Bulletins

      OF CANADA                                             DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

February 11, 2005 214 - 241                                                                le 11 février 2005

CONTENTS                                                     TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Nav Canada

Michel G. Ménard

Lapointe Rosenstein

v. (30729)

Wilmington Trust Company, et al. (Qc)

Jean-Bertrand Giroux

Brouillette, Charpentier, Fortin

FILING DATE:   14.01.2005

Aéroports de Montréal

Gerald N. Apostolatos

Langlois, Kronström, Desjardins

v. (30738)

Wilmington Trust Company, et al. (Que.)

Bertrand Giroux

Brouillette, Charpentier, Fortin

FILING DATE:   14.01.2005

Aéroports de Montréal

Gerald N. Apostolatos

Langlois, Kronström, Desjardins

v. (30740)

Newcourt Credit Group (Alberta) Inc., et al. (Que.)

Pierre Bourque, c.r.

Desjardins, Ducharme, Stein, Monast

FILING DATE:   14.01.2005

Greater Toronto Airports Authority

Robert E. Charbonneau

Borden, Ladner, Gervais

v. (30743)

Renaissance Leasing Corporation, et al. (Que.)

Bertrand Giroux

Brouillette, Charpentier, Fortin

FILING DATE:   14.01.2005

Greater Toronto Airports Authority

Robert E. Charbonneau

Borden, Ladner, Gervais

v. (30745)

Newcourt Credit Group (Alberta) Inc., et al. (Que.)

Pierre Bourque, c.r.

Desjardins, Ducharme, Stein, Monast

FILING DATE:   14.01.2005

Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority

Richard L. Desgagnés

Ogilvy, Renault

v. (30749)

Wilmington Trust Company, et al. (Que.)

Bertrand Giroux

Brouillette, Charpentier, Fortin

FILING DATE:   14.01.2005

St-John’s International Airport Authority

Richard L. Desgagnés

Ogilvy, Renault

v. (30750)

Newcourt Credit Group (Alberta) Inc., et al. (Que.)

Pierre Bourque, c.r.

Desjardins, Ducharme, Stein, Monast

FILING DATE:   14.01.2005

Charlottetown Airport Authority Inc.

Richard L. Desgagnés

Ogilvy, Renault

v. (30751)

CCG Trust Corporation, et al. (Que.)

Pierre Bourque, c.r.

Desjardins, Ducharme, Stein, Monast

FILING DATE:   14.01.2005

Canadian Microtunnelling Ltd.

v. (30758)

The Corporation of the City of Toronto (Ont.)

Anna Kinastowski

City of Toronto

FILING DATE:   25.01.2005

Main Rehabilitation Co. Ltd.

Rocco Galati

Galati, Rodrigues & Associates

v. (30739)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

Catherine Letellier de St-Just

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE:   27.01.2005

Chapelstone Developments, et al.

David R. Oley

Mockler, Peters, Oley, Rouse & Williams

v. (30747)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (N.B.)

Peter H. MacPhail

Clark Drummie

FILING DATE:   28.01.2005

FEBRUARY 7, 2005 / LE 7 FÉVRIER 2005

                                                CORAM:  Chief Justice McLachlin and Binnie and Charron JJ.

La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Binnie et Charron

J.C.G.

c. (30562)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.) (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Procès - Témoins - Assignation - Victime absente - Demande de remise du procès par le ministère public - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit dans l’interprétation des dispositions législatives pertinentes en matière d’assignation des témoins dans la procédure criminelle au Québec? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en concluant que le juge de première instance n’avait pas exercé sa discrétion judiciairement en refusant d’accorder une remise à la poursuite? - Darville c. La Reine (1956) 25 C.R. 1 - Article 20.1 du Code de procédure pénale, L.R.Q., ch. C-25.1.

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

Sheila Stene and Andrew Gilbert

v. (30509)

John Thomson (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Contracts - Sale - Whether the courts below erred by not converting the application to an action - Whether the courts below erred in interpreting the Agreement of Purchase and Sale - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by dismissing the motion for a stay of the appeal pending disposition of their new action.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Michel Duguay

c. (30692)

Christiane Théberge (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure – Procédure civile – Homologation – La Cour supérieure a-t-elle erré en homologuant l’entente intervenue entre les parties? – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en rejetant l’appel du demandeur?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

                                             CORAM:  Chief Justice McLachlin and Binnie and Deschamps JJ.

La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Binnie et Deschamps

Chester Waxman, Chester Waxman, in trust, Chesterton Investments Limited and

I. Waxman & Sons Limited

v. (30418)

Morris Waxman, Michael Waxman, Shirley Waxman, Douglas Waxman,

The Waxman Holding Corporation Inc., Morriston Investments Limited,

Solid Waste Reclamation Limited, and Solid Waste Reclamation Inc.

AND BETWEEN:

Robert Waxman and Warren Waxman

v. (30418)

Morris Waxman, Michael Waxman, Shirley Waxman, Douglas Waxman,

The Waxman Holding Corporation Inc., Morriston Investments Limited,

Solid Waste Reclamation Limited, and Solid Waste Reclamation Inc. (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Remedies - Breach of Fiduciary Duty - Constructive Trust - Knowing Receipt - Oppression Remedy - Whether the lower courts erred in law in holding that Chester Waxman held 50% of the shares of IWS on constructive trust for Morris Waxman after December 22, 1983 who was also entitled to recover 50% of all profits and distributions of IWS after December 22, 1983 - Whether such an order is punitive and not in accordance with the principles of fiduciary duty and oppression under s. 248 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act - Whether the lower courts erred in law in holding Robert and Warren Waxman liable to account to Morris Waxman in knowing receipt for bonus monies received from IWS between 1981 and 1993 - Whether the lower courts erred in law in holding Robert and Warren Waxman were liable to Morris Waxman on the basis of constructive knowledge of acts of oppression by Chester Waxman - Ontario Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B. 16.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY (First Application)

CORAM:  Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

Les juges Major, Fish et Abella

David F. Hass

v. (30687)

Jetex Investments Inc. represented at first instance by its agent, 1041646 Ontario Ltd.,

of which Browning Property Services is a division (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative Law - Property Law - Appeal - Judicial review - Procedural fairness - Landlord tenant - Should provincial appellate courts provide reasons when refusing leave? - What effect does federal privacy legislation have on relevant evidence tendered before rental housing tribunals? - When should the standard of review of patent unreasonableness apply in a statutory appeal? - Whether the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal Member’s  findings were unreasonable and not supported by the evidence? - Whether the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal violated principles of procedural fairness and natural justice?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

February 3, 2004

Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal

(Fine, Member)

Applicant’s motion pursuant to ss. 84(1) and 84(2) of the Tenant Protection Act, denied

Eli Lilly and Company

v. (30693)

Apotex Inc.  (F.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Actions - Judgments and orders - Motion for summary judgment - Statutory interpretation - Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133, s.8 - “First person” -  Applicant patentee moving for summary judgment on the grounds it was not a “first person” in Respondent’s action for loss of profits after prohibition order overturned - Whether Federal Court of Appeal overturned a discretionary summary judgment granted by the Federal Court without finding error of law - Whether Federal Court of Appeal has severely truncated access to summary judgment proceedings, leading to requirement for full blown trials - Whether the only issue before motions judge was a matter of statutory interpretation, a pure question of law -Whether the Federal Court should exercise its discretion to determine a question of law in the context of a summary judgment motion

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ben Sutcliffe and Helen Kimmerly

v. (30590)

Minister of the Environment (Ontario) and Canadian Waste Services Inc.

AND BETWEEN:

The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte

v. (30590)

Minister of the Environment (Ontario) and Canadian Waste Services Inc. (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Statutes - Interpretation Environmental law - Assessment - Terms of reference  - Decision of Minister to approve terms of reference for a proposed environmental assessment for expansion of landfill site - Terms of reference not including all previously required statutory elements - Whether Minster was entitled to make an incorrect or an unreasonable decision to dispense with the elements of an environmental assessment mandated by section 6.1(2) of the Environmental Assessment Act,  R.S.O. 1990, c. E.18, s. 6.1. - Whether Minister may ignore fiduciary duty owed by government to First Nations to take their interests into account and to ensure that obligation is fully met when making a decision - Appropriate standard of review to be applied to the Minister when making a decision in the exercise of a statutory discretion - Section 6.1(3) of the Act providing that approved terms of reference may provide that environmental assessment consist of “information other than that required by subsection (2)”- Whether Ministers possess greater expertise than the courts in deciding general questions of statutory interpretation - Whether ministerial decisions on questions of statutory interpretation are subject to review by the courts on the “correctness”, “reasonableness simpliciter”, or “patently unreasonable” standard of review - Whether terms of reference and environmental assessment must satisfy listed requirements of s. 6.1(2)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

St. Anthony Seafoods Limited Partnership

v. (30669)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador, and at all times represented by

the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture (N.L.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Ministerial discretion - Promissory estoppel -  Applicant’s action against Respondent for refusal to issue snow crab licence dismissed - Court of Appeal remitting matter to Minister for reconsideration - Whether Minister’s decision binding on a subsequent Minister in accordance with principles laid down in Mount Sinai Hospital Center v. Quebec (Minister of Health and Social Services), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 281 - Whether law of promissory estoppel applies to public law.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:  Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps

Placements Mane Ltée

c. (30661)

La Seigneurie de St‐Émile Inc. et Ville de Québec

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit municipal – Vente en justice d’un immeuble pour défaut d’avoir acquitté les taxes municipales – La Cour supérieure a-t-elle erré en rejetant la requête de la demanderesse en annulation de la vente? – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en accordant la requête en rejet d’appel et en rejetant l’appel?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

George Maniatakos

c. (30691)

Paul Morin, Comité de discipline de l’Ordre des dentistes du Québec (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure – Procédure civile – Appel – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en rejetant la requête du demandeur pour permission d’appel? – Le droit du demandeur à un procès juste et équitable a-t-il été violé du fait que le syndic de l’Ordre des dentistes du Québec n’aurait pas transmis au demandeur toutes les « normes généralement reconnues par la profession » auxquelles il est accusé d’avoir contrevenu?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

Première Électronique Plus inc. (F.A.S. Instant Comptant)

c. (30682)

Procureur général du Québec (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial – Droit des biens – Protection du consommateur – Qualité de « consommateur » au sens de la Loi sur la protection du consommateur, L.R.Q., ch. P-40.1 – Contrat de prêt sur gage – Hypothèque mobilière avec dépossession (gage) – Quel est le fardeau du poursuivant en vertu de l’art. 277 de la Loi sur la protection du consommateur relativement à la qualité de « consommateur »? – Le prêt sur gage est-il exempté de l’application de la Loi depuis l’entrée en vigueur du nouveau Code civil du Québec, L.Q. 1991, ch. 64?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

CORAM:  Bastarache, LeBel and Charron JJ.

Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Charron

Gérard DeWolf Shaw

c. (30675)

Jacques Vignola, First Marathon Securities Limited (Maintenant Financière Banque nationale) (Qc)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure – Justice naturelle – Transmission, par la sténographe du Bureau du Commissaire général du travail, de la transcription des notes sténographiques au Commissaire du travail à l’insu du demandeur – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en ne concluant pas à la violation des règles de la justice naturelle? – La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en ne concluant pas à l’absence de crainte raisonnable de partialité du décideur?

HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES

FEBRUARY10, 2005 / LE 10 FÉVRIER 2005

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION / DEMANDE DE RÉEXAMEN

CORAM:  Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

Les juges Major, Fish et Abella

OSFC Holdings Ltd. v. Her Majesty the Queen (FC) (Civil) (By Leave) (28860)

FEBRUARY 10, 2005 / LE 10 FÉVRIER 2005

30428                    Stanislaw Bigos v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

 The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C38640, dated May 19, 2004, is dismissed.

 La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C38640, daté du 19 mai 2004, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law (Non Charter) - Evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the fresh evidence was not admissible

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30542                     Nanaimo Immigrant Settlement Society,  Juan de Fuca Marine Rescue Society (formerly known as Sooke Marine Rescue Society) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA31476, dated July 26, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA31476, daté du 26 juillet 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional law – Division of powers – Taxation – Criminal law – Gaming and betting – Regulation and licensing – Province of British Columbia levying fees against charitable organizations on sale of bingo cards and charging casino licence fees pursuant to Lottery Act – Class action commenced by charitable and religious organizations for repayment of fees – Class action alleging unjust enrichment – Class action challenging constitutionality of fees as constituting indirect taxation and therefore ultra vires Province –  Whether fees constituting regulatory fees or taxation – If fees on sale of bingo cards taxes, whether constituting direct or indirect taxation – Whether bingo and casino fees contrary to gaming provisions of Criminal Code , in particular, s. 207(1)(b), because fees not used by Province for charitable purposes – Whether restitution lies for taxes paid under an ultra vires tax – Constitution Act, 1867 , s. 92(9)  – Criminal Code, R.S.C. c. C-46, s. 207(1)(b), Lottery Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 249 (repealed S.B.C. 2002, c. 14, s. 112). 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30543                     410727 B.C. Ltd., Walline Ltd., Minoru Investments Ltd. and Y.H. Canadian Property Investment Trust v. Dayhu Investments Ltd., City of Richmond (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Numbers CA031091 and CA031128, dated July 7, 2004, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéros CA031091 et CA031128, daté du 7 juillet 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Limitation of actions - Prescription - Cause of action - Cause of action against Respondents accrued to Applicants in 1968 - Respondents’ negligence was not discovered until fire arising from another party’s discrete negligence in 2002 - Respondents’ negligence in 1968 contributed to damage suffered in 2002 fire - Whether a new cause of action arose against Respondents - Whether only one cause of action can arise if a different and subsequent set of facts gives rise to a new and different type of damages - Whether the Applicants’ cause of action for physical damage to their building and related loss of income and chattels, caused by an extrinsic act, accrued when the building was completed or when the physical damage occurred, in circumstances where building code deficiencies merely contributed to the extent of the damage.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

30603                     Louis Ludwik Furtak v. Timothy J. Valgardson (Man.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram:                    Major, Fish and Abella JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba, Number AI04‐30‐05879, dated September 21, 2004, is dismissed.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Manitoba, numéro AI04‐30‐05879, daté du 21 septembre 2004, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  (Civil ) - Procedural Law - Appeal - Judgments and orders - Whether there was a denial of due process and natural justice - Whether there was a breach of s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Whether the decision from the Law Society of Manitoba can be appealed? - Whether the Law Society of Manitoba erred in its determination that the services provided by the Respondent were appropriate in the circumstances?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26.1.2005

Before / Devant:   BASTARACHE J.

Motion to seal Court file

The Halifax Insurance Company of Canada

v. (30671)

Innopex Limited, et al. (Ont.)

Requête visant la mise sous scellés du dossier de la Cour

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by counsel on behalf of the respondent for an order sealing the file in the above mentioned application for leave to appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1)         All materials filed by the applicant or respondents with this Court in connection with this application for leave to appeal shall be and are hereby sealed, except the order and the reasons of the Court of Appeal for Ontario dated October 15, 2004 which may be retained on the public record part of this file;

2)         The sealed materials shall only be made available to counsel for the applicant, counsel for the respondents, their respective Ottawa agents, Members of this Court, Court staff and other persons as the parties may, in writing, agree or as this Court may further order;

3)         This sealing order shall not extend to prohibit publication or disclosure of the names of the within parties nor the fact this application for leave to appeal, and related proceedings exist in this Court;

4)         All proceedings in this application for leave to appeal shall be held in camera;

5)         The time for the respondents to serve and file their response is hereby extended to 15 days following the release date of this Court’s decision on the within motion;

6)         No order as to costs of this motion; and

7)         This order is without prejudice to the right of either party, in the event the application for leave to appeal is granted, to apply for a further sealing order.

31.1.2005

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Motion for extension of time and leave to intervene

BY / PAR:              Attorney General of Ontario

IN / DANS:            Mikisew Cree First Nation

v. (30246)

Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage, et al. (FC)

Requête en prorogation de délai et en autorisation d'intervenir

UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General of Ontario for an extension of time to apply for leave to intervene and for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion for an extension of time to apply for leave to intervene is granted.  The motion for leave to intervene is dismissed.

1.2.2005

Before / Devant:   BASTARACHE J.

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum and book of authorities of the intervener Attorney General of Ontario to February 18, 2005 and to present oral argument at the hearing of the appeal

UL Canada Inc.

v. (30065)

Attorney General of Quebec, et al. (Que.)

Requête de l’intervenant le procureur général de l’Ontario en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de ses mémoire et recueil de sources jusqu’au 18 février 2005, et en vue de présenter une plaidoirie orale lors de l’audition de l’appel

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

1.2.2005

Before / Devant:   DESCHAMPS J.

Motion for leave to intervene in the application for leave to appeal

BY / PAR:              ActuBen Consulting Inc.

IN / DANS:            Loba Limited

v. (30664)

Minister of National Revenue (FC)

Requête en autorisation d'intervenir dans la demande d’autorisation d’appel

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

UPON APPLICATION by ActuBen Consulting Inc. for leave to intervene in the above mentioned application for leave to appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

Interventions in support of a leave application are exceptional and should not be encouraged.  There are no special circumstances here.

The motion is dismissed without prejudice to the applicant’s right to apply for leave to intervene in the appeal, in the usual manner, if the Court grants the application for leave to appeal.

1.2.2005

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the reply of the applicants, The Thomson Coporation, et al.

Heather Robertson, et al.

v. (30644)

The Thomson Corporation, et al. (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la réplique des demandeurs, The Thomson Coporation et autres

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to January 28, 2005.

1.2.2005

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the reply factum of the appellant (respondent on cross-appeal)

Attorney General of Canada

v. (30137)

Donald Gladstone, et al. (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt du mémoire en réplique de l’appelant (intimé au pourvoi incident)

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to January 21, 2005.

1.2.2005

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve the respondent's response

2016596 Ontario Inc.

v. (30560)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by The Minister of Natural Resources (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de signification de la réponse de l'intimée

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to January 5, 2005.

1.2.2005

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the appellant’s book of authorities

David George Stender

v. (30551)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt du recueil de sources de l’appelant

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to January 25, 2005.

1.2.2005

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Motion to reimburse the $500 security deposit to the appellant

The Board of Governors of Lethbridge Community College

v. (29323)

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, et al. (Alta.)

Requête de l’appelant en restitution du cautionnement de 500 $

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

2.2.2005

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondent's response

Eton Anthony Greaves

v. (30627)

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

Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la réponse de l'intimée

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to January 17, 2005.

3.2.2005

Before / Devant:   DESCHAMPS J.

Motion to file a reply factum on appeal and to extend the time in which to serve and file the appellant’s reply factum

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (30376)

R.L. (Crim.)(Ont.)

Requête en vue de déposer un mémoire en réplique concernant l’appel et en prorogation du délai  de signification et de dépôt du mémoire en réplique de l’appelante

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to February 1, 2005.

3.2.2005

Before / Devant:   DESCHAMPS J.

Motion to strike

Dirk de Jong

v. (30127)

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (FC)

and between

David Hilewitz

v. (30125)

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (FC)

Requête en radiation

GRANTED IN PART, WITHOUT COSTS / ACCORDÉE EN PARTIE, SANS DÉPENS

1.             The motion to strike out the portions of the factum of the interveners CACL and ERDCO is denied.

2.             The alternative conclusion is granted and the respondent is allowed to file a reply factum not exceeding 10 pages in length.

4.2.2005

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

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

Marilyn Ortega, et al.

v. (30489)

1005640 Ontario Inc. carrying on business under the name and style of Calypso Hut 3, 1230 Sheppard Centre Inc. and John Doe (Ont.)

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

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to January 10, 2005.

4.2.2005

Before / Devant:   THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the appellant’s factum and book of authorities

The City of Calgary

v. (30247)

Atco Gas and Pipelines Ltd. (Alta.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt des mémoire et recueil de sources de l’appelante

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to February 8, 2005.

31.01.2005

Gary Leskun

v. (30548)

Sherry Jean Leskun (B.C.)

02.02.2005

Vernon Roy Mazzei

v. (30415)

The Director of Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services, et al. (B.C.)

02.02.2005

Maribel Anaya Castillo

v. (30534)

Antonio Munoz Castillo (Alta.)

04.02.2005

Mario Charlebois

c. (30467)

Ville de Saint-Jean (N.-B.)

08.04.2005

Association des juristes d’expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick

c. (30467)

Ville de Saint-Jean (N.-B.)

8.2.2005

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.

David Hilewitz

v. (30125)

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (FC) (Civil ) (By Leave)

- and -

Dirk de Jong

v. (30127)

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration(FC) (Civil ) (By Leave)

Cecil L. Rotenberg, Q.C., Andrew Z. Wlodyka, Nicholas McHaffie, Howard Greenberg, Inna Kogan, Rachel Rotenberg and Mario D. Bellissimo for the appellants.

Urszula Kaczmarczyk and Michael H. Morris for the respondent.

Ena Chadha and Dianne Wintermute for the interveners Canadian Association for Community Living (CACL) and Ethno-Racial People with Disabilities Coalition (ERDCO).

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

9.2.2005

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (30113)

Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, et al. (Ont.) (Civil ) (By Leave)

Scott C. Hutchison and Melissa Ragsdale for the appellant.

Paul B. Schabas and Ryder Gilliland for the respondents.

Written submissions only for the intervener Canadian Association of Journalists.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

9.2.2005

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.

Attorney General of Canada

v. (30137)

Donald Gladstone, et al. (B.C.) (Civil ) (By Leave)

S. David Frankel, Q.C., and Brian A. McLaughlin for the appellant.

Marvin R.V. Storrow, Q.C., and Peter L. Rubin for the respondents.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

10.2.2005

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Major, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella and Charron JJ.

Her Majesty the Queen ex rel Linda Merk

v. (30090)

International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 771 (Sask.) (Civil ) (By Leave)

Roger J.F. Lepage, Kerri A. Froc and Alison Mitchell for the appellant.

Roderick M. Gillies for the respondent.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

10.2.2005

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish and Charron JJ.

Grecon Dimter Inc.

v. (30217)

J.R. Normand Inc., et al (Que.) (Civil ) (By Leave)

François Marseille, Nicholas J. Krnjevic and David A. Johnson for the appellant.

Pierre C. Bellavance and Gabrielle Brochu for the respondent J.R. Normand Inc.

Jean-Guy Lebel for the respondent Scierie Thomas-Louis Tremblay Inc. (did not participate at the hearing).

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

                                                         SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

                                                             CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME

                                                                                                                  - 2004 -    

             10/06/04

                                                                                                          - 2005 -