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. |
34 - 36
37 - 48
-
-
49 - 60
-
61 - 65
-
66
-
-
67 - 69
-
-
-
-
-
-
70
71 |
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 |
W.S.
Gregory Lafontaine
Lafontaine & Associates
v. (30672)
Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
Scott C. Hutchison
A.G. of Ontario
FILING DATE: 20.12.2004
NLK-Celpac Canada (Montreal) Inc.
Alain Létourneau
Cain, Lamarre, Casgrain, Wells
c. (30688)
Canadian Industrial Risks Insurers, et autre (Qc)
Pierre Boivin
Kugler Kandestin
DATE DE PRODUCTION: 22.12.2004
Robert Stewart Cairns
D. Mayland McKimm, Q.C.
McKimm and Wishart
v. (30689)
Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)
M. Joyce DeWitt-Van Oosten
A.G. of British Columbia
FILING DATE: 22.12.2004
Claude Hernandez, et autre
Daniel Royer
Labelle, Boudrault, Côté et Associés
c. (30640)
Sa Majesté la Reine (Qc)
Chantal Grégoire
P.G. du Québec
DATE DE PRODUCTION: 23.12.2004
Telus Communications Inc.
John F. Rook, Q.C.
Bennett, Jones
v. (30698)
Delta Cable Communications Ltd., on behalf of itself and Coast Cable Communications Ltd., et al. (F.C.)
C.C. Johnston, Q.C.
Johnston & Buchan
FILING DATE: 23.12.2004
George Maniatakos
Simon Lahaie
Pepper et Associés
c. (30691)
Paul Morin, et autre (Qc)
Pierre R. Sicotte
Tremblay, Brosseau, Fleury, Savoie
DATE DE PRODUCTION: 23.12.2004
Eli Lilly and Company
Anthony G. Creber
Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson
v. (30693)
Apotex Inc. (F.C.)
Harry Radomski
Goodmans
FILING DATE: 24.12.2004
Her Majesty the Queen
John H. Sims, Q.C.
A.G. of Canada
v. (30695)
Imperial Oil Limited (F.C.)
Al Meghji
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt
FILING DATE: 29.12.2004
The Corporation of the City of Surrey
Craig MacFarlane
Legal Services Division
v. (30696)
Canada Safeway Limited (B.C.)
Robert V. Wickett
MacKenzie Fujisawa
- and between -
City of Surrey
v. (30696)
Canada Safeway Limited
Robert V. Wickett
MacKenzie Fujisawa
FILING DATE: 29.12.2004
The Diocese of Toronto Camps, (Anglican Church of Canada)
Yvonne J. Hamlin
Borden, Ladner, Gervais
v. (30697)
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (Ont.)
Chris Schulze
Davis, Webb, Schulze & Moon
FILING DATE: 29.12.2004
Leon Grinshpun
Leon Grinshpun
v. (30700)
Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)
W.J. Scott Bell
A.G. of British Columbia
FILING DATE: 29.12.2004
Kristoffer Wang
Sergio Grillone
Will Barristers
v. (30584)
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Ont.)
Elisa A. Scali
Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson
FILING DATE: 30.12.2004
Adela Turczinski, in her personal capacity and as executor for the estate of Maria Domicela Turczinski
J. Gardner Hodder
Polten & Hodder
v. (30701)
Dupont Heating & Air Conditionning Limited (Ont.)
John M. Burnes
Brown & Burnes
FILING DATE: 30.12.2004
Anahit Cilinger
Michel Savonitto
Marchand, Melançon, Forget
c. (30703)
Procureur général du Québec, et autres (Qc)
Robert Monette
Bernard, Roy & Associés
DATE DE PRODUCTION: 31.12.2004
Conquest Vacations Company
Christopher Ashby
v. (30704)
T-Comm/A Travel Communication Association Inc. (Ont.)
Timothy J. Law
Heifetz, Crozier, Law
FILING DATE: 04.01.2005
Gabor L. Zsoldos
Gabor Zsoldos
v. (30705)
Ontario Association of Architects, et al. (Ont.)
P. John Brunner
Brunner and Lundy
FILING DATE: 05.01.2005
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE
|
|
DEMANDES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
JANUARY 10, 2005 / LE 10 JANVIER 2005
CORAM: Chief Justice McLachlin and Binnie and Charron JJ.
La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Binnie et Charron
M.W.F.
v. (30575)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law (Non Charter) - Young offenders - Right to counsel - Waiver - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to apply the decision of this court in R. v. Prosper - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law misinterpreting the provisions of section 56 of the Young Offenders Act - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in misinterpreting section 11 of the Young Offenders Act - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by misapplying and misinterpreting the law in finding that the inculpatory statement made by the Applicant, to a police officer, was admissible as evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by misapplying and misinterpreting the law with respect to the waiver given by the Applicant - R. v. Prosper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236 - Young Offenders Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Y-1
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 26, 2003 Provincial Court of British Columbia (Lazar J.) |
|
Statement made by Applicant during videotaped interview deemed admissible on voir dire; Applicant found guilty of sexual assault causing bodily harm |
|
|
|
July 28, 2003 Provincial Court of British Columbia (Lazar, J.) |
|
Applicant sentenced to 24 months conditional probation for sexual assault conviction, and 3 months conditional probation for breach of probation |
|
|
|
August 19, 2004 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Finch C.J. [dissenting], Lowry and Huddart JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
October 18, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Canutilities Holdings Ltd.
v. (30492)
Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Taxation - Assessment - Dividends - Capital gains - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in determining what constitutes a “series of transactions or events” for the purposes of the Income Tax Act and specifically subsection 55(2) of the Act - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that pre-ordination is the sole and proper test in determining what constitutes a “series of transactions or events” at common law - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that tax planning and the achievement of tax avoidance is a sufficient nexus or connection to cause independent transactions carried out for their own bona fide commercial purposes to constitute a “series of transactions or events” at common law - Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), s. 55(2)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 28, 2003 Tax Court of Canada (Hershfield J.) |
|
Applicant’s appeal from the assessment made under the Income Tax Act for the 1996 and 1997 taxation years allowed; referred back to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment |
|
|
|
July 19, 2004 Federal Court of Appeal (Rothstein, Noël, and Evans JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed |
|
|
|
August 30, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada
|
|
Application for leave to appeal filed
|
|
|
|
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario
v. (30521)
Granite Power Corporation (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural law - Civil procedure - Motion to strike - Torts - Misfeasance in public office - Private utility company bringing action against Crown after electricity market opened to competition - Court of Appeal allowing action to continue in respect of claim for misfeasance in public office only - Whether claim for misfeasance in public office should be struck out - Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, Rule 21.01(1)(b).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 27, 2002 Superior Court of Justice (Chadwick J.) |
|
Parts of Respondent’s statement of claim struck out |
|
|
|
September 11, 2003 Divisional Court, Superior Court of Justice (O’Driscoll, Cusinato and Howden JJ.) |
|
Appeal dismissed. |
|
|
|
August 3, 2004 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Catzman, Moldaver and Goudge JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed in part; action allowed to continue in respect of the claim for misfeasance in public office only |
|
|
|
September 23, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
October 27, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Conditional application for leave to cross-appeal filed |
|
|
|
Synchronics and Ian Brown
v. (30612)
Synchronics, Incorporated (F.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (civil) - Procedural law - Federal Court Rules - Personal Applicant attempting to represent Applicant company - Can a court lawfully use minor procedural rules to defeat statutory protections and fundamental principles ofjustice?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
March 23, 1999 Federal Court of Canada (Teitelbaum J.) |
|
Applicant’s motion requesting leave for Synchronics to be represented by Ian Brown under Rule 120 of the Federal Court Rules, dismissed |
|
|
|
May 7, 1999 Federal Court of Canada (Teitelbaum J.) |
|
Motion for reconsideration dismissed |
|
|
|
May 14, 2004 Federal Court of Appeal (Evans J.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
July 14, 2004 Federal Court of Appeal (Evans, Sharlow and Malone JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
September 30, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Applications for leave to appeal and to extend time filed |
|
|
|
Marc-André Bouliane
c. (30401)
Procureur général du Québec et le ministre de la Sécurité publique du Québec (Qc)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit administratif — Tribunaux — Appel — Contrôle judiciaire — Norme de retenue judiciaire — Crainte raisonnable de partialité — Équité procédurale — Enquête sur la conduite d’un coroner — La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en statuant qu’elle n’est pas tenue à la règle usuelle de retenue judiciaire lorsqu’elle examine une conclusion en matière de partialité d’un décideur? — Art. 14 de la Loi sur la recherche des causes et circonstances des décès, L.R.Q. ch. R-0.2 — L’enquête tenue en vertu de l’art. 14 comporte‐t‐elle un caractère décisionnel demandant une application plus rigoureuse des règles d’équité procédurale quant à la divulgation de la preuve et au rôle du procureur désigné pour assister le juge enquêteur?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 1er octobre 2002 Cour supérieure du Québec (Le juge Corriveau) |
|
Requête du demandeur en révision judiciaire, jugement déclaratoire et arrêt des procédures accueillie. Annulation de l’enquête pour crainte raisonnable de partialité et arrêt des procédures. |
|
|
|
Le 28 avril 2004 Cour d’appel du Québec (Les juges Gendreau, Forget et Morissette) |
|
Appel des intimés accueilli. Conclusion de crainte raisonnable de partialité infirmée, arrêt des procédures annulé, requêtes en révision judiciaire rejetées. |
|
|
|
Le 22 juin 2004 Cour d’appel du Québec (Le juge Delisle) |
|
Requête en suspension d’exécution du jugement rendu le 28 avril 2004 rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 22 juin 2004 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée.
|
|
|
|
CORAM: Major, Fish and Abella JJ.
Les juges Major, Fish et Abella
Amherst Crane Rentals Limited
v. (30507)
Arlene Clare Perring, personally and as a Trustee of the estate of Ashley Perring, Deceased (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law – Creditor and debtor – Property law – Estates – Executors and administrators – Statutes – Interpretation – Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs) – Designation of beneficiary – Deceased having designated spouse as beneficiary of RRSP’s – Spouse receiving proceeds from plan administrator – Spouse also named as executrix in will – Executrix filing voluntary assignment in bankruptcy in respect of estate – Executrix treating RRSP proceeds as falling outside estate and refusing to pay proceeds to trustee in bankruptcy – Estate creditor making claim against estate for indebtedness of deceased’s liability as director of contractor under the Construction Lien Act – Estate creditor seeking order that estate trustee holding proceeds of RRSPs in trust for them – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding proceeds of RRSP’s not assets of deceased’s estate and exempt from claims of creditors where beneficiary designated – Whether Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s. 53 of Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S-26 (“SLRA”) as operating as exception to s. 2(1) Estates Administration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-22 (“ESA”), and shielding RRSP proceeds from claims of estate creditors directly against executors – Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S-26, s. 53 – Estates Administration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-22, s. 2(1).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 12, 2002 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Cameron J.) |
|
Applicant’s application dismissed; Applicant ordered to pay costs, fixed at $30,000 |
|
|
|
June 16, 2004 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Laskin, Goudge and Feldman JJ.A.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Applicant’s appeal on the merits dismissed; Applicant’s appeal on costs granted, amount reduced to $15,000.00 September 30, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Rogers Communications Incorporated
v. (30462)
Sandra Buschau, Sharon M. Parent, Albert Poy, David Allen, Eileen Anderson, Christine Ash,
Frederick Scott Atkinson, Jaspal Badyal, Mary Balfry, Carolyn Louise Barry, Raj Bhamber,
Evelyn Bishop, Deborah Louise Bissonnette, George Boshko, Colleen Burke, Brian Carroll,
Lynn Cassidy, Florence K. Colbeck, Peter Colistro, Ernest A. Cottle, Ken Dann, Donna De Freitas,
Terry Dewell, Katrin Dolemeyer, Elizabeth Engel, Karen Engleson, George Fierheller, Joan Fisher,
Gwen Ford, Don R. Fraser, Mabel Garwood, Cheryl Gervais, Rose Gibb, Roger Gilodo, Murray
Gjernes, Daphne Goode, Karen L. Gould, Peter James Hadikin, Marian Heibloem‐Reeves, Thomas
Hobley, John Iannantuoni, Vincent A. Iannantuoni, Ron Inglis, Mehroon Janmohamed, Michael J.
Jervis, Marlyn Kellner, Karen Kilba, Douglas James Kilgour, Yoshinori Koga, Martin Kosuljandic,
Ursula M. Kreiger, Wing Lee, Robert Leslie, Thomas A. Lewthwaite, Holly LEGO indicia, David
Liddell, Rita Lim, Betty C. Lloyd, Rob Lowrie, Che‐Chung Ma, Jennifer MacDonald, Robert John
MacLeod, Sherry M. Madden, Tom Makortoff, Fatima Manji, Edward B. Mason, Glenn A.
McFarlane, Onagh Metcalfe, Dorothy Mitchell, Shirley C.T. Mui, William Neal, Katherine Sheila
Nimmo, Gloria Paiement, Lynda Pasacreta, Barbara Peake, Vera Piccini, Inez Pinkerton, Dave
Podworny, Doug Pontifex, Victoria Prochaska, Frank Radelja, Gale Rauk, Ruth Roberts, Ann Louise
Rodgers, Clifford James Roe, Pamela Mamon Roe, Delores Rose, Sabrina Roza‐Pereira, Sandra
Rybchinsky, Kenneth T. Salmond, Marie Schneider, Alexander C. Scott, Inderjeet Sharma, Hugh
Donald Shiel, Michael Shirley, George Allen Short, Glenda Simoncioni, Norm Smallwood, Gilles A.
St. Dennis, Geri Stephen, Grace Isobel Stone, Mari Tsang, Carmen Tuvera, Sheera Waisman,
Margaret Watson, Gertrude Westlake, Robert E. White, Patricia Jane Whitehead, Aileen Wilson,
Elaine Wirtz, Joe Wuychuk, Zlatka Young and National Trust Company
- and between -
National Trust Company
v. (30462)
Sandra Buschau, Sharon M. Parent, Albert Poy, David Allen, Eileen Anderson, Christine Ash,
Frederick Scott Atkinson, Jaspal Badyal, Mary Balfry, Carolyn Louise Barry, Raj Bhamber,
Evelyn Bishop, Deborah Louise Bissonnette, George Boshko, Colleen Burke, Brian Carroll,
Lynn Cassidy, Florence K. Colbeck, Peter Colistro, Ernest A. Cottle, Ken Dann, Donna De Freitas,
Terry Dewell, Katrin Dolemeyer, Elizabeth Engel, Karen Engleson, George Fierheller, Joan Fisher,
Gwen Ford, Don R. Fraser, Mabel Garwood, Cheryl Gervais, Rose Gibb, Roger Gilodo, Murray
Gjernes, Daphne Goode, Karen L. Gould, Peter James Hadikin, Marian Heibloem‐Reeves, Thomas
Hobley, John Iannantuoni, Vincent A. Iannantuoni, Ron Inglis, Mehroon Janmohamed, Michael J.
Jervis, Marlyn Kellner, Karen Kilba, Douglas James Kilgour, Yoshinori Koga, Martin Kosuljandic,
Ursula M. Kreiger, Wing Lee, Robert Leslie, Thomas A. Lewthwaite, Holly LEGO indicia, David
Liddell, Rita Lim, Betty C. Lloyd, Rob Lowrie, Che‐Chung Ma, Jennifer MacDonald, Robert John
MacLeod, Sherry M. Madden, Tom Makortoff, Fatima Manji, Edward B. Mason, Glenn A.
McFarlane, Onagh Metcalfe, Dorothy Mitchell, Shirley C.T. Mui, William Neal, Katherine Sheila
Nimmo, Gloria Paiement, Lynda Pasacreta, Barbara Peake, Vera Piccini, Inez Pinkerton, Dave
Podworny, Doug Pontifex, Victoria Prochaska, Frank Radelja, Gale Rauk, Ruth Roberts, Ann Louise
Rodgers, Clifford James Roe, Pamela Mamon Roe, Delores Rose, Sabrina Roza‐Pereira, Sandra
Rybchinsky, Kenneth T. Salmond, Marie Schneider, Alexander C. Scott, Inderjeet Sharma, Hugh
Donald Shiel, Michael Shirley, George Allen Short, Glenda Simoncioni, Norm Smallwood, Gilles A.
St. Dennis, Geri Stephen, Grace Isobel Stone, Mari Tsang, Carmen Tuvera, Sheera Waisman,
Margaret Watson, Gertrude Westlake, Robert E. White, Patricia Jane Whitehead, Aileen Wilson,
Elaine Wirtz, Joe Wuychuk, Zlatka Young and Rogers Communications Incorporated (B.C.)
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 trust2
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
Bank of Montreal
v. (30527)
Deborah Jean Collum (B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Guaranty - Suretyship - Banks - Banking operations - Disclosure - Spousal guarantee for line of credit for husband’s fir - Duty on part of lending institution to disclose - Does a creditor have a positive duty to disclose information to a proposed spousal guarantor in advance of the contract of guarantee? - Is the Court of Appeal’s formulation of that duty too broad? - Is it consistent with previous authority? - What effect does the existence of independent legal advice have on the enforceability of a spousal guarantee? - Did the Court of Appeal improperly disregard the fact of independent legal advice in determining whether the creditor’s duty to disclose had been satisfied? - Are the decisions of the House of Lords in Barclays Bank v. O’Brien, [1993] 4 All E.R. 417, and Barclays Bank plc v. Coleman, [2001] 4 All E.R. 449, the law in Canada? - Did the Court of Appeal properly interpret and apply the principles set out in those decisions?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
March 3, 2003 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Burnyeat J.) |
|
Applicant’s mortgage action allowed: judgment for $87, 377.77 plus interest and order nisi of foreclosure granted. |
|
|
|
June 28, 2004 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver) (Southin, Newbury, Saunders JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed. |
|
|
|
September 27, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Andrea Lori Torchia
v. (30577)
Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Company of Canada (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Insurance - Exclusions - Arson - Applicant’s husband convicted of arson after her property was destroyed by fire - Applicant’s action for indemnity under her insurance policy dismissed - Whether courts below erred in holding that exclusion clause was not ambiguous - Whether courts below erred in failing to apply contra proferentum rule of contract interpretation - Whether courts below failed to apply modern approach to insurance contract interpretation.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 26, 2003 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Sanderson J.) |
|
Applicant’s action for indemnity under insurance policy against Respondent dismissed |
|
|
|
June 3, 2004 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Doherty, Goudge and Simmons JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
September 29, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
September 29, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Motion for extension of time filed |
|
|
|
CORAM: Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.
Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et Deschamps
Nicole Mackenzie
c. (30359)
Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.) (N.-É.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Charte canadienne (criminel), art. 15, 16, 19, 24 - Droit criminel - Infractions – Infraction punissable par voie de déclaration sommaire de culpabilité - Procédure préalable au procès - Langue du procès - Droit de l’accusé d’obtenir un procès dans sa langue – Obligation du juge d’informer l’accusé - Réparation – Code criminel, L.R.C. 1985, ch. C-46, art. 530 (3), 686 - Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.N.S.1989, c.293 - Summary Proceedings Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 450 – Provincial Court Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c.238. - Accusée non informée de son droit par le juge lors de sa comparution sans procureur en Cour provinciale – Arrêt des procédures décrété par la Cour supérieure – Nouveau procès ordonné par la Cour d’appel - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit dans son analyse de l’opportunité de recourir à l’arrêt des procédures en l’espèce?
HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES
Le 5 juin 2002
Cour provinciale
Comparution de la demanderesse, en tant qu’accusée, pour une infraction au Motor Vehicle Act (avoir dépassé la limite de vitesse permise)
Le 10 avril 2003
Cour supérieure (N.S. Supreme Court)
(Le juge Edwards)
Appel accueilli; arrêt des procédures décrété
Le 27 janvier 2004
Cour d’appel
(Les juges Fichaud, Saunders et Chipman)
Appel accueilli; nouveau procès ordonné
Le 28 mai 2004
Cour suprême du Canada
Demandes d’autorisation d’appel et de prorogation de délai déposées
Michel Morel et Linda Rivet
c. (30586)
Société canadienne des postes (Qc)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit civil – Contrat – Nature du contrat – Contrat d’entreprise ou de service – Résiliation unilatérale – Motif de résiliation ‐ Faute – Bonne foi ‐ Dommages‐intérêts – Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q. ch. C-12, art. 4, 5, 49 - Code civil du Québec, art. 35, 2125 - Résiliation par l’intimée du contrat du demandeur à la suite d’une enquête pour fraude – Accusation et acquittement subséquents – Quel était le statut du demandeur et la décision du premier juge sur ce point était‐elle révisable par la Cour d’appel? - La Société canadienne des postes pouvait‐elle se prévaloir de l’article 2125 du Code civil du Québec? - La Société canadienne des postes avait‐elle un motif de mettre fin à son contrat avec le demandeur? - Les droits fondamentaux du demandeur ont‐ils été bafoués?
HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES
Le 2 décembre 2003 Cour supérieure du Québec (Le juge Fréchette) |
|
Demande accueillie en partie; octroi de dommages-intérêts; déclaration d’exécution nonobstant appel pour une partie des dommages. |
|
|
|
Le 30 août 2004 Cour d’appel du Québec (Montréal) (Les juges Mailhot, Chamberland et Forget) |
|
Appel accueilli; jugement de première instance infirmé; action des demandeurs rejetée. |
|
|
|
Le 29 octobre 2004 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée. |
|
|
|
Mehrdad Golzarian
c. (30618)
Le Procureur général du Québec et Sûreté du Québec (Qc)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Procédure - Appel - Action personnelle du demandeur intentée devant le Tribunal des droits de la personne du Québec déclarée irrecevable - Requête pour permission d’appel rejetée - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en se basant sur la décision du Tribunal des droits de la personne, alors qu’il avait erré quant à l’application de l’art. 77 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., ch. C-12? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en refusant de considérer et d’appliquer l’art. 2895 du Code civil du Québec, L.Q. 1991, ch. 64? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en se basant sur les jugements rendus le 19 mars 2003 et en février 2002? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en écartant de façon prématurée le présent dossier et en concluant que le litige entre les parties relève des relations de travail?
HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES
Le 2 juillet 2004 Tribunal des droit de la personne (La juge Pauzé) |
|
Requête en irrecevabilité de l’intimé Procureur général du Québec accueillie : le Tribunal décline sa compétence à l’égard de la requête introductive d’instance du demandeur |
|
|
|
Le 25 août 2004 Cour d’appel du Québec (Le juge Rochon) |
|
Requête pour permission d’appel rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 21 octobre 2004 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée
|
|
|
|
Frank Comeau and Memramcook Valley Take‐Out Ltd.
v. (30639)
Daniel G. Pole and Brewer MacPherson Quinn
- and between -
Frank Comeau
v. (30639)
Kenneth Martin (N.B.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Torts - Libel and slander - Professional negligence - Statements made in the course of judicial proceedings - Whether the Applicants were denied a fair trail because of bias on the part of the learned trial judge? - Whether the Applicants were denied a fair trial because of excessive interventions on the part of the learned trial judge? - Whether the Applicants were denied a fair trial because of witness tampering on the part of counsel for the Respondents, or by reason of unfair actions on the part of the Law Society of New Brunswick? - Whether the learned trial judge erred in his appreciation of the evidence?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 10, 2003 Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick (Guerette J.) |
|
Applicant Comeau’s action against the Respondent Matin for failing to properly represent him in a contract dispute, dismissed; Applicant Comeau’s action against the Respondents Pole and Brewer for inducing a breach of contract, dismissed; Applicant Comeau’s action against the Respondent Pole for fraud, dismissed |
|
|
|
September 28, 2004 Court of Appeal of New Brunswick (Drapeau C.J.N.B., Deschênes and Robertson JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed
|
|
|
|
November 16, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
Guy Lavoie
c. (30583)
Bon L Canada Inc. (Qc)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit administratif - Droit du travail - Contrôle judiciaire - Employeur et employé - Indemnisation - Congédiement - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que le cumul des indemnités donnait lieu à une décision manifestement déraisonnable? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré de façon manifeste dans son application de la norme d’intervention? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en décidant qu’il n’y avait pas chose jugée dans cette cause? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que la perte d’emploi implique automatiquement la cessation du bénéfice des avantages sociaux tributaires du lien d’emploi? - Article 128 de la Loi sur les normes du travail, L.R.Q., ch. N-1.1.
HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES
Le 23 mars 2001 Bureau du Commissaire général du travail (La commissaire Béchara) |
|
Plainte en vertu de l’art. 124 de la Loi sur les normes du travail pour congédiement sans cause juste et suffisante accueillie; intimée condamnée à payer au demandeur, à titre d’indemnité, l’équivalent du salaire et des autres avantages dont l’a privé le congédiement, ainsi qu’une somme à être déterminée à titre d’indemnité de perte d’emploi, de dommages moraux et de remboursement d’honoraires d’avocat; compétence réservée pour établir le quantum en cas de mésentente entre les parties |
|
|
|
Le 13 septembre 2001 Cour supérieure du Québec (Le juge Viau) |
|
Requête en révision judiciaire et en sursis de procédures de l’intimée rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 27 septembre 2001 Cour d’appel du Québec (Le juge Baudouin) |
|
|
|
|
|
Requête pour permission d’appel de l’intimée rejetéeLe 2 août 2002 Bureau du Commissaire général du travail (La commissaire Béchara) |
|
Requête du demandeur portant sur la fixation du quantum accueillie |
|
|
|
Le 6 janvier 2003 Cour supérieure du Québec (La juge Picard) |
|
Requête en révision judiciaire de l’intimée rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 23 août 2004 Cour d’appel du Québec (Les juges Gendreau, Rochette et Rayle) |
|
Appel de l’intimée accueilli |
|
|
|
Le 22 octobre 2004 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée
|
|
|
|
JUDGMENTS ON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE |
|
JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES DEMANDES D’AUTORISATION |
JANUARY 13, 2005 / LE 13 JANVIER 2005
30405 Jonathan H. Marler v. Andre Boudreau (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Major and Charron JJ.
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C38201, dated April 19, 2004, is dismissed with costs.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C38201, daté du 19 avril 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural law - Civil procedure - Counsel of choice - Evidence - Appeal - Disqualification of counsel - Right to self-representation - Proof of fraudulent conveyance or unlawful preference- Whether a decision that the question of whether a competent civil litigant can be self-represented is a matter of judicial discretion and not an absolute right is in conflict with established jurisprudence and a constitutional right - Whether Courts below ignored established precedent on the proof required to establish fraud and in particular a fraudulent conveyance or preference - Whether Court of Appeal misinterpreted jurisprudence and whether upholding the trial decision to disqualify counsel will lower standard for disqualification of counsel - Whether courts below bolstered their decisions by a multiplicity of legal and factual errors.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 10, 2002 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Nadeau J.) |
|
Application by applicant to change counsel or to represent himself dismissed; Assignment of mortgage to applicant declared a fraudulent conveyance, an unlawful preference and void. |
|
|
|
April 19, 2004 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Abella, Cronk and Juriansz, [Adhoc] JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
June 16, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
30455 Iris Plamondon, Gladys Wacowich v. Russel Czaban (Alta.) (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 Alberta (Edmonton), Number 0203‐0277‐AC, dated May 11, 2004, is dismissed with costs.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Alberta (Edmonton), numéro 0203‐0277‐AC, daté du 11 mai 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter - Civil - Civil rights - Property law - Estates - Jointly held assets - Survivorship - When does the death of a joint holder of title lead to the subject property being held on a constructive trust for the estate of the deceased - Whether the rule of advancement is limited to fathers passing property to children - Whether supporting the finding that there is a gift to the surviving child by using the rule of advancement offends equality under the Charter?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 28, 2002 Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Lewis J.) |
|
Applicants’ action dismissed; transfer of assets allowed |
|
|
|
May 11, 2004 Court of Appeal of Alberta (Côté, Russell and Clackson JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
August 9, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
30465 Sharon Ann Mariani v. John Adrian Lemstra, Anne Lemstra (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie and Charron 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 C39746, dated May 12, 2004, is dismissed with costs. The application for leave to cross‐appeal is dismissed with costs.
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 C39746, daté du 12 mai 2004, est rejetée avec dépens. La demande d’autorisation d’appel incident est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Property law - Real property - Agreement of Purchase and Sale - Remedies - Torts - Negligent misrepresentation - Purchaser discovering latent defects in construction of home rendering it dangerous to occupy - Relationship between the minimum standards for safe construction set out in Building Code legislation and the “dangerous defects” threshold in Winnipeg Condominium Corporation No. 36 v. Bird Construction Co. - Whether builders that fail to meet Building Code standards may use “dangerous defects” threshold to shield themselves from liability for costs of repairing Building Code defects - If dangerous defects in a dwelling cause damage to other elements of the structure, should a builder’s liability be limited to the cost of repairing only the dangerous defects or extend to cover the costs of repairing the damaged elements that are related or causally connected to the negligence of the builder and/or the dangerous defects?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 14, 2003 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Dunn J.) |
|
Applicant awarded damages of $299,610 for non -disclosure of latent defects in house construction |
|
|
|
May 12, 2004 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Sharpe, Catzman and Goudge JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed in part; Applicant awarded damages of $100,657 |
|
|
|
August 13, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application for leave to appeal filedSeptember 10, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to cross-appeal filed. |
|
|
|
30351 Ville de Québec c. André Beaurivage, Roy, Métivier, Roberge Inc., en sa qualité de syndic de l’actif du débiteur André Beaurivage, Gérald Robitaille & Associés Ltée (Qc) (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 du Québec (Québec), numéro 200‐09‐004329‐030, daté du 15 mars 2004, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de l’intimée Roy, Métivier, Roberge Inc, en sa qualité de syndic de l’actif du débiteur André Beaurivage.
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Quebec), Number 200‐09‐004329‐030, dated March 15, 2004, is dismissed with costs to the respondent Roy, Métivier, Robert Inc., en sa qualité de syndic de l’actif du débiteur André Beaurivage.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit municipal - Renouvellement d’un permis - Pouvoir de limiter le nombre de permis - Indemnisation - Le droit au renouvellement d’un permis et d’une licence annuelle de véhicule hippomobile est-il un droit essentiellement précaire? - Le pouvoir de la demanderesse de limiter le nombre de permis et licences prévu à sa Charte inclut-il celui de réduire ou révoquer le nombre de permis et licences existant sans indemnité?
HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES
Le 17 décembre 2002 Cour supérieure du Québec (Le juge Moulin) |
|
Requête de l’intimé, André Beaurivage, pour jugement déclaratoire, accueillie; |
|
|
|
Le 15 mars 2004 Cour d’appel du Québec (Les juges Rothman, Thibault et Rochon) |
|
Appel accueilli en partie |
|
|
|
Le 13 mai 2004 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée
|
|
|
|
30404 Jonathan Marler v. Robert Platt AND BETWEEN 798839 Ontario Ltd. v. Robert Platt, Kaarina Malmstrom, Murrayfield Corp., Jonathan Marler, Scott & Pichelli Ltd. (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Major and Charron JJ.
The applications for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C37583, dated April 19, 2004, are dismissed with costs.
Les demandes d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C37583, daté du 19 avril 2004, sont rejetées avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural Law - Evidence - Fresh Evidence - Appeal - Reliance on Reasons for Judgment in separate proceedings - What are the minimum procedural and evidentiary standards required of an appellate court conducting a trial de novo on fresh evidence - Can an appellate court rely upon findings of fact and credibility of a trial judge in a separate proceeding than the one appealed from - Under what circumstances should an appellate court hearing an appeal concerning fresh evidence decide the issue rather than sending the matter back for a new trial - What are the rules for determining whether fresh evidence should be admitted at the hearing of a civil appeal - Should fresh evidence be admitted on a civil appeal before the appellate court considers the appeal on its merits - Should respondents be afforded the opportunity to rebut or explain the fresh evidence - What is the impact on a fresh evidence application of the filing of responding material - When should the appellate court direct a new trial or make findings of fact and credibility based upon fresh evidence - Is the appellate court required to give reasons for the admission of fresh evidence.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 7, 2000 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Farley J.) |
|
Respondent Platt declared bankrupt pursuant to s. 43(6) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act; Receiving Order granted |
|
|
|
March 23, 2001 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Finlayson, Labrosse and MacPherson JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
July 2, 2001 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Farley J.) |
|
Further hearing ordered of respondent Platt’s motion to annul the Receiving Order pursuant to s. 187(9) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, |
|
|
|
November 28, 2001 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Farley J.) |
|
Respondent Platt’s motion to annul the Receiving Order pursuant to s. 187(9) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act dismissed |
|
|
|
April 19, 2004 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Abella, Cronk and Juriansz [ad hoc]) |
|
Appeal granted; Receiving Order and Judgements set aside |
|
|
|
June 17, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
First application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
June 18, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Second application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
30483 Daniel Martin Younger v. Her Majesty the Queen (Man.) (Criminal) (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 AR01‐30‐04966, dated June 29, 2004, is dismissed.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Manitoba, numéro AR01‐30‐04966, daté du 29 juin 2004, est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Evidence - Procedural law - Trial - Effect of jury member contravening instruction by the trial judge not to attend the crime scene or personally investigate the case by doing both and sharing her findings with other jurors - Whether trial judge erred by not discharging the juror who accidentally encountered the Applicant in handcuffs and shackles - Whether trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury on the issue of post-offence conduct - Whether demeanour evidence and silence in response to police questioning was wrongly admitted into evidence at the trial - Whether cold weather exposure constitutes bodily harm under section 229(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code - Whether trial judge misdirected the jury by instructing it that it could convict of first degree murder if it was satisfied that the Applicant intended to kill or intended to cause bodily harm with the knowledge that death was likely at some point during the kidnapping or unlawful confinement - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by failing to find reversible error in the trial judge’s instruction on reasonable doubt - Whether reversible error in the trial judge’s refusal to issue a Vetrovec warning to the jury respecting Diane Grisdale’s evidence - Whether reversible error in the trial judge’s decision to prohibit defence counsel from cross-examining Ericka Grisdale as to whether she worked as a prostitute - Whether the verdict was reasonable.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
September 1, 1999 Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba (MacInnes, J.) |
|
Conviction: first-degree murder |
|
|
|
June 29, 2004 Court of Appeal of Manitoba (Huband, Twaddle and Steel JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
August 26, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
30556 Wilfred Dwayne Johnson v. Her Majesty the Queen (N.S.) (Criminal) (By Leave)
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie and Charron JJ.
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, Number CAC 173767, dated July 14, 2004, is dismissed.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Nouvelle‐Écosse, numéro CAC 173767, daté du 14 juillet 2004, est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law (Non Charter) - Offences - Murder - Evidence - Sentencing - Out-of-court statements - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the statements of the deceased relating to prior incidents between the Applicant and the deceased were properly admissible at trial - whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in allowing a conviction to be sustained regarding the infant deceased where not supported by the evidence - whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in sustaining a sentence that was excessively harsh.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 31, 2001 Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Wright J.) |
|
Applicant convicted of two counts of second degree murder; Court ordered that the Applicant serve a sentence of life imprisonment and be ineligible for parole for 21 years |
|
|
|
July 14, 2004 Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (Bateman, Oland and Fichaud JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal from conviction and sentence dismissed |
|
|
|
September 29, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
30485 Jodi Edell, Cara Edell and Hayden Edell, Samantha Edell, Marek Edell and Mayson Edell by their Litigation Guardian, Jodi Edell v. Paul Sitzer in all of his capacities, Michael Sitzer, Paul Sitzer Holdings Limited, and Geraldine Sitzer Holdings Ltd. (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 C36820, dated June 3, 2004, is dismissed with costs.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C36820, daté du 3 juin 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Property Law - Estates - Mutual wills - Constructive trusts - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not addressing the legal issues involved in this case which are of significant national importance as a result of the evolution of laws dealing with matrimonial, dependants’ support, and trust matters - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not adopting the approach taken by decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and other decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal dealing with similar issues that are of great impact on the continuing evolution of the laws in the aforementioned areas - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in basing its decision exclusively on the findings of fact made by the trial judge.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 5, 2001 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Cullity J.) |
|
Applicants’ claim to have Paul Sitzer pass his accounts granted; all other claims dismissed |
|
|
|
June 3, 2004 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Labrosse, MacPherson, and Juriansz JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
August 27, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
30487 David James Sneddon, Kirpal Singh Bains, Balbir Singh Bhate, Douglas Wallace Platt, suing on their own behalf and in a representative capacity on behalf of all persons who were members of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Pension Plan in 1980, and received a refund of pension Contributions when transferred to the Metro Transit Operating Company v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia (Minister of Finance, Corporate Relations), Superannuation Commissioner, Trustee of the Public Service Pension Plan also known as Public Service Board of Trustees, British Columbia Pension Corporation (B.C.) (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 British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA31104, dated May 26, 2004, is dismissed with costs to the respondents, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia (Minister of Finance, Corporate Relations), Superannuation Commissioner, Trustee of the Public Service Pension Plan also known as Public Service Board of Trustees .
La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA31104, daté du 26 mai 2004, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimés, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia (Minister of Finance, Corporate Relations), Superannuation Commissioner, Trustee of the Public Service Pension Plan also known as Public Service Board of Trustees .
NATURE OF THE CASE
Labour law - Pensions - Termination of employment - Refund of contributions - Public transit employees being transferred to new corporation - Certain employees opting to receive refunds of their pension contributions instead of transferring their pensions - Whether s. 7 of Metro Transit Operating Company Act, S.B.C. 1979, c. 257, should be interpreted as prohibition against refund of contributions.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 30, 2003 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Warren J.) |
|
Applicants’ claims of breach of trust and entitlement to pension contributions dismissed |
|
|
|
May 26, 2004 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Prowse, Low and Thackray JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
August 24, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
30518 Yvan Duhamel c. Sa Majesté la Reine (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 500‐10‐002388‐021, daté du 23 juin 2004, est rejetée.
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐10‐002388‐021, dated June 23, 2004, is dismissed.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit criminel - Preuve - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en décidant implicitement que la délivrance d’un mandat ADN en vertu de motifs obtenus par processus d’élimination ne viole pas le principe interdisant l’auto-incrimination? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en décidant implicitement que la délivrance d’un mandat ADN en vertu de motifs obtenus par processus d’élimination en l’absence de nécessité sert au mieux l’administration de la justice?
HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES
Le 29 mai 2002 Cour du Québec, chambre criminelle et pénale (Le juge Polak) |
|
Demandeur trouvé coupable d’agression sexuelle (art. 271(1)a) du Code criminel) |
|
|
|
Le 23 juin 2004 Cour d’appel du Québec (Les juges Thibault, Rochon et Hilton) |
|
Appel rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 21 septembre 2004 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée
|
|
|
|
30450 Estela de Araujo v. Kenneth C. Read (B.C.) (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 British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA29268, dated May 13, 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 CA29268, daté du 13 mai 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural law - Appeal - Trial - Jury trial - Appellate court granting an appeal from a jury verdict and ordering a new trial - What is the test for a new civil trial after a jury verdict.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 21, 2001 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Clancy J.) |
|
Applicant awarded damages by jury of $162, 000; Application for the discharge of the jury dismissed; Application for mistrial dismissed |
|
|
|
May 13, 2004 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Low, Thackray and Smith [dissenting] JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal allowed; New trial ordered |
|
|
|
August 5, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
30413 Gérard Dodier c. 2436‐8094 Québec Inc., Benoît Viens (Qc) (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 du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐011222‐015, daté du 30 avril 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐011222‐015, dated April 30, 2004, is dismissed with costs.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Responsabilité civile - Le jugement de première instance contient-il des erreurs qui permettaient à la Cour d’appel d’intervenir tant dans l’application du droit que dans l’appréciation de la preuve? - À qui appartient le fardeau de la preuve? - Dans une altercation, jusqu’où va la responsabilité de l’initiateur, c’est-à-dire de celui qui pose le premier geste excessif? - Quelle est la norme de comportement acceptable pour un portier d’un établissement hôtelier public?
HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES
Le 28 juin 2001 Cour supérieure du Québec (Le juge Boily) |
|
Action du demandeur en dommages-intérêts rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 30 avril 2004 Cour d’appel du Québec (Les juges Forget, Rothman et Beauregard [dissident]) |
|
Appel rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 25 juin 2004 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée
|
|
|
|
30574 Mario Proulx c. Christiane Alary, Jacques L. Archambault, André P. Asselin, François Beauchamp, Jean Benoît, Louis Demers, Jean‐Pierre Desmarais, Gilles Fafard, Jean‐Jacques Gagnon, Gilles Godin, Andrée Gosselin, Gabriel Kordovi, Pierre Labelle, Diane Lajeunesse, Jean‐François Ménard, Pierre Mercille, Yves Poirier, Olivier Prat, Alain Robichaud, Hélène Schampaert (Qc) (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 du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐012133‐021, daté du 10 août 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐012133‐021, dated August 10, 2004, is dismissed with costs.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit commercial - Contrats - Droit des compagnies - Société - Le principe du formalisme dans le contrat a-t-il pour conséquence que la convention de société ne peut être considérée comme un amendement? - L’art. 2216 C.c.Q. exige-t-il l’unanimité des associés pour amender la convention de société - Le second paragraphe de l’art. 2216 C.c.Q. n’est-il que supplétif? - Qu’en est-il de l’absence d’acceptation tacite et de ratification de la part du demandeur?
HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES
Le 13 mars 2002 Cour supérieure du Québec (Le juge Champagne) |
|
Requête pour jugement déclaratoire du demandeur; rejetée |
|
|
|
Le 10 août 2004 Cour d’appel du Québec (Les juges Gendreau, Rochette et Rayle) |
|
Appel rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 8 octobre 2004 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée
|
|
|
|
30470 Gina Zanetti, Tina Zanetti v. Bonniehon Entreprises Ltd., Bonniehon Management Inc., Paul H. Cody, Andrew James Baillargeon (B.C.) (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 British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA031657, dated May 18, 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 CA031657, daté du 18 mai 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law-Appeal-Judicial review- Is the failure from the Chief Justice of the Appeal Court to recuse himself a violation of principles of procedural fairness and gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias? - Is the issue of failing to apply the principles of procedural fairness infringing upon Canadians right to fair hearings and access to justice?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
October 21, 2003 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Brenner C.J.B.C.) |
|
Respondents’ application for an order for security costs, allowed |
|
|
|
February 25, 2004 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Brenner C.J.B.C.) |
|
Applicants’ application for an order for an investigation of audiotapes for the proceedings of October 20 and 21, 2003, dismissed; Applicants’ application for reconsideration, dismissed; Applicants’ application for recusation, dismissed |
|
|
|
March 31, 2004 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Lowry J.A.) |
|
Applicants’ applications for indigent status and for extension of time, dismissed |
|
|
|
May 18, 2004 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Finch C.J.B.C., Donald and Low JJ.A.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Applicants’ application to discharge or vary the order of Lowry J., dismissedAugust 17, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
30607 D.L. c. A.L., P.M. (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)
Coram: La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Binnie et Charron
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐014498‐042, daté du 12 juillet 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.
The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐014498‐042, dated July 12, 2004, is dismissed with costs.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Procédure - Procédure civile - Actions - Exception déclinatoire - Droit de la famille - Garde - Aliments - Responsabilité civile - Dommages-intérêts - Requête introductive d’instance du demandeur contre les intimés pour garde d’enfants, fixation de pension alimentaire et dommages-intérêts - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en confirmant le jugement de la Cour supérieure suivant lequel il n’y a pas de fondement juridique pour poursuivre l’intimé parce qu’il n’assume pas les obligations parentales du demandeur et que les conditions ayant trait à la faute, au préjudice et au lien de causalité ne sont pas remplies envers lui?
HISTORIQUE DES PROCÉDURES
Le 28 avril 2004 Cour supérieure du Québec (La juge Monast) |
|
Requête en irrecevabilité de l’intimé à l’encontre de la requête du demandeur accueillie |
|
|
|
Le 12 juillet 2004 Cour d’appel du Québec (Les juges Rayle, Morissette et Lemelin [ad hoc]) |
|
Requête en rejet d’appel de l’intimé accueillie et appel du demandeur rejeté |
|
|
|
Le 2 novembre 2004 Cour suprême du Canada |
|
Demande d’autorisation d’appel et requête en prorogation de délai déposées
|
|
|
|
30513 The Neighbourhoods of Cornell Inc. v. 1440106 Ontario Inc., Samuel Lam and Peter Wong (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 C40522, dated June 8, 2004, is dismissed with costs.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C40522, daté du 8 juin 2004, est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Property law - Real property - Remedies - Specific performance - Procedural law - Motion for summary judgment - Respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing Applicant’s action for specific performance of alleged oral agreement for purchase of land granted - Court of Appeal affirming decision - Appropriate test for disregarding a party’s evidence on a summary judgment motion as “self-serving” to ensure that such motions do not become paper trials - Use courts should make of drafts of agreements proffered by one party in the course of memorializing an alleged oral agreement in determining whether essential terms of a contract have been agreed to orally - What constitutes part performance of an oral agreement for the purchase and sale of land so as to take the agreement out of the Statute of Frauds, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.19?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 16, 2003 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Spiegel J.) |
|
Motion for summary judgment dismissing Applicant’s action for specific performance of an oral agreement for the purchase of land granted |
|
|
|
June 8, 2004 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Weiler, Abella and Armstrong JJ.A.) |
|
Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
September 3, 2004 Supreme Court of Canada |
|
Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
MOTIONS |
|
REQUÊTES
|
4.1.2005
Before / Devant: MAJOR J.
Further order on motion for leave to intervene
BY / PAR: Canadian Association for Community Living and the Ethno-Racial People with Disabilities Coalition of Ontario
IN / DANS: David Hilewitz
v. (30125)
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (FC)
and between
Dirk de Jong
v. (30127)
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (FC)
Autre ordonnance relative à une requête en autorisation d’intervention
UPON APPLICATION by the Canadian Association for Community Living and the Ethno-Racial People with Disabilities Coalition of Ontario for leave to intervene in the above appeal and pursuant to the order of November 2, 2004;
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said intervener is granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding ten (10) minutes at the hearing of the appeal.
4.1.2005
Before / Devant: MAJOR J.
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the application for leave
General Motors of Canada Ltd.
v. (30668)
Her Majesty the Queen (FC)
Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la demande d’autorisation d’appel
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to February 1, 2005.
4.1.2005
Before / Devant: DESCHAMPS J.
Further order on motion for leave to intervene
BY / PAR: Canadian Association of Journalists
IN / DANS: Her Majesty the Queen
v. (30113)
Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, et al. (Ont.)
Autre ordonnance relative à une requête en autorisation d’intervention
DISMISSED / REJETÉE
UPON APPLICATION by the Canadian Association of Journalists for leave to intervene in the above appeal and pursuant to the order of October 22, 2004;
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said intervener is denied permission to present oral argument at the hearing of the appeal.
5.1.2005
Before / Devant: MAJOR J.
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum and book of authorities of the intervener Attorney General of Canada and to present 15 minutes of oral argument
Government of Saskatchewan
v. (29973)
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (Sask.)
Requête de l’intervenant le procureur général du Canada en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de ses mémoire et recueil de sources, et en vue de présenter une plaidoirie orale de 15 minutes
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to November 30, 2004.
5.1.2005
Before / Devant: MAJOR J.
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the factum and book of authorities of the intervener Attorney General of British Columbia and to present 15 minutes of oral argument
Government of Saskatchewan
v. (29973)
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (Sask.)
Requête de l’intervenant le procureur général de la Colombie-Britannique en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de ses mémoire et recueil de sources, et en vue de présenter une plaidoirie orale de 15 minutes
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to December 2, 2004.
6.1.2005
Before / Devant: MAJOR J.
Further order on motions for leave to intervene
BY / PAR: Congress of Aboriginal Peoples
Assembly of First Nations
Songhees Indian Band, Malahot First Nation, T’Sou-Ke First Nation, Snaw-naw-as (Nanoose) First Nation and the Beecher Bay Indian Band (collectively the “Te’mexw Nations”)
Forest Products Association of Nova Scotia
New Brunswick Forest Products Association
Union of New Brunswick Indians
IN / DANS: Her Majesty the Queen
v. (30005)
Joshua Bernard (N.B.)
and between
Her Majesty the Queen
v. (30063)
Stephen Frederick Marshall, et al. (N.S.)
Autre ordonnance relative aux requêtes en autorisation d’intervention
UPON APPLICATIONS by the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the Assembly of First Nations, Songhees Indian Band, Malahot First Nation, T’Sou-Ke First Nation, Snaw-naw-as (Nanoose) First Nation and the Beecher Bay Indian Band (collectively the “Te’mexw Nations”), Forest Products Association of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick Forest Products Association and Union of New Brunswick Indians for leave to intervene in the above appeals and pursuant to the orders of November 18, 2004;
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said interveners, New Brunswick Forest Products Association and Union of New Brunswick Indians are each granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding ten (10) minutes at the hearing of the appeal in Her Majesty the Queen v. Joshua Bernard (30005).
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said intervener, Forest Products Association of Nova Scotia is granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding ten (10) minutes at the hearing of the appeal in Her Majesty the Queen v. Stephen Frederick Marshall (30063).
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said interveners, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the Assembly of First Nations and Songhees Indian Band, Malahot First Nation, T’Sou-Ke First Nation, Snaw-naw-as (Nanoose) First Nation and the Beecher Bay Indian Band (collectively the “Te’mexw Nations”) are each granted permission to present one oral argument not exceeding ten (10) minutes at the hearing of the appeals in Her Majesty the Queen v. Joshua Bernard (30005) and Her Majesty the Queen v. Stephen Frederick Marshall (30063).
6.1.2005
Before / Devant: MAJOR J.
Further order on motion for leave to intervene and motion to file an amended factum
BY / PAR: Keptin John Joe Sark and Keptin Frank Nevin of the Mi’Kmaq Grand Council, the Native Council of Nova Scotia and the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council
IN / DANS: Her Majesty the Queen
v. (30005)
Joshua Bernard (N.B.)
and between
Her Majesty the Queen
v. (30063)
Stephen Frederick Marshall, et al. (N.S.)
Autre ordonnance relative à une requête en autorisation d’intervention et requête en vue de déposer un mémoire modifié
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
UPON APPLICATION by the interveners, Keptin John Joe Sark and Keptin Frank Nevin of the Mi’Kmaq Grand Council, the Native Council of Nova Scotia and the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council, for an order permitting the filing of an amended single 15-page factum in both above mentioned appeals and for an order permitting the said intervener to present oral argument at the hearing of these appeals.
AND HAVING READ the material filed;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The motion of the interveners, John Joe Sark and Keptin Frank Nevin of the Mi’Kmaq Grand Council, the Native Council of Nova Scotia and the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council, for an order permitting the filing of an amended single 15-page factum in both above mentioned appeals is granted.
The said interveners are granted permission to present one oral argument not exceeding ten (10) minutes at the hearing of these appeals.
6.1.2005
Before / Devant: MAJOR J.
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the respondent’s record, factum and book of authorities and to present oral argument at the hearing of the appeal
Jody James Gunning
v. (30161)
Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Crim.)
Requête de l’intimée en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de ses dossier, mémoire et recueil de sources, et en vue de présenter une plaidoirie orale lors de l’audition de l’appel
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to January 14, 2005.
7.1.2005
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent’s response on the cross-appeal
Heather Robertson
v. (30644)
The Thomson Corporation, et al. (Ont.)
and between
The Thomson Corporation, et al.
v. (30644)
Heather Robertson (Ont.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti à l’intimée pour déposer une réponse relativement à l’appel incident
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to January 17, 2005.
NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
|
AVIS D’APPEL DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
1.12.2004
Her Majesty the Queen
v. (30642)
Sean Spence (Ont.)
(As of right)
6.1.2005
Rainer Zenner
v. (30422)
Prince Edward Island College of Optometrists (P.E.I.)
APPEALS HEARD SINCE LAST ISSUE AND DISPOSITION |
|
APPELS ENTENDUS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION ET RÉSULTAT
|
11.1.2005
CORAM: La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella et Charron
Procureur général du Canada
c. (30187)
Procureur général du Québec (Qc) (Civile) (De plein droit)
Claude Joyal et René Leblanc pour l’appelant.
Dominique Rousseau et Pierre Christian Labeau pour l’intimé.
Steven M. Barrett and Charlene Wiseman for the intervener Canadian Labour Congress.
Soumission écrite seulement pour l’intervenant Procureur général du Nouveau-Brunswick.
Written submission only for the intervener Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador.
EN DÉLIBÉRÉ / RESERVED
Nature de la cause:
Droit constitutionnel - Partage des compétences - Prestations de maternité - Prestations parentales - Assurance-emploi - L’article 22 de la Loi sur l’assurance-emploi empiète-t-il sur la compétence des provinces, plus particulièrement la compétence relative à la propriété et aux droits civils ou aux matières d’une nature purement locale ou privée en vertu des par. 92(13) et 92(16) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867? - L’article 23 de la Loi sur l’assurance-emploi empiète-t-il sur la compétence des provinces, plus particulièrement la compétence relative à la propriété et aux droits civils ou aux matières d’une nature purement locale ou privée en vertu des par. 92(13) et 92(16) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867? - L’article 22 de la Loi sur l’assurance-emploi excède-t-il la compétence du Parlement du Canada, plus particulièrement la compétence relative à l’assurance-chômage en vertu du par. 91(2A) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867? - L’art. 23 de la Loi sur l’assurance-emploi excède-t-il la compétence du Parlement du Canada, plus particulièrement la compétence relative à l’assurance-chômage en vertu du par. 91(2A) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867? |
|
Nature of the case:
Constitutional law - Division of powers- Maternity benefits - Parental benefits - Employment insurance - Whether s. 22 of the Employment Insurance Act encroaches upon provincial legislative competence and, more particularly, provincial legislative competence over property and civil rights and matters of a merely local or private nature under ss. 92(13) and 92(16) of the Constitution Act, 1867 - Whether s. 23 of the Employment Insurance Act encroaches upon provincial legislative competence and, more particularly, provincial legislative competence over property and civil rights and matters of a merely local or private nature under ss. 92(13) and 92(16) of the Constitution Act, 1867 - Whether s. 22 of the Employment Insurance Act is ultra vires the Parliament of Canada and, more particularly, whether it exceeds the Parliament of Canada’s legislative competence over unemployment insurance under s. 91(2A) of the Constitution Act, 1867 - Whether s. 23 of the Employment Insurance Act is ultra vires the Parliament of Canada and, more particularly, whether it exceeds the Parliament of Canada’s legislative competence over unemployment insurance under s. 91(2A) of the Constitution Act, 1867. |
12.1.2005
CORAM: Chief Justice McLachlin and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.
David Brock Henry
v. (29952)
Her Majesty the Queen
AND
Barry Wayne Riley
v. (29953)
Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Criminal) (As of Right)
Gil D. McKinnon, Q.C., and Lisa Sturgess for the appellants (joint).
Alexander Budlovsky and Nikos Harris for the respondent (joint).
Kenneth J. Yule, Q.C., and Ron Reimer for the intervener Attorney General of Canada (joint).
David Lepofsky for the intervener Attorney General of Ontario (joint).
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - First degree murder - Second Trial - Cross-examination - Whether the majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the trial judge did not commit reversible error in permitting Crown counsel to cross-examine the Appellant on statements he made in prior testimony at his first trial: R. v. Noël, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 433 - Whether there was a realistic danger that the Crown’s cross examination of each Appellant on his prior testimony was used to incriminate him - Whether the conduct of the Appellant or his counsel entitled the Crown to cross-examine him on his prior testimony in a way that infringed s. 13 of the Charter of Rights.
|
|
Nature de la cause:
Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - Droit criminel - Meurtre au premier degré - Deuxième procès - Contre-interrogatoire - La majorité de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie-Britannique a-t-elle erré en droit en statuant que le juge de première instance n’avait pas commis d’erreur de droit donnant ouverture à révision en permettant au procureur de la Couronne de contre-interroger l’appelant relativement à des déclarations qu’il avait, à son premier procès, faites lors de sa déposition : R. c. Noël, [2002] 3 R.C.S. 433 ? - Existe-t-il un risque réaliste que le contre-interrogatoire de chacun des deux appelants qu’a mené le procureur de la Couronne ait pu servir à incriminer l’appelant ? - La conduite de l’appelant ou celle de son avocat donnait-elle droit au ministère public de contre-interroger l’appelant quant au témoignage que ce dernier avait rendu antérieurement d’une façon contraire à l’article 13 de la Charte des droits et libertés ? |
13.1.2005
CORAM: Les juges Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella et Charron
Christopher Carter, et al.
c. (30060)
Louise Glegg (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)
Gerald R. Tremblay, c.r., Catherine Mandeville et Mélanie Dugré pour les appelants Christopher Carter et Gilles Dextradeur.
Odette Jobin-Laberge pour l’appelant Smith et Nephew Inc.
Dominic Desjarlais pour l’intimée.
EN DÉLIBÉRÉ / RESERVED
Nature de la cause:
Libertés publiques - Responsabilité civile - Secret professionnel - Droit au respect de la vie privée - Accès au dossier psychiatrique dans le cadre d’une poursuite en responsabilité civile alors que des dommages au titre d’un préjudice psychologique sont réclamés - Une fois que le tribunal constate que la patiente a clairement renoncé à la confidentialité d’un dossier, ce dernier conserve-t-il une discrétion, au stade préliminaire des procédures, pour analyser le contenu de ce dossier et en restreindre l’accès en fonction d’un critère de nécessité? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle raison de conclure que, dans M. (A.) c. Ryan, [1997] 1 R.C.S. 157, la Cour a modifié les principes énoncés dans Frenette c. Métropolitaine (La), Cie d’assurance‐vie, [1992] 1 R.C.S. 647? - Lorsque la portée de la renonciation du patient à son droit à la confidentialité n’est pas claire, le tribunal peut-il la déterminer? Le cas échéant, comment? |
|
Nature of the case:
Civil rights - Civil liability - Doctor-patient privilege - Right to privacy- Access to psychiatric file in an action for civil liability in which damages are claimed in respect of psychological harm - Whether a court, on finding that a patient has clearly waived confidentiality in respect of a file, retains discretion at the preliminary stage of a proceeding to review the content of the file and restrict access to it on the basis of necessity - Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that, in M. (A.) v. Ryan, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157, the Supreme Court modified the principles set out in Frenette v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 647 - Whether a court may determine the scope of a patient’s waiver of confidentiality when the scope is not clear - If so, how should the court proceed in this determination? |
13.1.2005
CORAM: Chief Justice McLachlin and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Deschamps, Fish and Abella JJ.
Her Majesty the Queen
v. (29965)
Lynn Fice (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave)
Philip Perlmutter for the appellant.
D. Edwin Boeve for the respondent.
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Criminal Law - Sentencing - Conditional Sentence - As a matter of law, is a conditional sentence available in circumstances where a penitentiary sentence is warranted, before factoring in any credit for pre-sentence custody? |
|
Nature de la cause:
Droit criminel - Détermination de la peine - Emprisonnement avec sursis - L’emprisonnement avec sursis peut‐il, en droit, être ordonné lorsqu’une peine d’incarcération dans un pénitencier est justifiée indépendamment de la période de détention préalable au prononcé de la peine? |
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 REPORTS |
|
RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS DE LA COUR SUPRÊME
|
THE STYLES OF CAUSE IN THE PRESENT TABLE ARE THE STANDARDIZED STYLES OF CAUSE (AS EXPRESSED UNDER THE "INDEXED AS" ENTRY IN EACH CASE).
|
|
LES INTITULÉS UTILISÉS DANS CETTE TABLE SONT LES INTITULÉS NORMALISÉS DE LA RUBRIQUE "RÉPERTORIÉ" DANS CHAQUE ARRÊT. |
Judgments reported in [2004] 2 S.C.R. Part 3
R. v. Demers, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 489, 2004 SCC 46
R. v. Kerr, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 371, 2004 SCC 44
Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 427, 2004 SCC 45
Judgments reported in [2004] 2 S.C.R. Part 4
Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme-Lafontaine v. Lafontaine (Village), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 650, 2004 SCC 48
Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551, 2004 SCC 47 |
|
Jugements publiés dans [2004] 2 R.C.S. Partie 3
R. c. Demers, [2004] 2 R.C.S. 489, 2004 CSC 46
R. c. Kerr, [2004] 2 R.C.S. 371, 2004 CSC 44
Société canadienne des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs de musique c. Assoc. canadienne des fournisseurs Internet, [2004] 2 R.C.S. 427, 2004 CSC 45
Jugements publiés dans [2004] 2 R.C.S. Partie 4
Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme-Lafontaine c. Lafontaine (Village), [2004] 2 R.C.S. 650, 2004 CSC 48
Syndicat Northcrest c. Amselem, [2004] 2 R.C.S. 551, 2004 CSC 47 |
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 |
|
|
|
|