CONTENTS TABLE DES MATIÈRES
Applications for leave to appeal 177 Demandes d'autorisation d'appels
filed produites
Applications for leave submitted 178 - 186 Demandes soumises à la Cour depuis la
to Court since last issue dernière parution
Oral hearing ordered - Audience ordonnée
Oral hearing on applications for - Audience sur les demandes d'autorisation
leave d'autorisation
Judgments on applications for 187 - 188 Jugements rendus sur les demandes
leave d'autorisation
Motions 189 - 191 Requêtes
Notices of appeal filed since last - Avis d'appel produits depuis la dernière
issue parution
Notices of intervention filed since 192 Avis d'intervention produits depuis la
last issue dernière parution
Notices of discontinuance filed since 193 Avis de désistement produits depuis la
last issue dernière parution
Appeals heard since last issue and 194 - 196 Appels entendus depuis la dernière
disposition parution et résultat
Pronouncements of appeals reserved - Jugements rendus sur les appels en
délibéré
Headnotes of recent judgments - Sommaires des arrêts récents
Weekly agenda 197 Ordre du jour de la semaine
Summaries of the cases 198 - 211 Résumés des affaires
Cumulative Index ‐ Leave - Index cumulatif ‐ Autorisations
Cumulative Index ‐ Appeals - Index cumulatif ‐ Appels
Appeals inscribed ‐ Session - Pourvois inscrits ‐ Session
beginning commençant le
Notices to the Profession and - Avis aux avocats et communiqué
Press Release de presse
Schedule re Motions before the Court 212 Calendrier des requêtes à la Cour
Requirements for filing a case 213 Préalables en matière de production
Judgments reported in S.C.R. - Jugements publiés au R.C.S.
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FILED |
DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION D'APPEL PRODUITES |
Dauphin Plains Credit Union Ltd.
John S. Lamont, Q.C.
Aikins, MacAulay & Thovaldson
v. (23375)
The Toronto-Dominion Bank (Man.)
Arthur J. Stacey
Thompson Dorfman Sweatman
FILING DATE 22.1.1993
Red River Forest Products Inc.
Antoine F. Hacault
Thompson, Dorfman, Sweatman
v. (23377)
George Leslie Ferguson et al. (Man.)
Gregory Rodin
Walsh, Pinx, Tapper, Scurfield
FILING DATE 25.1.1993
Jean-Charles St-Onge
c. (23370)
Sa Majesté La Reine en chef du Gouvernement du Canada, ici représenté par la Commission de la Fonction publique (C.A.F.)(Ont.)
Alain Préfontaine
Sous-procureur général du Canada
DATE DE PRODUCTION 26.1.1993
Larry Carlston
Ronald E. Morris
Roach & Morris
v. (23224)
Her Majesty The Queen (N.B.)
Edmond P. Blanchard, Q.C.
A.G. of N.B.
FILING DATE 18.1.1993
The Eastmain Band et al.
James O'Reilly
O'Reilly & Assoc.
v. (23382)
Raymond Robinson et al. (F.C.A.)
Jean-Marc Aubry, Q.C.
Dep. A.G. of Canada
FILING DATE 19.1.1993
James Donald Williams
Bruce Duncan
Duncan, Fava, Schermbrucker
v. (23387)
Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)
A.G. of Ontario
FILING DATE 20.1.1993
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE |
REQUÊTES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
JANUARY 25, 1993 / LE 25 JANVIER 1993
CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND McLACHLIN AND MAJOR JJ. /
LE JUGE EN CHEF ET LES JUGES McLACHLIN ET MAJOR
Her Majesty The Queen
v. (23340)
John Chartrand (Crim.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Offences - Interpretation of s. 281 of the Criminal Code - Abduction of a person under the age of 14 years, contrary to s. 281 of the Criminal Code - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in law in affirming the trial judge's unduly restrictive interpretation of s. 281 of the Criminal Code, and in particular, of the fault requirement "with intent to deprive ... of the possession", and thereby affirming the directing of a verdict of acquittal by the trial judge.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 28, 1991 Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division) (Beaulieu P.C.J.) |
Acquittal: Abduction of a person under the age of 14 years (281 Criminal Code);
|
October 6, 1992 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Houlden, Tarnopolsky and Austin JJ.A.) |
Applicant's appeal dismissed |
December 7, 1992 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union - Canada area Locals 500, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 5015 and 519; Every person ordinarily employed in longshoring or related operations at a port on the west coast of Canada and who is subject to the provisions of the Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
v. (23306)
Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Labour law - Right to strike - Freedom of association - Did Court of Appeal err in holding that Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986 did not violate the Charter?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
March 8, 1990 Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (Rouleau J.) |
Declaration that Maintenance of Ports Operation Act did not violate ss. 2(d) or 7 of the Charter; Further declaration that s. 13 Act violates s. 7 of the Charter and is of no force or effect |
September 24, 1992 Federal Court of Appeal (Heald, Décary and Létourneau JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed and cross-appeal allowed |
November 23, 1992 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
Placer Dome Inc.
v. (23247)
Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Taxation - Applicant deducting from income amounts contributed to an employee stock purchase plan - Whether tax consequences of a transaction are based on its economic result rather than its legal characteristics.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 12, 1991 Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (Denault J.) |
Appeal allowed: reassessment varied to allow deduction |
July 20, 1992 Federal Court of Appeal (Mahoney, Marceau and Linden JJ.A.) |
Appeal allowed |
October 30, 1992 Supreme Court of Canada (Cory J.) |
Application for extension of time to file application for leave granted |
November 16, 1992 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
Edward Kita
v. (23240)
Florian G.A. Braig (B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Torts - Intentional torts - Battery - Negligence - Physicians and surgeons - Professional negligence - Standard of care - Causation - Applicant suffering disabling stroke after undergoing arterial ligation performed by the Respondent - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Applicant gave informed consent to the surgeon doing the operation - If the surgeon's failure to disclose his inexperience sounds in negligence, whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying Reibl v. Hughes, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 88 as to the patient's need to know and as to causation - Did the Court of Appeal err in applying the standard of care for a doctor with special knowledge?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 10, 1991 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Fraser J.) |
Action for battery and negligence dismissed |
August 26, 1992 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Southin, Taylor and Goldie JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed |
November 26, 1992 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
CORAM: LA FOREST, CORY AND IACOBUCCI JJ. /
LES JUGES LA FOREST, CORY ET IACOBUCCI
Claude George Ramsay
v. (23337)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(P.E.I.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - Offences - Impaired driving - Right to silence - Detention within the meaning of s. 10(b) of the Charter - Whether the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island, Appeal Division, erred in holding that a person should be informed of his or her right to remain silent only at that point when there is detention of the person within the meaning of section 10(b) of the Charter - Application of R. v. Schmautz, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 398.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 23, 1989 Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island (FitzGerald P.C.J.) |
Acquittal: Operating a motor vehicle with a concentration of alcohol that exceeded 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres, contrary to 253(b) and 255(1) of the Criminal Code; Impaired driving, contrary to 253(a) and 255(1) of the Criminal Code |
September 5, 1991 Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island, Trial Division (MacDonald C.J.) |
Respondent's summary conviction appeal allowed; New trial ordered |
October 6, 1992 Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island, Appeal Division (Carruthers C.J., Mitchell J.A. and Mullaly J. [ad hoc]) |
Applicant's appeal dismissed |
December 7, 1992 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
Greater Edmonton Development Corporation
v. (23281)
BTK Holdings Ltd. (Alta.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural law - Pre-trial procedure - Barristers and Solicitors - Action arising out of Agreements of Sale between the Applicant purchaser and the Respondent vendor - Solicitor and representative of the Respondent not attending examination for discovery - Applicant's application to compel the Respondent to produce its solicitor for examination for discovery dismissed by the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta - Court of Appeal dismissing Applicant's appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal of Alberta erred in holding that a solicitor who acted for a party in a commercial transaction is immune from examination in subsequent civil proceedings arising out of that same examination - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the solicitor could not be examined for discovery pursuant to Rule 200 of the Alberta Rules of Court as an officer of the Respondent because of the potential difficulties in separating privileged from non-privileged information - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Respondent had not waived solicitor-client privilege.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
September 27, 1991 Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Master Funduk) |
Application to compel the Respondent to produce its solicitor for examination for discovery dismissed |
April 24, 1992 Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Lefsrud J.) |
Application to compel the Respondent to produce its solicitor for examination for discovery dismissed |
September 3, 1992 Court of Appeal of Alberta (Stratton J.A., Bielby J. and Major J.A.) |
Appeal dismissed |
November 2, 1992 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
Dodd Q. Chu
v. (23286)
Laurentian Bank of Canada, formerly
Eaton Bay Trust Company,
formerly Commerce Capital Trust (Alta.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Property law - Land titles - Mortgages - Trusts - Respondent holding mortgages on land owned by the Applicant - Mortgagee making a proposal in bankruptcy and transferring land titles to company - Company transferring land titles to another company - Company transferring land titles to Applicant - Applicant not making payments on mortgages - Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta allowing Respondent's action in debt on the covenant for payment of the mortgages - Court of Appeal of Alberta dismissing Applicant's appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to find that a sale by a Trustee under a Proposal pursuant to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. B-3, conveys title to a Purchaser free of any claims by the party under the Proposal including any claims for indemnity pursuant to s. 62 of the Alberta Land Titles Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. L-5.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 13, 1991 Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Feehan J.) |
Respondent's action in debt on the covenant for payment of mortgages allowed |
September 8, 1992 Court of Appeal for Alberta (McClung J.A., Bracco and Irving JJ.A,) |
Appeal dismissed |
November 9, 1992 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
Garnet Lane Developments Ltd.
v. (23279)
Roger Samuel Webster and Lois Edith Webster (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Property law - Statutes - Mortgages - Interpretation - Damages - Agreement of purchase and sale of the Respondents' property containing an obligation that the purchaser construct a new house on the property - Respondents to give abatement on mortgage back once new house constructed - Applicant buying property and amending mortgage - Supreme Court of Ontario allowing Respondents' action for specific performance - Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissing Applicant's appeal and allowing Respondents' cross-appeal - Whether the Courts erred in law in finding that s. 20(3) of the Mortgages Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M-40, does not prohibit the Respondents from recovering from the Applicant - Whether the Courts erred in law in finding that an obligation to perform services to supply materials in the future contained in the original mortgage is an obligation that can fix both a subsequent land owner and the original mortgagor with liability under s. 20(3) of the Mortgages Act, and in awarding damages against the Applicant for the breach of contact of the original mortgagors - Whether a judicial authority can make a finding contrary to a provision in a statute - Whether the law in Ontario in transactions where land is acquired with existing mortgages is altered.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
September 27, 1991 Supreme Court of Ontario (Carruthers J.) |
Respondents' action for specific performance against Applicant allowed |
October 5, 1992 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Krever J.A., Katzman and Abella JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed; Cross-appeal allowed |
November 9, 1992 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
CORAM: L'HEUREUX-DUBÉ, SOPINKA AND GONTHIER JJ. /
LES JUGES L'HEUREUX-DUBÉ, SOPINKA ET GONTHIER
Ivan Penava and Katica Penava
v. (23319)
Crawford M. MacIntyre and
Michael J. Mitchell (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural law - Appeal - Solicitors - Negligence - Applicants consulting Respondents following problems with mortgages on their properties - Action in breach of contract and negligence against the Respondents - Supreme Court of Ontario dismissing Applicants' action - Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissing Applicants' appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in determining that, because the trial judge could refer to the evidence to support his findings and conclusions, the Court, as an appellate bench, had no basis to overrule his decision - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in determining that it was unable to conclude that the trial judge erred in any material respect.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 14, 1989 Supreme Court of Ontario (Steele J.) |
Action for breach of contract and negligence dismissed |
October 1, 1992 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Tarnopolsky J.A., Osborne and Austin JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed |
November 30, 1992 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of New Brunswick
as represented by the Board of Management
v. (23301)
Ronald Bond (N.B.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law - Labour law - Evidence - Respondent dismissed from employment following allegations he had sexually assaulted a patient - Patient not testifying at hearing -Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that failure of complainant to testify was a denial of rules of natural justice or procedural fairness - Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding that adjudicator's method of assessing evidence rendered his decision fallible - Whether Court of Appeal incorrectly appreciated law regarding use of hearsay evidence by an administrative tribunal.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 6, 1992 Court of Queen's Bench (Larlee J.) |
Order made by adjudicator dismissing Respondent's grievance quashed |
September 16, 1992 Court of Appeal of New Brunswick (Hoyt, Rice and Ryan JJ.A.) |
Appeal allowed in part - order varied by remitting matter for adjudication before another adjudicator |
November 13, 1992 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
Vladislav Zlatic
v. (22793)
William A. Stannell and
Pioneer Rack Products Ltd.
- and -
Mildred Spragge and
Eleanora Spragge (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Torts - Damages - Measure of damages - Applicant suffering injuries following three motor vehicle accidents - Whether the trial judge erred in failing to apply the thin-skull rule, namely that tortfeasors must take their victims as they find them - Whether the trial judge erred in holding the Applicant's pre-disposition to injury limited the Respondent's liability for damages.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 4, 1984 Supreme Court of Ontario (Holland J.) |
Action allowed |
July 18, 1989 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Lacourcière, Holden and McKinlay JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed |
November 12, 1992 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
Canadian General Insurance Company
v. (23182)
132284 Canada Limited, carrying on business under the
firm name and style of Hanmax Investments and Gordon Jobson (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Torts - Negligence - Contract - Insurance - Procedural law - Whether principles in Ross Southward Tire et al. v. Pyrotech Products et al., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 35 limited to loss by fire caused by negligence - Jurisdiction of a judge on a motion for summary judgment - Whether there was an arguable issue as to whether Southward covers claims based on breach of contract.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 2, 1991 Ontario Court (General Division) (Houston J.) |
Claims against Respondent Jobson dismissed; Third party claim dismissed |
September 15, 1992 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Brooke, Carthy and Osborne JJ.A.) |
Appeal allowed; order set aside |
November 12, 1992 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
JUDGMENTS ON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE |
JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION |
JANUARY 26, 1993 / LE 26 JANVIER 1993
JAMES ALBERT SWEENEY -v- HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Ont.) (23166)
CORAM: La Forest, Sopinka and Cory JJ.
The application for re-hearing is dismissed.
La demande de nouvelle audition est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Appeal - Following guilty plea and subsequent conviction, Applicant filing notice of appeal - Applicant abandoning conviction appeal, and then seeking to withdraw abandonment - Whether the Court of Appeal has the power to amend a judgment which has been drawn up and entered - Effect of guilty plea.
JANUARY 28, 1993 / LE 28 JANVIER 1993
23124 CLAUDETTE ROY c. CLAUDE BÉGIN ET FRANCINE ROY (Qué.)
CORAM:Les juges L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et Gonthier
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Code civil - Adoption - Interprétation - Action de la demanderesse en réclamation d'état (art. 589 C.c.Q.) - Toute personne a-t-elle le droit fondamental à une filiation complète, c'est-à-dire d'avoir un père et une mère légalement reconnus? - Le fait d'avoir été adopté par un de ses parents biologiques peut-il empêcher un enfant de demander que l'autre parent soit reconnu légalement? - Dans quelle mesure un tribunal peut-il, dans l'interprétation d'une loi faite en faveur et dans l'intérêt de l'enfant, parvenir à un résultat contraire à l'esprit de cette loi?
23173 ABDULNABI RAISSI v. THE MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION (F.C.A.) (Ont.)
CORAM:L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and Gonthier JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law - Immigration - Natural justice - Procedure at hearing - Right to counsel before an administrative tribunal such as the Immigration and Refugee Board, Convention Refugee Determination Division - Applicant advised of his right to counsel - Applicant elected to proceed without counsel - Whether the Applicant's waiver of his right to counsel was invalid, and as such, whether the Board erred in law in proceeding with the hearing.
23254 SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE c. HORACIO CALLEJAS (Qué.)
CORAM:Les juges L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et Gonthier
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit criminel - Infraction - Preuve - La Cour d'appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en droit en écartant le jugement de culpabilité rendu en première instance, au motif que le juge a tiré les mauvaises conclusions des faits établis? - La Cour d'appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en droit en substituant son appréciation de la preuve à celle du juge de première instance, sans déterminer si le jugement aurait pu raisonnablement être rendu en regard de la preuve et du droit applicable? - La Cour d'appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en droit en décidant virtuellement que le crime de tentative de meurtre requérait une preuve directe de l'intention de tuer?
MOTIONS |
REQUÊTES |
20.1.1993
Before / Devant: L'HEUREUX-DUBÉ J.
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file an application for leave
Lacombe Nurseries Ltd. et al.
v. (23297)
Farm Credit Corporation (Alta.) |
Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de production de la demande d'autorisation
With the consent of the parties. |
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to January 4, 1993
20.1.1993
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file a factum
Her Majesty The Queen
v. (22660)
D.O.L. (Man.) |
Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de production d'un mémoire
With the consnet of the parties. |
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to January 15, 1993
20.1.1993
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file a response to the leave application
Her Majesty The Queen
v. (23217)
Henry Arthur Johnson et al. (Ont.) |
Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de production de la réponse à la demande d'autorisation
With the consent of the parties. |
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
20.1.1993
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the applicant's reply
Sa Majesté La Reine du chef du Québec
v. (23356)
Ontario Securities Commission et al. (Ont.) |
Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de production de la réplique de la requérante
With the consent of the parties. |
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to January 29, 1993
21.1.1993
Before / Devant: THE CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER
Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file the appellant's factum; motion to inscribe notwithstanding the late filing of factum; motion for an order that this appeal is to be deemed not abandoned; and motion for an order permitting counsel to employ the same case on appeal as prepared in another file
Norman Michael Koruz
v. (23077)
Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.) |
Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de production du factum de l'appelant; requête en inscription malgré la production tardive du mémoire; requête en déclaration que le présent appel est censé ne pas avoir été abandonné; et requête visant à obtenir une ordonnance autorisant les avocats à utiliser le même dossier d'appel que celui proposé dans une autre affaire
With the consent of the parties. |
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉES
21.1.1993
Before / Devant: THE CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER
Motion to appoint counsel
Norman Michael Koruz
v. (23077)
Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.) |
Requête en nomination d'un procureur
With the consent of the parties. |
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
21.1.1993
Before / Devant: THE CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER
Motion for an order that this appeal is to be deemed not abandoned
Glen Ivor Jones
v. (22400)
Her Majesty The Queen (Sask.) |
Requête en déclaration que le présent appel est censé ne pas avoir été abandonné
With the consent of the parties. |
|
|
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
21.1.1993
Before / Devant: THE CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER
Motion for a special place on the list
Barry James Evans
v. (22929)
Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.) |
Requête en obtention pour une place spéciale sur le rôle
W.R. Meredith, Q.C. for the appellant.
W.G. Burke Robertson, Q.C, for the respondent. |
|
|
DISMISSED / REJETÉE
NOTICES OF INTERVENTION FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
AVIS D'INTERVENTION PRODUITS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
BY/PAR: Attorney General of Ontario
IN/DANS: Her Majesty The Queen
v. (23075)
David Angelo Grant (B.C.)
NOTICES OF DISCONTINUANCE FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
AVIS DE DÉSISTEMENT PRODUITS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
27.01.1993
Cyril Patrick Prosper
v. (23178)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.)
(Appeal)
APPEALS HEARD SINCE LAST ISSUE AND DISPOSITION |
APPELS ENTENDUS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION ET RÉSULTAT |
25.1.1993 to/au 26.1.1993
CORAM:La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.
Daniel Plouffe
v. (22296)
Christine Shea (Qué.)
and between / et entre
Irene Helen Young
v. (22227)
James Kam Chen Young et al. (B.C.) |
W. Glen How, Q.C. et Daniel G. Pole, pour Daniel Plouffe.
Isabelle Michaud, pour Christine Shea
Lorne N. MacLean and Fred C. Lowther, for Irene Young.
W. Glen How, Q.C. and Sarah E. Mott-Trille, for James K.C. Young.
Brian Evernden, for the intervener the A.G. of Canada.
Monique Rousseau et Isabelle Harnois, pour l'intervenant le Procureur général du Québec.
No one appearing for the intervener the A.G. of B.C.
Shawn Greenberg, for the intervener the A.G. of Manitoba. |
|
|
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature de la cause:
Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - Droit de la famille - Garde et droit de visite - Liberté de religion.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom - Family law - Statutes - Freedom of religion - Divorce - Custody - Access - Maintenance - Division of property. |
Nature of the case:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Family law - Custody and visiting rights - Freedom of religion.
Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - Droit de la famille - Lois - Liberté de religion - Divorce - Garde - Droit de visite - Pension alimentaire - Partage des biens. |
|
|
27.1.1993
CORAM:The Chief Justice Lamer and La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
Janice Berg
v. (22638)
The University of B.C. and the School of Family and Nutritional Sciences, et al. (B.C.)
and between
B.C. Council of Human Rights
v. (22640)
University of B.C. and the School of Family and Nutritional Sciences et al. (B.C.) |
David W. Mossop, for the appellant/respondent Janice Berg.
William F. Pentney, for the intervener the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
George H. Copley, for the appellant/respondent B.C. Council of Human Rights.
Bruce F. Fraser, Q.C., for the respondents. |
|
|
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Administrative law - Statutes - Civil rights - Interpretation - Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Discrimination - Application of s. 3 of the Human Rights Act, S.B.C. 1984, c. 22 - Interpretation of "accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public" - |
Nature de la cause:
Droit administratif - Lois - Droits civils - Interprétation - Contrôle judiciaire - Compétence -Discrimination - Application de l'art. 3 de la Human Rights Act, S.B.C. 1984, ch. 22 - Interprétation de «installations, services ou établissements destinés au public». |
|
|
RE-HEARING / RÉAUDITION
28.1.1993
CORAM:The Chief Justice Lamer and La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin Iacobucci and Major JJ.
The Minister of Finance of Canada et al.
v. (22162)
Robert James Finlay (F.C.A.)(Man.) |
Eric A. Bowie, Q.C., Faye E. Campbell, Q.C. and Harry Glinter, for the appellant.
W. Glenn McFetridge, for the intervener the A.G. of Manitoba.
Louis Rochette et Dominique Rousseau, pour l'intervenant le procureur général du Québec.
Beverley Bauer, for the intervener the A.G. of Alberta.
G. Patrick S. Riley and John A. Myers, for the respondent.
Arne Peltz, for the intervener the National Anti-Poverty Organization.
|
|
|
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Crown law - Social welfare - Constitutional law - Whether contributions by the Minister of Finance and certificates from Minister of Health and Welfare pursuant to the Canada Assistance Plan, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-1, are illegal so long as the Social Allowances Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. S-160, continues to authorize the reduction of social assistance payments to persons in need in the province, to recover debts - Whether said contributions and certificates they are illegal as long as the Province of Manitoba permits municipalities to establish their own rates of assistance, independent of provincial authority.
|
Nature de la cause:
Couronne - Bien-être social - Droit constitutionnel - Les contributions effectuées par le ministre des Finances et les certificats délivrés par le ministre de la Santé et du Bien-être social en vertu du Régime d'assistance publique du Canada, L.R.C. (1985), ch. C-1, sont-ils illégaux tant que la Loi sur l'aide sociale, C.P.L.M. (1987), ch. S-160, continue de permettre la réduction des prestations d'assistance sociale versées aux personnes nécessiteuses de la province, pour le recouvrement de créances? - Ces contributions et certificats sont-ils illégaux tant que la province du Manitoba permet aux municipalités d'établir leurs propres montants d'assistance, indépendamment des autorités provinciales? |
|
|
WEEKLY AGENDA |
ORDRE DU JOUR DE LA SEMAINE |
AGENDA for the week beginning February 1, 1993.
ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 1 février 1993.
Date of Hearing/ Case Number and Name/
Date d'audition NO. Numéro et nom de la cause
01/02/93 9:30 am Show Cause / Audience de justification
01/02/9329Mario Pouliot c. Sa Majesté La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)(22960)
02/02/93 9Eugene Honish v. Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.)(22739)
02/02/93 17Glenn Ivor Jones v. Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.)(22400)
03/02/93 3Marc Creighton v. Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)(22593)
04/02/93 23Her Majesty The Queen v. Henry Morgentaler (Crim.)(N.S.)(22578)
05/02/93 18J.J.M. v. Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Man.n)(22790)
05/02/93 40Her Majesty The Queen v. Bernhard Hasselwander (Crim.)(Ont.)(22725)
NOTE:
This agenda is subject to change. Hearing dates should be confirmed with Process Registry staff at (613) 996-8666.
Cet ordre du jour est sujet à modification. Les dates d'audience devraient être confirmées auprès du personnel du greffe au (613) 996-8666.
SUMMARIES OF THE CASES |
RÉSUMÉS DES AFFAIRES |
22960MARIO POULIOT c. SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE
Droit criminel - Procès - Meurtre au premier degré - Premier chapitre des directives du juge au jury prenant la forme d'une réplique à la plaidoirie de la défense et où le juge tente de rehausser la crédibilité du témoin principal de la poursuite - Quel est l'effet d'une erreur de droit commise par le juge du procès lorsque cette erreur affecte ou peut affecter l'équité du procès? - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle eu tort d'appliquer la disposition curative prévue à l'art. 686(1)(b)(iii) du Code criminel, L.R.C. (1985), ch. C-46?
Le 30 octobre 1985, l'appelant est reconnu coupable par un jury de quatre meurtres au premier degré. À son procès, l'appelant ne témoigne pas et ne fait entendre aucun témoin. La plaidoirie de son procureur est axée sur le caractère non fiable du témoin principal de la Couronne. Après les plaidoiries, le juge du procès commence ses directives par un premier chapitre qu'il intitule "Commentaires sur les plaidoiries des avocats". Dans ce chapitre qui couvre quinze des cent quatre-vingt-six pages de l'adresse au jury, le juge répond exclusivement à cinq arguments de la défense sans toucher à ceux de la Couronne. En appel du verdict de culpabilité devant la Cour d'appel, l'appelant plaide que l'ensemble des directives du juge au jury a constitué tant par sa forme que par sa substance une seconde plaidoirie de la poursuite. Il soutient que les commentaires du premier juge sur la plaidoirie de l'avocat de la défense ont donné l'impression aux jurés que la défense les avait trompés et induits en erreur. La suite des directives n'a pas dissipé cette impression défavorable et selon l'appelant, son droit à un procès juste et équitable a été violé. Dans un jugement majoritaire rendu le 26 mars 1992, la Cour d'appel confirme le verdict de culpabilité. L'appelant se pourvoit de plein droit devant cette Cour.
Cet appel soulève la question suivante:
La Cour d'appel a-t-elle eu tort de conclure qu'en l'espèce, il y a lieu d'appliquer la disposition curative prévue à l'art. 686(1)(b)(iii) du Code criminel puisque dans leur ensemble, les directives du juge au jury n'ont pas causé de tort important à l'accusé ni constitué d'erreur judiciaire grave?
Origine de la cause: Québec
No du dossier: 22960
Jugement de la Cour d'appel: 26 mars 1992
Procureurs: Pierre Girard pour l'appelant
Michel Ayotte pour l'intimée
Mémoire de l'appelant: 22 pages
Mémoire de l'intimée: 20 pages
22960MARIO POULIOT v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Criminal law -- Trial -- First-degree murder -- First heading of judge's charge to jury taking form of reply to defence pleading, in which judge sought to increase credibility of principal witness for prosecution -- Effect of error of law made by trial judge when that error affects or may affect fairness of trial -- Whether Court of Appeal wrong to apply remedial provision in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.
On October 30, 1985 the appellant was found guilty by a jury on four counts of first degree murder. At his trial the appellant did not testify and he did not call any witnesses. His counsel's argument was essentially that the evidence given by the Crown's main witness was not reliable. After the argument, the trial judge began his charge with a first heading which he titled "Comments on Counsel's Argument". Under this heading, which took up 15 of the 186 pages of the charge to the jury, the judge responded exclusively to five defence arguments without dealing with those of the Crown. In appealing the guilty verdict to the Court of Appeal, the appellant maintained that the judge's charge to the jury as a whole was both in form and substance a second argument for the prosecution. He contended that the trial judge's comments on the arguments of defence counsel gave the jurors the impression that the defence had been misleading and deceitful. The rest of the charge did not alter that unfavourable impression and in the appellant's submission his right to a fair trial was denied. In a majority judgment on March 26, 1982, the Court of Appeal affirmed the guilty verdict. The appellant appealed to this Court as of right.
This appeal raises the following question:
Was the Court of Appeal wrong in concluding that in the case at bar the remedial provision contained in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code should be applied since the judge's charge to the jury as a whole caused no significant injury to the accused and did not constitute a serious judicial error?
Origin of case:Quebec
File No.:22960
Court of Appeal judgment:March 26, 1992
Counsel:Pierre Girard for the appellant
Michel Ayotte for the respondent
Appellant's factum:22 pages
Respondent's factum:20 pages
22739EUGENE HONISH v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Criminal law - Evidence - Food and drugs - Offences - Defenses - Drunkenness - Automatism - Mens rea - Whether the trial judge misdirected herself with respect to how extreme intoxication causing unconscious behaviour can in certain circumstances act as a defence or, alternatively, negative the mental requirement for the offence of impaired driving causing bodily harm.
The Appellant was charged with impaired driving following an accident where he struck another vehicle, injuring three of its occupants. The Appellant was depressed having recently separated from his wife. His physician had prescribed an anti-depressant. The Appellant went to his wife's house where he drank three to four drinks totalling 4 to 6 ounces of alcohol. Learning that his wife had spent the night with another man, he left his wife at her house, went to the motel where he had been staying and decided to commit suicide. He took 45 tablets of his anti-depressant and 15 sleeping pills. He sat down on a bed for five minutes and the next thing he remembered was waking up in the hospital the afternoon of the following day. Within one hour following the Appellant's consumption of drugs, he was the driver of a car involved in a motor vehicle accident, a few blocks from the motel where he had been staying. He failed to yield the right of way at a yield sign and collided with another vehicle. After the collision, his vehicle passed on through the intersection and struck another parked vehicle finally coming to a stop. Prior to the collision, the Appellant had been observed driving through two stop signs. The police arrived shortly after the accident. The Appellant was in the driver's seat and could not be roused. He was taken to hospital by which time he was unconscious. The Appellant was convicted as charged. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. Harradence J.A. dissented on the issue of automatism.
The following is the issue raised in this appeal:
1.Whether the trial judge misdirected herself with respect to how extreme intoxication causing unconscious behaviour, such as occurred in this case, can in certain circumstances act as a defence or, alternatively, negative the mental requirement for the offence of impaired driving causing bodily harm.
Origin of the case:Alberta
File No:22739
Judgment of the Court of Appeal:November 16, 1991
Counsel:Alexander D. Pringle Q.C. for the Appellant
Jack Watson, Agent for the Attorney General for the Respondent
Factum of the Appellant:27 pages
22739 EUGENE HONISH c. SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE
Droit criminel - Preuve - Aliments et drogues - Infractions - Moyens de défense - État d'ébriété - Automatisme - Mens rea - La juge du procès a‐t‐elle tenu compte de considérations erronées quant à la manière dont l'intoxication extrême provoquant un comportement inconscient peut, dans certaines circonstances, offrir une défense ou, subsidiairement, effacer l'élément moral de l'infraction de conduite avec facultés affaiblies causant des lésions corporelles?
À la suite d'un accident au cours duquel son véhicule en a heurté un autre, blessant trois de ses occupants, l'appelant a été accusé de conduite avec facultés affaiblies. Récemment séparé de son épouse, il était déprimé. Son médecin lui avait prescrit un antidépresseur. L'appelant s'est rendu à la résidence de son épouse où il a bu trois ou quatre verres d'alcool totalisant 4 à 6 onces. Mis au courant qu'elle avait passé la nuit avec un autre homme, il a quitté la résidence, s'est rendu au motel où il logeait et il a décidé de se suicider. Il a absorbé 45 antidépresseurs et 15 somnifères. Il s'est assis sur un lit pendant cinq minutes, et il se souvient ensuite s'être réveillé à l'hôpital l'après‐midi du jour suivant. Dans l'heure qui a suivi sa consommation de médicaments, l'appelant a conduit une automobile impliquée dans un accident de véhicule moteur, à quelques pâtés du motel où il logeait. N'ayant pas cédé la priorité au signal, il est entré en collision avec un véhicule. Son véhicule a ensuite traversé une intersection avant de heurter un véhicule stationné et de s'immobiliser. Avant la collision, des personnes avaient vu l'appelant traverser deux signaux d'arrêt sans s'immobiliser. La police est arrivée peu après l'accident. L'appelant occupait le siège du conducteur et il était impossible de le réveiller. Il a été conduit à l'hôpital et, à son arrivée, il était inconscient. L'appelant a été déclaré coupable relativement aux accusations portées. La Cour d'appel a rejeté son appel, le juge Harradence étant dissident sur la question de l'automatisme.
Le présent pourvoi soulève la question suivante :
1.La juge du procès a‐t‐elle tenu compte de considérations erronées quant à la manière dont l'intoxication extrême provoquant un comportement inconscient, comme dans le cas en l'espèce, peut, dans certaines circonstances, offrir une défense ou, subsidiairement, effacer l'élément moral de l'infraction de conduite avec facultés affaiblies causant des lésions corporelles?
Origine :Alberta
No du greffe :22739
Arrêt de la Cour d'appel le 16 novembre 1991
Avocats :Alexander D. Pringle, c.r., pour l'appelant
Jack Watson, représentant du procureur général pour l'intimée
Mémoire de l'appelant 27 pages
22400 GLEN IVOR JONES v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - Narcotics - Search and seizure - Was information for search warrant sufficient? - Validity of search warrant - Was search unreasonable? - Should evidence have been admitted under s. 24 of the Charter?
The Appellant was convicted of possession of a narcotic, Pentazocine (Talwin), for the purpose of trafficking. On February 15, 1990, a search warrant was issued, pursuant to s. 12 of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. N-1, permitting the search of the Appellant's home, based on information received from a confidential, previously reliable, informant. The Information to Obtain Warrant recited this fact, as well as information that a person who had been charged with possession of narcotics, including Talwin, on February 8, 1990, in Saskatoon, had the Appellant's telephone number and name in his wallet.
The warrant was executed on February 19, 1990. The Appellant, following a demand, handed over a balloon containing 18 Talwin tablets, which had been hidden underneath his underwear. Police also found a briefcase containing cash and a notebook which contained entries consistent with records of drug sales. At his trial, an agreed statement of facts was filed, which indicates that, on July 29, 1989, the Appellant had filled a prescription for 24 Talwin tablets which had been authorized by a physician. The Appellant brought an application before the trial judge to have the warrant quashed and to have the evidence of the items seized excluded. This application was dismissed. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan, which dismissed his appeal, Sherstobitoff J.A. dissenting. The Appellant appeals as of right on the issue forming the basis of the dissent.
Origin of the case: Saskatchewan
File No.: 22400
Judgment of the Court of Appeal: June 17, 1992
Counsel: William H. Roe for the Appellant
Bruce MacFarlane for the Respondent
Factum of the Appellant: 23 pages
22400GLEN IVOR JONES c. SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE
Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - Droit criminel - Stupéfiants - Fouille, perquisition et saisie - La dénonciation pour obtenir le mandat de perquisition était-elle suffisante? - Validité du mandat de perquisition - La perquisition était-elle abusive? - La preuve aurait-elle du être utilisée en vertu de l'art. 24 de la Charte?
L'appelant a été reconnu coupable de possession d'un stupéfiant, de la pentazocine (talwin), en vue d'en faire le trafic. Le 15 février 1990, un mandat de perquisition a été décerné en application de l'art. 12 de la Loi sur les stupéfiants, L.R.C. (1985), ch. N-1, autorisant la perquisition de la maison de l'appelant, sur la base de renseignements d'un informateur confidentiel qui s'était révélé fiable dans le passé. La dénonciation exposait ce fait et disait qu'une personne accusée de possession de stupéfiants, dont la talwin, le 8 février 1990 à Saskatoon, avait le nom et le numéro de téléphone de l'appelant dans son portefeuille.
Le mandat a été exécuté le 19 février 1990. Sur demande, l'appelant a remis un ballon caché dans son sous-vêtement, qui contenait 18 comprimés de talwin. La police a aussi trouvé une mallette contenant de l'argent et un carnet contenant des inscriptions compatibles avec des ventes de drogue. À son procès, un exposé conjoint des faits a été déposé, qui indique que, le 29 juillet 1989, l'appelant s'était procuré 24 comprimés de talwin sur ordonnance d'un médecin. L'appelant a demandé au juge du procès l'annulation du mandat et l'exclusion de la preuve des articles saisis. Sa demande a été rejetée. Il a interjeté appel à la Cour d'appel de la Saskatchewan qui a rejeté son appel, le juge Sherstobitoff étant dissident. L'appelant se pourvoit de plein droit sur la question qui est à la base de la dissidence.
Origine: Saskatchewan
No du greffe: 22400
Arrêt de la Cour d'appel: le 17 juin 1992
Avocats: William H. Roe pour l'appelant
Bruce MacFarlane pour l'intimée
Mémoire de l'appelant: 23 pages
22593MARC CREIGHTON v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - Interpretation - Evidence - Manslaughter - Death caused by an unlawful act - Criminal negligence - Interpretation of s. 222(5)(a) of the Criminal Code.
Over a period of approximately 18 hours, beginning in the evening of October 26, 1989, the Appellant, a companion (Frank Cadeddu) and the victim shared a quantity of cocaine while together at the victim's apartment. The cocaine was consumed by means of intravenous injection using a syringe. At approximately 1:30 p.m., on October 27, 1989, the victim collapsed and suffered cardiac arrest after being injected with cocaine by the Appellant. The latter was charged with manslaughter.
It was conceded by the defence that the injection of the drug amounted to "trafficking" within the meaning of s. 4(1) of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1. The theory of the Crown was that the Appellant was guilty of manslaughter in that he caused the death of the victim by an unlawful act, contrary to s. 222(5)(a) of the Criminal Code.
The trial judge found him guilty of manslaughter and sentenced him to four years imprisonment. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant's appeal. The Appellant was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. On February 11, 1992, the Chief Justice stated the following constitutional question:
1.Does the common law definition of unlawful act manslaughter contravene section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
The Appellant raises the following issue:
2.Did the Court of Appeal for Ontario err in holding that the conviction could be supported on the alternative basis of criminal negligence?
Origin of the case: Ont.
File No.: 22593
Judgment of the Court of Appeal: June 12, 1991
Counsel: Rosen, Fleming, for the Appellant
The Attorney General for the
Province of Ontario for the Respondent
Factum of the Appellant: 25 pages
22593 MARC CREIGHTON c. SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE
Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - Droit criminel - Interprétation - Preuve - Homicide involontaire coupable - La mort causée par un acte illégal - Négligence criminelle - Interprétation de l'art. 222(5)a) du Code criminel.
Sur une période d'environ 18 heures commençant le 26 octobre 1989 en soirée, l'appelant, un compagnon (Frank Cadeddu) et la victime ont partagé une certaine quantité de cocaïne dans l'appartement de la victime. Ils ont consommé la cocaïne par injection intraveineuse au moyen d'une seringue. Vers 13 h 30, le 27 octobre 1989, la victime s'est affaissée et a subi un arrêt cardiaque après que l'appelant lui eut injecté de la cocaïne. L'appelant a été accusé d'homicide involontaire coupable.
La défense a reconnu que l'injection de la drogue constituait un «trafic» au sens du par. 4(1) de la Loi sur les stupéfiants, L.R.C. (1985), ch. N-1. Selon la thèse du ministère public, l'appelant était coupable d'homicide involontaire coupable du fait d'avoir causé la mort de la victime par un acte illégal, contrevenant ainsi à l'al. 222(5)a) du Code criminel.
Le juge du procès a déclaré l'appelant coupable d'homicide involontaire coupable et l'a condamné à quatre ans de prison. La Cour d'appel a rejeté l'appel interjeté par l'appelant. Celui-ci a reçu l'autorisation de se pourvoir devant la Cour suprême. Le 11 février 1992, le Juge en chef a formulé la question constitutionnelle suivante :
1.La définition en common law de l'homicide involontaire coupable résultant d'un acte illégal enfreint-elle l'art. 7 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés?
L'appelant soulève la question suivante :
2.Est-ce à tort que la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario a conclu que la déclaration de culpabilité pouvait se fonder à titre subsidiaire sur la négligence criminelle?
Origine : Ontario
No du greffe : 22593
Arrêt de la Cour d'appel : Le 12 juin 1991
Avocats : Rosen, Fleming pour l'appelant
Le procureur général de la
province d'Ontario pour l'intimée
Mémoire de l'appelant : 25 pages
22578HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. HENRY MORGENTALER
Constitutional Law - Criminal Law - Division of powers - Interpretation - Abortion.
The Respondent was charged with performing 14 therapeutic abortions, other than in a hospital approved as a hospital pursuant to the Hospital Act, contrary to the Medical Services Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 281, and regulations made thereunder.
The Respondent argued that the pith and substance of the Act was to prevent him from opening an abortion clinic in Nova Scotia and that the Act was a disguised attempt to encroach on the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Parliament to enact legislation regulating abortion, a matter considered to be criminal law. The Appellant argued that, despite its incidental criminal aspect, the pith and substance of the law was about management of hospitals because it ensured the delivery of services therein, about civil rights because it dictated the use of property in the province, and about matters of local nature because it addressed matters that were peculiar to Nova Scotia.
The Provincial Court found that the Medical Services Act and the regulations made under it were invalid as ultra vires the government of Nova Scotia. The Appellant appealed the decision. The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Appeal Division, dismissed the appeal, Jones J.A. dissenting. The Appellant was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. On February 18, 1992, the Chief Justice stated the following constitutional questions.
1.Is the Medical Services Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 281, ultra vires the Legislature of the Province of Nova Scotia on the ground that the Act is legislation in relation to criminal law falling within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada under s. 91 (27) of the Constitution Act, 1867?
2.Is the Medical Services Designation Regulation, N.S. Reg. 152/89, made on the 20th day of July, 1989, pursuant to s. 8 of the Medical Services Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 281, ultra vires the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the ground the Regulation was made pursuant to legislation in relation to criminal law falling within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada under s. 91 (27) of the Constitution Act, 1867?
Origin of the case: Nova Scotia
File No.: 22578
Judgment of the Court of Appeal: July 5, 1991
Counsel: Marian F.H. Tyson and Louise Walsh Poirier
for the Appellant
Anne S. Derrick for the Respondent
Appellant's factum: 40 pages
22578 SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE c. HENRY MORGENTALER
Droit constitutionnel - Droit criminel - Partage des pouvoirs - Interprétation - Avortement.
L'intimé a été accusé d'avoir pratiqué 14 avortements thérapeutiques dans un endroit autre qu'un hôpital approuvé en vertu de la Hospital Act et d'avoir ainsi violé la Medical Services Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, ch. 281, et un règlement pris sous son régime.
L'intimé a fait valoir que de par son caractère véritable la Loi visait à l'empêcher d'ouvrir une clinique d'avortement en Nouvelle-Écosse et qu'elle constituait une tentative déguisée d'empiéter sur la compétence exclusive du Parlement du Canada de légiférer en matière d'avortement, domaine qui est considéré comme relevant du droit criminel. L'appelante a soutenu que, malgré son aspect accessoirement pénal, la loi portait, selon son caractère véritable, sur l'administration d'hôpitaux parce qu'elle assurait la prestation de services dans ces institutions, sur les droits civils parce qu'elle concernait l'affectation de biens dans la province, et sur des matières de nature locale parce qu'elle traitait de sujets intéressant proprement la Nouvelle‐Écosse.
La Cour provinciale a conclu à l'invalidité de la Medical Services Act et du règlement pris sous son régime parce qu'ils excédaient la compétence du gouvernement de la Nouvelle‐Écosse. L'appelante a interjeté appel de cette décision, mais a été déboutée par la Section d'appel de la Cour suprême de la Nouvelle‐Écosse, le juge Jones étant dissident. L'appelante a obtenu l'autorisation de se pourvoir devant la Cour suprême du Canada. Le 18 février 1992, le Juge en chef a formulé les questions constitutionnelles suivantes :
1.La Medical Services Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, ch. 182, excède-t-elle la compétence de la législature de la province de la Nouvelle‐Écosse pour le motif que cette loi touche au droit criminel, une matière qui relève de la compétence législative exclusive du Parlement du Canada, en vertu du par. 91(27) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867?
2.Le Medical Services Designation Regulation, N.S. Reg. 152/89, pris le 20 juillet 1989, conformément à l'art. 8 de la Medical Services Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, ch. 281, excède-t-il la compétence du lieutenant-gouverneur en conseil pour le motif que ce règlement a été pris conformément à une loi touchant au droit criminel, une matière qui relève de la compétence législative exclusive du Parlement du Canada, en vertu du par. 91(27) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867?
Origine : Nouvelle-Écosse
No du greffe : 22578
Arrêt de la Cour d'appel : Le 5 juillet 1991
Avocats : Marian F.H. Tyson et Louise Walsh Poirier
pour l'appelante
Anne S. Derrick pour l'intimé
Mémoire de l'appelante : 40 pages
22790 J.J.M. v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Criminal law ‐ Statutes ‐ Young offenders ‐ Sentencing ‐ Interpretation ‐ Appellant pleading guilty to three counts of break, enter and theft ‐ Provincial Court of Manitoba sentencing the Appellant to two years of open custody concurrent on all counts ‐ Whether the Court of Appeal erred in their interpretation and application of the principles of sentencing of young offenders, as governed by the Young Offenders Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Y‐1.
The Appellant was charged with three separate counts of break, enter and theft. At the time of the offenses, the Appellant was 14 years old and on probation for similar offenses committed in 1990. The offenses, involving vandalism, were committed in offices or community buildings by the Appellant accompanied by others. The Appellant pleaded guilty to all charges and Gyles J. of the Provincial Court for Manitoba sentenced him to two years of open custody concurrent on all charges. The Appellant appealed his sentence to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal. Helper J.A. dissented.
Origin of the case: Manitoba
File No.: 22790
Judgment of the Court of Appeal: October 28, 1991
Counsel: M.O. Walker for the Appellant
D. Slough for the Respondent
22790 J.J.M. c. SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE
Droit criminel - Lois - Jeunes contrevenants - Détermination de la peine - Interprétation -L'appelant a plaidé coupable relativement à trois chefs d'accusation d'introduction par effraction et de vol - La Cour provinciale du Manitoba a condamné l'appelant à deux ans de garde en milieu ouvert à purger de façon concurrente relativement à tous les chefs - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle commis une erreur dans son interprétation et son application des principes de détermination de la peine des jeunes contrevenants, selon la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants, L.R.C. (1985), ch. Y-1?
L'appelant a été accusé relativement à trois chefs distincts d'introduction par effraction et de vol. Lors de la perpétration des infractions, l'appelant était âgé de 14 ans et était visé par une ordonnance de probation relativement à des infractions similaires commises en 1990. L'appelant et ses acolytes ont commis les infractions en question, y compris du vandalisme, dans des bureaux ou des édifices publics. L'appelant a plaidé coupable relativement à toutes les accusations et le juge Gyles de la Cour provinciale du Manitoba l'a condamné à deux ans de garde en milieu ouvert relativement à toutes les accusations. L'appelant a interjeté appel de la peine à la Cour d'appel qui a rejeté l'appel; le juge Helper était dissident.
Origine: Manitoba
No du greffe: 22790
Arrêt de la Cour d'appel: Le 28 octobre 1991
Avocats: M.O. Walker pour l'appelant
D. Slough pour l'intimée
22725HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. BERNHARD HASSELWANDER
Criminal law - Offences - Statutes - Interpretation - Whether a firearm which could easily be converted into a fully automatic form is a prohibited weapon within the meaning of s. 84(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - Effect of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, S.C. 1991, c. 40.
The Respondent applied to the local registrar of firearms to register his Mini-Uzi submachine gun as a restricted weapon. After examining the weapon, the local registrar determined that it was a prohibited weapon under the Criminal Code and he seized it. The local registrar of firearms then applied to the Ontario Provincial Court for a declaration under s. 102(3) of the Criminal Code that the seized Mini-Uzi be forfeited to the Appellant. Payne P.C.J. ruled that the Mini-Uzi was a prohibited weapon within the meaning of s. 84(1) of the Criminal Code and he ordered the said weapon be forfeited to the Appellant for disposition as the Attorney General may direct. The Respondent appealed to the District Court of Ontario, which dismissed the appeal. The Respondent's further appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario was allowed. The Appellant appeals to this Court by leave.
The following are the issues raised in this appeal:
1.Did the Court of Appeal for Ontario err in principle when, in the course of determining the meaning of the phrase "capable of firing bullets in rapid succession during one pressure of the trigger" in s. 84(1) of the Criminal Code, it refused to consider the mischief the firearms control provisions were enacted to suppress?
2.Did the Court of Appeal for Ontario err when it disregarded a cardinal rule of statutory interpretation requiring ambiguity in a statute to be resolved in favour of carrying out the purpose of the legislation in favour of a subordinate rule which says that a difference in the language of a statute raises a presumption of a change in intention?
3.Did the Court of Appeal for Ontario err in law when it held that the word "capable" in s. 84(1) referred to the "present capacity" of a weapon rather than that weapon's "inherent and readily accessible capacity"?
4.What is the effect on this problem of the recent amendments to the Criminal Code which became law on August 1, 1992?
Origin of the case: Ontario
File No.: 22725
Judgment of the Court of Appeal: August 21, 1991
Counsel: Brian McNeely for the Appellant
Calvin Martin, Q.C., for the Respondent
Factum of the Appellant: 20 pages
Factum of the Respondent: 13 pages
22725 SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE c. BERNHARD HASSELWANDER
Droit criminel - Infractions - Lois - Interprétation - Une arme à feu qui peut facilement être transformée en arme entièrement automatique constitue-t-elle une arme prohibée au sens de l'al. 84(1)c) du Code criminel, L.R.C. (1985), ch. C-46? - Incidence de la Loi modifiant le Code criminel, L.C. 1991, ch. 40.
L'intimé a présenté au registraire local d'armes à feu une demande pour l'enregistrement de sa mitraillette Mini-Uzi comme arme à autorisation restreinte. Après avoir examiné l'arme, le registraire local a déterminé qu'il s'agissait d'une arme prohibée en vertu du Code criminel et l'a saisie. Le registraire local a ensuite présenté une demande auprès de la Cour provinciale de l'Ontario pour qu'elle déclare, en vertu du par. 102(3) du Code criminel, la Mini-Uzi confisquée au profit de l'appelante. Le juge Payne de la Cour provinciale a conclu que la Mini-Uzi constituait une arme prohibée au sens du par. 84(1) du Code criminel et il a ordonné que ladite arme soit confisquée au profit de l'appelante pour qu'elle en dispose ainsi que l'ordonne le procureur général. L'intimé a interjeté appel à la Cour de district de l'Ontario, qui a rejeté l'appel. Il a ensuite interjeté un autre appel auprès de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario qui l'a accueilli. L'appelante a reçu l'autorisation de se pourvoir devant notre Cour.
Voici les questions soulevées par le présent pourvoi:
1.Dans son interprétation de l'expression «pouvant tirer rapidement plusieurs balles pendant la durée d'une pression sur la détente» du par. 84(1) du Code criminel, la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario a-t-elle commis une erreur de principe en refusant de tenir compte du méfait que les dispositions sur le contrôle des armes à feu visaient à supprimer?
2.La Cour d'appel de l'Ontario a-t-elle commis une erreur lorsqu'elle n'a pas tenu compte d'une règle d'interprétation fondamentale selon laquelle une ambiguïté dans une loi doit être interprétée de façon à favoriser l'objet de la loi, et a plutôt appliqué une règle accessoire selon laquelle une différence dans le texte d'une loi laisse présumer un changement d'intention?
3.La Cour d'appel de l'Ontario a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit lorsqu'elle a conclu que le terme «pouvant» mentionné au paragraphe 84(1) porte sur la [TRADUCTION] «capacité actuelle» d'une arme plutôt que sur la [TRADUCTION} «capacité inhérente et possible» de l'arme?
4.Quelle est l'incidence des récentes modifications apportées au Code criminel, entrées en vigueur le 1er août 1992, sur le problème soulevé?
Origine: Ontario
No du greffe: 22725
Arrêt de la Cour d'appel: Le 21 août 1991
Avocats: Brian McNeely pour l'appelante
Calvin Martin, c.r., pour l'intimé
Mémoire de l'appelante: 20 pages
Mémoire de l'intimé: 13 pages
SCHEDULE RE MOTIONS BEFORE THE COURT |
CALENDRIER DES REQUÊTES À LA COUR |
Pursuant to Rule 23.1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, the following deadlines must be met before a motion before the Court can be heard: |
Conformément à l'article 23.1 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada, les délais suivants doivent être respectés pour qu'une requête soit entendue par la Cour: |
Motion day : March 1, 1993
Service of motion : February 8, 1993 Filing of motion : February 15, 1993 Response : February 22, 1993
Motion day : April 5, 1993
Service of motion : March 15, 1993 Filing of motion : March 22, 1993 Response : March 29, 1993
|
Audience du: 1 mars 1993
Signification: 8 février 1993 Dépôt: 15 février 1993 Réponse: 22 février 1993
Audience du: 5 avril 1993
Signification: 15 mars 1993 Dépôt: 22 mars 1993 Réponse: 29 mars 1993
|
BEFORE A JUDGE OR THE REGISTRAR: |
DEVANT UN JUGE OU LE REGISTRAIRE: |
Pursuant to Rule 22 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, a motion before a judge or the Registrar must be filed not later than three clear days before the time of the hearing.
Please call (613) 996-8666 for further information. |
Conformément à l'article 22 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada, une requête présentée devant un juge ou le registraire doit être déposée au moins trois jours francs avant la date d'audition.
Pour de plus amples renseignements, veuillez appeler au (613) 996-8666. |
REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING A CASE |
PRÉALABLES EN MATIÈRE DE PRODUCTION |
Pursuant to the Supreme Court Act and Rules, the following requirements for filing must be complied with before an appeal will be inscribed and set down for hearing: |
Conformément à la Loi sur la Cour suprême et aux Règles, il faut se conformer aux exigences suivantes avant qu'un appel puisse être inscrit pour audition: |
Case on appeal must be filed within three months of the filing of the notice of appeal. |
Le dossier d'appel doit être déposé dans les trois mois du dépôt de l'avis d'appel. |
Appellant's factum must be filed within five months of the filing of the notice of appeal. |
Le mémoire de l'appelant doit être déposé dans les cinq mois du dépôt de l'avis d'appel. |
Respondent's factum must be filed within eight weeks of the date of service of the appellant's factum. |
Le mémoire de l'intimé doit être déposé dans les huit semaines suivant la signification de celui de l'appelant. |
Intervener's factum must be filed within two weeks of the date of service of the respondent's factum.
|
Le mémoire de l'intervenant doit être déposé dans les deux semaines suivant la signification de celui de l'intimé.
|
The Registrar shall inscribe the appeal for hearing upon the filing of the respondent's factum or after the expiry of the time for filing the respondent's factum |
Le registraire inscrit l'appel pour audition après le dépôt du mémoire de l'intimé ou à l'expiration du délai de signification du mémoire de l'intimé. |
On March 2, 1993, the Registrar shall enter on a list all appeals inscribed for hearing at the Spring Session, which commences on April 26, 1993. |
Le 2 mars 1993, le registraire met au rôle de la session du printemps, qui débutera le 26 avril 1993, tous les appels inscrits pour audition. |
For appeals which fall under the provisions of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada prior to their amendment on June 19, 1991, please contact the Process Registry at (613) 996-8666 for information regarding the applicable time limits. |
En ce qui concerne les délais applicables aux appels visés par les anciennes Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada, c'est-à-dire avant l'entrée en vigueur des modifications le 19 juin 1991, veuillez contacter le greffe au (613) 996 8666. |