-elle contraire aux art. 2b) de la Charte canadienne et 3 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., ch. C-12?
HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES
Le 8 août 2003 Cour supérieure du Québec (La juge Zerbisias) |
|
Action déclaratoire et demande d’injonction permanente rejetées |
|
|
|
Le 15 juillet 2004 Cour d’appel du Québec (Les juges Brossard, Rousseau‐Houle et Pelletier) |
|
Appel rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 29 septembre 2004 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée
|
|
|
|
30623 Ernest William Westergard v. Her Majesty the Queen (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 C33232, dated April 15, 2004, is dismissed.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C33232, daté du 15 avril 2004, est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal Law (Non Charter)- Offences - First degree murder - Sexual assault - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in dismissing the Applicant’s appeal from conviction - Whether a dead body can be “sexually assaulted” for the purposes of s. 231(5)(b) - Whether MacPherson J.A. erroneously reversed the burden of proof by putting an onus on an accused to raise an air of reality to the proposition that the underlying offence was committed after and/or in a separate transaction as the murder for the purposes of constructive first degree murder under s. 231(5) - Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 231(5)(b)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 5, 1998 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Thomas J.) |
|
Applicant convicted of first-degree murder; sentenced to life without eligibility of parole for 25 years |
|
|
|
April 15, 2004 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Goudge, MacPherson and Cronk JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal against conviction dismissed |
|
|
|
November 18, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal and motion for extension of time filed |
|
|
|
30628 Léo Durand c. Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec, Procureur général du Québec (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)
Coram: Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps
La demande d'autorisation d'appel des arrêts de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Québec), numéros 200‐09‐004803‐042 et 200‐09‐004804‐040, datés du 30 août 2004, est rejetée sans dépens.
The application for leave to appeal from the judgments of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Quebec), Numbers 200‐09‐004803‐042 and 200‐09‐004804‐040, dated August 30, 2004, is dismissed without costs.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Procédure - Procédure civile - Exception déclinatoire - Est-ce qu’une requête visant à contester la constitutionnalité des art. 76 et 76.1 du Code de la sécurité routière, L.R.Q., ch. C-24.2, relève de la compétence du Tribunal administratif du Québec ou de la Cour supérieure? - Quelle est l’étendue de la discrétion que possède un juge pour façonner une ordonnance de sauvegarde, en l’occurrence la délivrance d’un permis de conduire pendant l’instance, qui corresponde aux besoins des parties et quels critères doivent être considérés?
HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES
Le 2 avril 2004 (rectifié le 16 avril) Cour supérieure du Québec (Le juge Corriveau) |
|
Requête du demandeur pour une ordonnance de sauvegarde accueillie : ordonnance enjoignant la SAAQ de délivrer un permis de conduire au demandeur, pendant l’instance, pour les fins de son emploi |
|
|
|
Le 14 avril 2004 Cour supérieure du Québec (Le juge Corriveau) |
|
Requête en irrecevabilité de la SAAQ jugée prématurée et dossier déclaré hors délibéré |
|
|
|
Le 30 août 2004 Cour d’appel du Québec (Les juges Dussault, Thibault et Pelletier) |
|
Appels accueillis : jugements de première instance infirmés, demande d’ordonnance de sauvegarde rejetée et dossier retourné à la Cour supérieure pour qu’il soit statué sur la requête en irrecevabilité de la SAAQ |
|
|
|
Le 29 octobre 2004 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée
|
|
|
|
MOTIONS |
|
REQUÊTES
|
7.2.2005
Before / Devant: DESCHAMPS J.
Motions for leave to intervene
BY / PAR: Attorney General of Ontario
Criminal Lawyer’s Association (Ontario)
IN / DANS: Francisco Batista Pires
v. (30151)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (B.C.)
- and between -
Ronaldo Lising
v. (30240)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (B.C.)
Requêtes en autorisation d'intervenir
GRANTED / ACCORDÉES
UPON APPLICATIONS by the Attorney General of Ontario and the Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario) for leave to intervene in the above appeals;
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 February 25, 2005.
The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, Criminal Lawyers’ Association (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 February 25, 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 respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellants and respondents by their intervention.
9.2.2005
Before / Devant: DESCHAMPS J.
Motion to strike
The Corporation of the City of Surrey
v. (30696)
Canada Safeway Limited
- and between -
City of Surrey
v.
Canada Safeway Limited (B.C.)
Requête en radiation
GRANTED IN PART / ACCORDÉE EN PARTIE
UPON APPLICATION by the respondent for an order:
1. striking out the affidavits of Mary E. Bench, John Mascarin, Harvey Haber, Bruce Noble, Q.C., John R. Basey, Q.C., Anna Kinastowski and Pierre G. Page filed in support of the application for leave to appeal and for a further order striking out the references and excerpts from these affidavits from the argument in support of the application for leave to appeal; and
2. extending the time within which the response to the application for leave to appeal may be filed to 30 days after the disposition of this motion.
AND HAVING READ the material filed;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The affidavits of Mary E. Bench, Bruce Noble, John R. Basey, Anna Kinastowski and Pierre G. Page depose to facts that are relevant to the national importance of the motion for leave to appeal. They are, therefore, properly filed.
With regard to the affidavits of John Mascarin and Harvey Haber, they express legal opinions and are, therefore, inappropriately filed. In view of their limited scope and given that it would not be prejudicial to the respondent, an order striking and removing the affidavits and any references to them will satisfy the ends of justice.
For these reasons, the motion is granted in part. The affidavits of John Mascarin and Harvey Haber and the references to them shall be struck and removed from the application for leave to appeal.
The time to serve and file the respondent’s response to the application for leave to appeal is extended 30 days from the disposition of this motion.
There will be no order as to costs.
10.2.2005
Before / Devant: THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Motion to state a constitutional question
Leroy Latty, et al.
v. (30295)
United States of America, et al. (Crim.) (Ont.)
Requête en formulation d’une question constitutionnelle
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
UPON APPLICATION by the appellants for an order stating constitutional questions in the above appeal;
AND HAVING READ the material filed;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE FOLLOWING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ARE STATED:
1. Do ss. 32(1)(a), 32(1)(c) and 33 of the Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18, infringe the rights and freedoms guaranteed by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
2. If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
1. Les alinéas 32(1)a) et 32(1)c) et l’article 33 de la Loi sur l’extradition, L.C. 1999, ch. 18, portent-ils atteinte aux droits et libertés garantis par l’art. 7 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés?
2. Dans l’affirmative, cette atteinte constitue-t-elle une limite raisonnable prescrite par une règle de droit, dont la justification peut se démontrer dans le cadre d’une société libre et démocratique, au sens de l’article premier de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés?
10.2.2005
Before / Devant: THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Motion to state a constitutional question
Shane Tyrone Ferras
v. (30211)
United States of America, et al. (Crim.) (Ont.)
Requête en formulation d’une question constitutionnelle
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
UPON APPLICATION by the appellant for an order stating constitutional questions in the above appeal;
AND HAVING READ the material filed;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE FOLLOWING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ARE STATED:
1. Do ss. 32(1)(a) and 33 of the Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18, infringe the rights and freedoms guaranteed by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
2. If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
3. Do ss. 32(1)(a) and 33 of the Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18, infringe the rights and freedoms guaranteed by s. 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
4. If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
1. L’alinéa 32(1)a) et l'article 33 de la Loi sur l’extradition, L.C. 1999, ch. 18, portent-ils atteinte aux droits et libertés garantis par l’art. 7 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés?
2. Dans l’affirmative, cette atteinte constitue-t-elle une limite raisonnable prescrite par une règle de droit, dont la justification peut se démontrer dans le cadre d’une société libre et démocratique, au sens de l’article premier de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés?
3. L’alinéa 32(1)a) et l’article 33 de la Loi sur l’extradition, L.C. 1999, ch. 18, portent-ils atteinte aux droits et libertés garantis par l’article 6 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés?
4. Dans l’affirmative, cette atteinte constitue-t-elle une limite raisonnable prescrite par une règle de droit, dont la justification peut se démontrer dans le cadre d’une société libre et démocratique, au sens de l’article premier de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés?
NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
|
AVIS DE DÉSISTEMENT DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION
|
10.2.2005
Lafferty, Harwood & Partners Ltd., et al.
v. (30103)
Jacques Parizeau, et al. (Que.)
(Appeal)
APPEALS HEARD SINCE LAST ISSUE AND DISPOSITION |
|
APPELS ENTENDUS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION ET RÉSULTAT
|
11.2.2005
CORAM: Chief Justice McLachlin and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.
Her Majesty the Queen
v. (30376)
R.L. (Ont.) (Criminal) (As of Right)
Riun Shandler and Benita Wassenaar for the Appellant
Paul Burstein for the Respondent
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Criminal law - Evidence - Historic sexual abuse - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the appropriate standard of review - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred by failing to give the deference due to the credibility assessments and factual findings made by the trial judge.
|
|
Nature de la cause:
Droit criminel - Preuve - Agressions sexuelles anciennes - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle fait erreur dans l’application de la norme de contrôle appropriée ? - La Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, à la majorité, a‐t‐elle commis une erreur en ne faisant pas preuve de déférence à l’égard de l’appréciation par le juge du procès de la crédibilité des témoins et de ses conclusions de fait ? |
15.2.2005
CORAM: Chief Justice McLachlin and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.
Jody James Gunning
v. (30161)
Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Criminal) (By Leave)
Glen Orris, Q.C., for the Appellant
Richard C.C. Peck, Q.C. / Paul Barclay / Gregory J. Fitch for the Respondent
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature de la cause:
Criminal Law (Non Charter) - Trial - Defence - Findings of fact - Jury Charge - Defence of house or real property - Assault by trespasser - Provocation - Accused fatally shoots victim who entered his home uninvited during a party and refused to leave - Accused intoxicated - Whether trial judge was entitled to make a finding of fact that the use of a gun was careless - Whether trial judge erred by refusing to instruct jury regarding defence of house or real property or assault by trespasser - Whether trial judge erred by stating in jury charge that a verdict of not guilty would be perverse - Whether jury should have been instructed regarding ss. 41(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code with respect to defence of provocation under s. 232 - Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 41(1), 41(2), 232.
|
|
Nature of the case:
Droit criminel (excluant la Charte) - Procès - Défense - Conclusions de fait - Exposé au jury – Défense d’une maison ou d’un bien immeuble - Voies de fait par un intrus - Provocation - L’accusé abat d’un coup de feu la victime, qui était entrée chez lui sans invitation pendant une fête et refusait de partir - L’accusé était en état d’intoxication - Le juge du procès était-il autorisé à conclure, quant aux faits, à l’utilisation négligente d’un fusil? - Le juge du procès a-t-il fait une erreur en refusant de donner au jury des indications sur la défense d’une maison ou d’un bien immeuble, ou sur la perpétration de voies de fait par un intrus? - Le juge du procès a-t-il fait une erreur en déclarant dans son exposé au jury qu’un verdict de non-culpabilité serait abusif? - Aurait-il fallu donner des indications au jury sur les par. 41(1) et (2) du Code criminel, en ce qui a trait à la défense de provocation prévue à l’art. 232? – Code criminel, L.R.C. 1985, ch. C-46, par. 41(1), 41(2), art. 232. |
16.2.2005
CORAM: Chief Justice McLachlin and Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish and Charron JJ.
Isidore Garon Ltée
c. (30171)
Syndicat du bois ouvré de la région de Québec inc. (C.S.D.) (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)
Fillion et Frères (1976) inc.
c. (30172)
Syndicat national des employés de garage du Québec inc. (C.S.D.) (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)
Robert Dupont, Suzanne Thibaudeau et Laurent Lesage pour l’appelante
Georges Marceau et Johanne Drolet pour l’intimée
Guy Dion, Jasmin Marcotte et Sébastien Gobeil / Benoit Mailloux pour l’appelante
Georges Marceau et Johanne Drolet pour l’intimée
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
30171 - Labour law - Arbitration - Administrative law - Jurisdiction - Whether arts. 2091 and 2092 C.C.Q., which establish, inter alia, the right of each of the parties to a contract of employment for an indefinite term to terminate the contract by giving the other party reasonable notice, apply to employers and employees governed by a collective agreement entered into under the Labour Code, R.S.Q., c. C-27 - Whether the effect of Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 157, is to incorporate arts. 2091 and 2092 into every collective agreement and, consequently, to confer on arbitrators the jurisdiction to hear claims based on these articles.
30172 - Labour law - Arbitration - Administrative law - Jurisdiction- Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 157, to this case - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying arts. 2091 and 2092 of the Civil Code of Québec although the rights of the parties are governed by a collective labour agreement - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to distinguish the corpus of legislation considered in Parry Sound from the legislative situation in the province of Québec.
|
|
Nature de la cause:
30171 - Droit du travail - Arbitrage - Droit administratif - Compétence - Les articles 2091 et 2092 C.c.Q. qui consacrent, entre autres, le droit de chacune des parties à un contrat de travail à durée indéterminée d’y mettre fin en donnant à l’autre un délai de congé raisonnable, sont-ils applicables aux employeurs et aux salariés régis par une convention collective de travail conclue sous l’égide du Code du travail, L.R.Q., ch. C-27? - L’arrêt Parry Sound (district), Conseil d’administration des services sociaux c. S.E.E.F.P.O., section locale 324, [2003] 2 R.C.S. 157, a-t-il pour effet d’incorporer les art. 2091 et 2092 dans toute convention collective et de conférer ainsi à l’arbitre la compétence pour se saisir d’une réclamation fondée sur ces articles?
30172 - Droit du travail - Arbitrage - Droit administratif - Compétence - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en appliquant l’arrêt Parry Sound (district), Conseil d’administration des services sociaux c. S.E.E.F.P.O., section locale 324, [2003] 2 R.C.S. 157, au présent dossier? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en appliquant les art. 2091 et 2092 du Code civil du Québec, alors que le droit des parties est régi par une convention collective de travail? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en ne distinguant pas le corpus législatif examiné à l’arrêt Parry Sound, du contexte législatif prévalant dans la province de Québec? |
The Winter Session of the Supreme Court of Canada started January 10, 2005.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court Act and Rules, the following requirements for filing must be complied with before an appeal can be heard:
Appellant’s record; appellant’s factum; and appellant’s book(s) of authorities must be filed within 12 weeks of the filing of the notice of appeal or 12 weeks from decision on the motion to state a constitutional question.
Respondent’s record (if any); respondent’s factum; and respondent’s book(s) of authorities must be filed within eight weeks after the service of the appellant's documents.
Intervener's factum and intervener’s book(s) of authorities, (if any), must be filed within eight weeks of the order granting leave to intervene or within 20 weeks of the filing of a notice of intervention under subrule 61(4).
Parties’ condensed book, if required, must be filed on the day of hearing of the appeal.
The Registrar shall enter the appeal on a list of cases to be heard after the respondent’s factum is filed or at the end of the eight-week period referred to in Rule 36. |
|
La session d’hiver de la Cour suprême du Canada a commencé le 10 janvier 2005.
Conformément à la Loi sur la Cour suprême et aux Règles, il faut se conformer aux exigences suivantes avant qu'un appel puisse être entendu:
Le dossier de l’appelant, son mémoire et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine doivent être déposés dans les douze semaines du dépôt de l’avis d’appel ou douze semaines de la décision de la requête pour formulation d’une question constitutionnelle.
Le dossier de l’intimé (le cas échéant), son mémoire et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine doivent être déposés dans les huit semaines suivant la signification des documents de l’appelant.
Le mémoire de l'intervenant et son recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine, le cas échéant, doivent être déposés dans les huit semaines suivant l’ordonnance autorisant l’intervention ou dans les vingt semaines suivant le dépôt de l’avis d’intervention visé au paragraphe 61(4).
Le recueil condensé des parties, le cas échéant, doivent être déposés le jour de l’audition de l’appel.
Le registraire inscrit l’appel pour audition après le dépôt du mémoire de l’intimé ou à l’expiration du délai de huit semaines prévu à la règle 36. |
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE
CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME
- 2004 -
10/06/04
OCTOBER - OCTOBRE |
|
NOVEMBER - NOVEMBRE |
|
DECEMBER - DECEMBRE |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
|
M 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
M 4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
H 11 |
12 |
13 |
|
5 |
M 6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
10 |
H 11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
|
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
|
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
|
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
|
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
24 31 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
26 |
H 27 |
H 28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
- 2005 -
JANUARY - JANVIER |
|
FEBRUARY - FÉVRIER |
|
MARCH - MARS |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
2 |
H 3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
|
6 |
M 7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
|
6 |
M 7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
9 |
M 10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
|
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
|
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
|
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
|
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
H 25 |
26 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
|
27 |
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
27 |
H 28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APRIL - AVRIL |
|
MAY - MAI |
|
JUNE - JUIN |
||||||||||||||||||
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F V |
S S |
|
S D |
M L |
T M |
W M |
T J |
F v |
s s |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
8 |
M 9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
|
5 |
M 6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
10 |
M 11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
|
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
|
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
|
22 |
H 23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
|
19 |
20 |
21 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sittings of the court: Séances de la cour: |
|
18 sitting weeks/semaines séances de la cour 88 sitting days/journées séances de la cour 9 motion and conference days/ journées requêtes.conférences 2 holidays during sitting days/ jours fériés durant les sessions |
Motions: Requêtes: |
M |
|
Holidays: Jours fériés: |
H |
|
|
|
|