SUPREME COURT COUR SUPRÊME
OF CANADA DU CANADA
BULLETIN OF BULLETIN DES
PROCEEDINGS PROCÉDURES
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 du 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 du 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 au registraire, accompagnée de 10 $ par exemplaire. Le paiement doit être fait à l'ordre du Receveur général du Canada. |
October 11, 1996 1671 - 1729 le 11 octobre 1996
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
Motions
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
Headnotes of recent judgments
Weekly agenda
Summaries of the cases
Cumulative Index ‐ Leave
Cumulative Index ‐ Appeals
Appeals inscribed ‐ Session beginning
Notices to the Profession and Press Release
Deadlines: Motions before the Court
Deadlines: Appeals
Judgments reported in S.C.R. |
1671 - 1673
1674 - 1681
-
-
1682 - 1703
1704 - 1707
1708
-
-
1709 - 1714
1715
-
1716
-
-
-
-
1717 - 1727
1728
1729
- |
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
Requêtes
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
Sommaires des arrêts récents
Ordre du jour de la semaine
Résumés des affaires
Index cumulatif ‐ Autorisations
Index cumulatif ‐ Appels
Appels inscrits ‐ Session commençant le
Avis aux avocats et communiqué de presse
Délais: Requêtes devant la Cour
Délais: Appels
Jugements publiés au R.C.S. |
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FILED |
DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION D'APPEL DÉPOSÉES |
Dixie Park Inc.
Barbra H. Miller
Aird & Berlis
v. (25208)
Tak-Hing Chow et al. (Ont.)
Keith M. Landy
Landy, Marr & Assoc.
FILING DATE 27.9.1996
Bishop-Beckwith Marsh Body et al.
Robert G. Belliveau, Q.C.
McInnes, Cooper & Robertson
v. (25487)
Town of Wolfville (N.S.)
James E. Dewar, Q.C.
Taylor, Maclellan & Cochrane
FILING DATE 20.9.1996
Winnipeg Child and Family Services (Northwest Area)
Heather Leonoff, Q.C.
Wolch, Pinx, Tapper, Scurfield
v. (25508)
G. (D.F.) (Man.)
David Phillips
Phillips, Aiello, Boni
FILING DATE 4.10.1996
Michael Dibben
Pierre Poupart
Poupart et Cournoyer
c. (25406)
Le ministre de la Justice du Canada et al. (Qué.)
James L. Brunton
DATE DE PRODUCTION 27.9.1996
Major A.G. Seward
Clayton C. Ruby
Ruby & Edwardh
v. (25509)
Her Majesty The Queen (C.M.A.C.)
Commander C.J. Price
National Defence Headquarters
FILING DATE 25.9.1996
Eric Blagrove
Richard D. Pasquin
c. (25510)
Sa Majesté La Reine (Qué.)
Louis Bouthillier
DATE DE PRODUCTION 27.9.1996
Commonwealth Investors Syndicate Ltd.
John Douglas Shields
John Douglas Shields Law Corp.
v. (25416)
Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. et al. (B.C.)
Ralph Sahrmann
Lang Michener Lawrence & Shaw
FILING DATE 25.9.1996
Denis Boyer
Gilles Grégoire
Grégoire, Nadeau, Morin
c. (25451)
Georgette Lanctôt (Qué.)
Yves Chabot
DATE DE PRODUCTION 1.10.1996
Kevin Allen Whynder
Robert McCleave
McGinty, McCleave
v. (25511)
Her Majesty The Queen (N.S.)
William D. Delaney
Public Prosecution Service
FILING DATE 30.9.1996
Jean-Louis Parcigneau
Antoine Bigenwald
c. (25512)
Anne Neilson (Qué.)
Francine Nantel
Luterman, Stotland, Davis
DATE DE PRODUCTION 30.9.1996
Duha Printers (Western) Ltd.
Eleanor R. Dawson, Q.C.
Aikins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson
v. (25513)
Her Majesty The Queen (F.C.A.)
Robert Gosman
Dept. of Justice
FILING DATE 27.9.1996
Smith & Nephew Inc. et al.
Brian A. Crane, Q.C.
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
v. (25514)
Glen Oak Inc. et al. (F.C.A.)
Frank Farfan
Macbeth & Johnson
FILING DATE 30.9.1996
Sa Majesté La Reine
Jean-Pierre Proulx
Subs. procureur général
c. (25516)
Paul Valère (Qué.)
Guy Poupart
DATE DE PRODUCTION 27.9.1996
Nicolas Concettini
Nicolas Concettini
c. (25518)
Danielle Gilbert (Qué.)
Danielle Gilbert
DATE DE PRODUCTION 1.10.1996
Sunshine Village Corp.
John J.L. Hunter, Q.C.
Davis & Co.
v. (25519)
Michel Dupuy, in his capacity as the Minister of Canadian Heritage et al. (F.C.A.)
Kirk N. Lambrecht
Dept. of Justice
FILING DATE 2.10.1996
Lawrence Ginsberg
David J. Rotfleisch
Rotfleisch & Samulovitch
v. (25520)
Her Majesty The Queen (F.C.A.)
Jean-Paul Mallette
Dept. of Justice
FILING DATE 3.10.1996
Her Majesty The Queen
S. Patricia Lee
Dept. of Justice
v. (25521)
Continental Bank of Canada (F.C.A.)
John Unger
Tory Tory DesLauriers & Binnington
FILING DATE 3.10.1996
Canadian Newspaper Co. Ltd. doing business as The Times-Colonist
George K. Macintosh, Q.C.
Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy
v. (25522)
Francisco Nota Moises (B.C.)
Douglas H. Christie
FILING DATE 3.10.1996
Maria Dilalla
Gordon M. Selig
c. (25523)
Ville de Montréal (Qué.)
Huguette Girard
Jalbert, Séguin, Verdon, Caron, Mahoney
DATE DE PRODUCTION 4.10.1996
Ontario Hydro
Eric R. Finn
Ontario Hydro - Law Division
v. (25524)
Youssef Hanna Dableh (F.C.A.)
Donald M. Cameron
Smith, Lyons, Torrance
FILING DATE 4.10.1996
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE
SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE
DEMANDES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION
OCTOBER 7, 1996 / LE 7 OCTOBRE 1996
CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ. /
Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Gonthier et Iacobucci
Wayne Alexander Perkin
v. (25313)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Evidence - Unreasonable verdict - s. 686(1)(a)(i) Criminal Code - Whether the verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence - Whether the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility and reliability of witnesses - Whether the trial judge erred in his apprehension or appreciation of the evidence - Whether the verdict was unsafe as it was based on unreliable evidence.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 26, 1994 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Josephson J.) |
Conviction: second degree murder |
March 4, 1996 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Carrothers, Prowse and Ryan JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed |
August 15, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal and motion for the extension of time filed |
The Minister of Finance for the Province of New Brunswick
and the Provincial Sales Tax Commissioner for the Province of New Brunswick
v. (25427)
Union of New Brunswick Indians and Paul David Leonard Tomah, suing on his own behalf
and on behalf of all New Brunswick Indian Bands and their members (N.B.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Indians - Taxation - Exemption - Personalty on a reserve - Whether personal property purchased at an off-reserve location by an Indian or an Indian band but intended for ownership, possession, use or consumption on a reserve falls within the meaning of the words ‘situated on a reserve’ as contained in s. 87(1)(b) of the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, and are therefore exempt from taxation under the Social Services and Education Tax Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. S-10.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 24, 1994
Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick (Savoie J.)
Respondents’ application dismissed
May 28, 1996
Court of Appeal of New Brunswick (Hoyt C.J.N.B., Rice, Ryan, Turnbull and Bastarache, JJ.A.)
Appeal allowed
July 9, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
Lloyd Janes
v. (25357)
The Town of Deer Lake (Nfld.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural law - Municipal Law - Whether lower courts correct in dismissing action on basis of doctrine of res judicata - Does Bill of Rights apply?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
October 30, 1991
Supreme Court of Newfoundland (Woolridge J.)
Applicant’s action dismissed
March 18, 1993
Court of Appeal
(O’Neill, Marshall and Cameron JJ.A.)
Appeal dismissed
June 3, 1994
Supreme Court of Newfoundland (Roberts J.)
Statement of claim struck out
May 29, 1995
Court of Appeal
(Gushue, Mahoney and Cameron JJ.A.)
Appeal dismissed
May 15, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major JJ. /
Les juges La Forest, Cory et Major
Bounnam Kong Chung
v. (25410)
Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - Extradition - Constructive murder - First degree murder - Whether surrender of Applicant to United States to face charges of felony murder (constructive murder) violates s. 7 of the Charter - Whether the Minister of Justice required to seek formal assurances under Article 6 of the Extradition Treaty between Canada and the United States of America that death penalty will not be sought - Whether the Minister of Justice erred in surrendering the Applicant to United States to face charges of first degree murder when the United States presented no evidence that the Applicant committed such offence.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 3, 1995
Ontario Court (General Division) (Ewaschuk J.)
Appellant committed for surrender to the United States
August 30, 1995
Minister of Justice
Decision to surrender Applicant to United States
June 19, 1996
Court of Appeal for Ontario
(Houlden, McKinlay and Moldaver JJ.A.)
Application for judicial review dismissed
July 18, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
Apotex Inc.
v. (25348)
Eli Lilly and Company and Eli Canada Inc.
- and -
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (F.C.A.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Contracts - Sub-licence - Evidence - Property law - Patents -Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in its construction of the contract between Apotex and Novopharm, the construction of which was agreed to by the parties to the agreement but challenged by a stranger to the contract, when the construction agreed to by the parties was supportable on the plain meaning of the contract - Whether agreements drawn by the parties to the agreements without counsel should be interpreted according to different principles than agreements drawn by counsel.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 9, 1995 Federal Court of Canada (Trial Division) (McGillis J.) |
Application for judicial review allowed; Minister for National Health and Welfare prohibited from issuing a Notice of Compliance to Apotex Inc. until after the expiration of Canadian Patent Nos. 1,166,248 and 1,221,369 |
April 1, 1996 Federal Court of Appeal (Pratte, MacGuigan and Robertson JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed
|
May 31, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
Novopharm Limited
v. (25402)
Eli Lilly and Company, and
Eli Lilly Canada Inc.
- and -
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (F.C.A.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Contracts - Sub-licence - Evidence - Property law - Patents -Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in its construction of the contract between Apotex and Novopharm, the construction of which was agreed to by the parties to the agreement but challenged by a stranger to the contract, when the construction agreed to by the parties was supportable on the plain meaning of the contract - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in considering themselves bound by the prior decision in Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly (1996), 66 C.P.R. (3d) 329 (F.C.A).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 9, 1996 Federal Court of Canada (Trial Division) (McGillis J.) |
Application for judicial review dismissed |
April 24, 1996 Federal Court of Appeal (Stone, MacGuigan and McDonald JJ.A.) |
Appeal allowed; Minister for National Health and Welfare prohibited from issuing a Notice of Compliance to Novopharm Limited for 150mg and 300mg capsules of nizatidine until after the expiration of Canadian Patent Nos. 1,166,248 and 1,221,369 |
June 24, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal file |
Apotex Inc.
v. (25419)
Merck Frosst Canada Inc. and Merck and Co. Inc.
- and -
The Minister of National Health and Welfare and Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (F.C.A.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Contracts - Sub-licence - Evidence - Property law - Patents - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in its construction of the contract between Apotex and Novopharm, the construction of which was agreed to by the parties to the agreement but challenged by a stranger to the contract, when the construction agreed to by the parties was supportable on the plain meaning of the contract - Whether agreements drawn by the parties to the agreements without counsel should be interpreted according to different principles than agreements drawn by counsel - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in considering themselves bound by the prior decision in Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly (1996), 66 C.P.R. (3d) 329 (F.C.A) - If the contract is not a sub-licence, whether the allegations of non-infringement were premature.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 20, 1995 Federal Court of Canada (Trial Division) (Simpson J.) |
Application for judicial review allowed; Minister of National Health and Welfare prohibited from issuing a Notice of Compliance to Apotex Inc. for Norfloxacin until after the expiry of Canadian Patent No. 1,178,961 |
May 8, 1996 Federal Court of Appeal (Strayer, Décary and McDonald JJ.A) |
Appeal dismissed
|
July 8, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ. /
Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et McLachlin
Chander Prabha Walia
v. (25415)
Thai Airways International Limited (B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural law - Civil procedure - Actions - Appeal - Costs - Motion for extension of time for filing three notices of appeal dismissed - Respondent’s application to have the notices of appeal struck out allowed - Whether the Court of Appeal for British Columbia erred in dismissing the Applicant’s application to vary the order of the chambers’ judge.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 6, 1995 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Baker J.) |
Applicant’s motion for an order that the action be transformed into a representative action dismissed; increased costs awarded to the Respondent |
March 17, 1995 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Baker J.) |
Respondent’s motion to settle the order of February 6, 1995, granted; costs in the amount of $1,884.86 payable forthwith awarded to the Respondent |
June 22, 1995 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Master Doolan) |
Respondent’s motion to have the Applicant’s claim dismissed for failure to comply with the orders of Baker J. granted under conditions |
September 8, 1995 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Dillon J.) |
Order that Applicant’s application for reconsideration of Master Doolan’s order be submitted to Master Doolan upon payment of the outstanding costs order of Baker J. |
October 20, 1995 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Holmes J.) |
Applicant’s appeal of Master Doolan’s order and reconsideration of the decisions of Baker J. and Dillon J. dismissed |
January 26, 1996 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Wood J.A.) |
Motion for extension of time for filing three notices of appeal against the orders of Baker J. and Dillon J. dismissed; Respondent’s application to have the notices of appeal struck out allowed |
April 19, 1996 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Goldie, Ryan and Donald JJ.A.) |
Application to vary the order of Wood J.A. dismissed |
July 2, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal |
August 26, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for an extension of time filed |
Gilles Patenaude
c. (25463)
Ville de Longueuil
et
Procureur général du Québec (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit constitutionnel - Procédure - Conduite d’un véhicule sans ceinture de sécurité - Aveu de culpabilité du demandeur - Objection préliminaire portant que l’article 396 du Code de la sécurité routière, L.R.Q. ch. C-24, est contraire au deuxième paragraphe du préambule de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne du Québec, L.R.Q. ch. C-12 - Objection rejetée - Appel de la déclaration de culpabilité du demandeur rejeté en Cour supérieure - Requête pour permission d’appel en Cour d’appel du Québec rejetée - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle commis une erreur en rejetant la requête pour permission d’appel?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 9 janvier 1996
Cour municipale (Alary J.C.M.)
Objection préliminaire rejetée; Déclaration de culpabilité: Conduite d’un véhicule routier sans ceinture de sécurité
Le 2 avril 1996
Cour supérieure du Québec
(Hébert J.C.S.)
Appel rejeté
Le 24 juillet 1996
Cour d’appel du Québec
(Baudouin, Michaud et Robert JJ.C.A.)
Requête pour permission d’appel rejetée
Le 5 septembre 1996
Cour suprême du Canada
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée
Vancouver Society of Immigrant & Visible Minority Women
v. (25359)
Her Majesty The Queen (F.C.A)(B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Taxation - Are vagueness and uncertainty determinant factors in deciding whether the activities or purposes of an organization are charitable? - Are women a significant part of the community for the purposes of the four components of charity as enunciated by Lord Macnaghten in The Commissioners for Special Purposes of the Income Tax Act v. John Pemsel, [1981] A.C. 531?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
October 14, 1994
Minister of National Revenue
Applicant’s application for charitable tax status rejected
March 6, 1996
Federal Court of Appeal
(Strayer, Décary and Linden JJ.A.)
Appeal dismissed
June 6, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal and motion for extension of time filed
OCTOBER 8, 1996 / LE 8 OCTOBRE 1996
CORAM: Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ. /
Les juges Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci et Major
Shawn Trevor Wesley Laverty
v. (24822)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Defence - Statutes - Interpretation - Provocation - Self-defence - Whether the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury that the use of force to defend oneself is not ipso facto an unlawful act - Whether the trial judge erred in failing to ensure that the jury understood the onus was on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the intent referred to in s. 229(a)(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Code - Whether the trial judge erred in instructing that self-defence leads to an acquittal on all charges, including manslaughter, in all circumstances - Whether the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury with respect to s. 37 of the Criminal Code to clarify the defence of self-defence generally - Whether the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury that “the reasonable man test” was a reasonable man of the age and characteristics of the accused - Whether the trial judge erred when he failed to answer the question of the deliberating jury seeking clarification of s. 229(a)(i) and (ii).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 16, 1994 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Braidwood J.) |
Conviction: Second degree murder |
June 27, 1995 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (McEachern C.J., Southin J.A. [dissenting] and Hollinrake J.A.) |
Appeal against conviction dismissed |
July 25, 1995 Supreme Court of Canada |
Notice of appeal as of right filed |
JUDGMENTS ON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE |
JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION |
OCTOBER 10, 1996 / LE 10 OCTOBRE 1996
25224ROGER ST-LAURENT ET MICHELINE LACROIX c. DANIÈLE DORAIS ET VILLE DE STE-THÉRÈSE (Qué.)
CORAM: Le Juge en chef et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé et Gonthier
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens à l’intimée Danièle Dorais.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent Danièle Dorais.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Procédure - Procédure civile - Jugements et ordonnances - Chose jugée - Requête en irrecevabilité - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant que l’action en nullité de titre de propriété intentée par les demandeurs était irrecevable au motif que le jugement rendu en faveur de l’intimée Dorais, suite à une action que celle-ci a intentée contre la Ville, a acquis l’autorité de la chose jugée vis-à-vis les demandeurs? - Y a-t-il en l’espèce identité de parties, d’objet et de cause?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 15 juillet 1991
Cour supérieure du Québec
(Lévesque j.c.s.)
Action de l’intimée Dorais contre la Ville afin de faire déclarer un règlement de zonage inopérant à son égard accueillie
Le 8 avril 1992
Cour supérieure du Québec
(Macerola j.c.s.)
Requête en irrecevabilité de l’intimée Dorais contre la requête en rétractation de jugement des demandeurs rejetée
Le 22 février 1993
Cour d’appel du Québec
(Tyndale, Baudouin et Delisle jj.c.a.)
Appel de l’intimée Dorais accueilli
Le 14 octobre 1993
Cour suprême du Canada
(L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et Gonthier jj.)
Demande d’autorisation d’appel des demandeurs rejetée
Le 19 mai 1994
Cour supérieure du Québec
(Durand j.c.s.)
Requête en irrecevabilité de l’intimée Dorais accueillie et action en nullité des demandeurs rejetée au motif de chose jugée
Le 25 janvier 1996
Cour d’appel du Québec
(Bisson, Deschamps et Philippon jj.c.a.)
Appel des demandeurs rejeté
Le 21 mars 1996
Cour suprême du Canada
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée
25158THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET GÉNÉRAL ACCIDENT COMPAGNIE D’ASSURANCE DU CANADA c. RÉNO-DÉPÔT INC. ET ISOLATION VAL ROYAL INC. et BORÉAL ASSURANCES INC. et entre BORÉAL ASSURANCES INC. c. RÉNO-DÉPÔT ET ISOLATION VAL ROYAL INC. et GÉNÉRAL ACCIDENT COMPAGNIE D’ASSURANCE DU CANADA ET THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY (Qué.)
CORAM: Le Juge en chef et les juges L’Heureux-Dubé et Gonthier
Les demandes d'autorisation d'appel sont rejetées avec dépens.
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit commercial - Assurance - Assureur - Obligation de défendre et d’indemniser - Action en garantie par les installateurs contre les assureurs - Mousse isolante d’urée formaldéhyde (MIUF) - Article 2503 du Code civil du Québec (anciennement 2604 C.c.B.C.) - Certains assureurs ont soumis leur offre de défendre à certaines réserves - Un des assureurs a indiqué qu’il n’avait aucune obligation d’assumer les frais de défense - Refus de l’offre par l’assuré - Prétendu conflit d’intérêt - L’assuré était-il justifié de refuser l’offre? - L’obligation de défendre s’imposait-elle à l’assureur qui a indiqué qu’il n’avait aucune obligation d’assumer les frais de défense?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 13 décembre 1991
Cour supérieure du Québec
(Hurtubise j.c.q.)
Actions en dommages-intérêts à l’encontre des installateurs et fabricants à la suite de l’insufflation de MIUF rejetées; actions en garantie dirigées contre les fabricants et certaines compagnies d’assurances rejetées; actions en garantie contre la compagnie d’assurance Boréal quant à l’obligation de défendre ses assurés maintenues
Le 21 décembre 1995
Cour d’appel du Québec
(LeBel, Rousseau-Houle et Delisle jj.c.a.)
Appels contre la partie du jugement de la Cour supérieure ayant accueilli les actions en garantie intentées contre la compagnie d’assurance Boréal seulement à l’égard de son obligation de défendre ses assurés rejetés
Appels contre la partie du jugement ayant rejeté l’action en garantie contre les compagnies d’assurances Général Accident et Continental accueillis
Le 19 février 1996
Cour suprême du Canada
Demandes d’autorisation d’appel déposées
25228THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION v. CANADIAN LIBERTY NET AND TONY MCALEER (ALIAS DEREK J. PETERSON) and between CANADIAN LIBERTY NET AND TONY MCALEER (ALIAS DEREK J. PETERSON) v. THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (F.C.A.)(Crim.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.
The applications for leave to appeal are granted.
Les demandes d'autorisation d'appel sont accordées.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural Law - Courts - Jurisdiction - Interlocutory Injunction granted where there was no cause of action to which the interlocutory injunction is ancillary - Whether Federal Court, Trial Division had jurisdiction to issue injunction enjoining and restraining parties from conduct alleged to violate s. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal pending a resolution of the matter by a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
March 3, 1992
Federal Court, Trial Division (Muldoon J.)
July 9, 1992
Federal Court, Trial Division (Teitelbaum J.)
Interlocutory injunction restraining Canadian Liberty Net and Tony McAleer
Canadian Liberty Net and Tony McAleer convicted of contempt of court
January 25, 1996
Federal Court of Appeal
(Pratte, Strayer and Linden JJ.A.)
Appeal of injunction allowed; Appeal of conviction dismissed
March 25, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Applications for leave to appeal filed
25346COMITÉ CONJOINT DES MATÉRIAUX DE CONSTRUCTION c. LES GRILLAGES BOLAR (CANADA) INC. (Qué.)
CORAM: Le Juge en chef et les juges Gonthier et Iacobucci
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit du travail - Convention collective - Législation - Interprétation - Le demandeur doit-il, pour se décharger du fardeau de preuve que lui impose l’article 2.01 du Décret sur l’industrie de la serrurerie et de la menuiserie métallique de la région de Montréal, R.R.Q. 1981, ch. D-2, r. 35, prouver l’assujettissement de l’employeur à la Loi sur les relations du travail dans l’industrie de la construction, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. R-20, et particulièrement au sous-alinéa f) de son article premier? - Les objets énumérés au sous-alinéa e) de l’article 2.01 du Décret sur l’industrie de la serrurerie et la menuiserie métallique de la région de Montréal comprennent-ils tous les objets du même genre pour autant qu’ils constituent des ouvrages de serrurerie et de menuiserie métallique et qu’ils sont fabriqués en atelier?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 14 février 1990 Cour du Québec (chambre civile) (Marleau j.c.q.) |
Action accueillie et intimée condamnée à payer au demandeur la somme de 5 391,44$ |
Le 29 mars 1996 Cour d’appel du Québec (Chouinard, Tourigny [dissidente]et Deschamps jj.c.a.) |
Appel accueilli |
Le 27 mai 1996 Cour suprême du Canada |
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
25362PETER M. KING, ROBERT M. MORRISON, RICHARD B. CAMSELL, DON J. FLARITY and ROBERT F. SWANNELL, JOHN DOHERTY, DENNIS NIXON, BEVERLY ROSSKOPF, BRADLEY POWERS, JAMES DEARDEN, JAMES THOMPSON, EDWARD PENDLETON, BRIAN PENDLETON, PETER WOODHOUSE, ROBERT THOMAS, LAURENCE NICOLSON, BRUCE MCCOMB, IVAN WATERS, ROBERT GOVIER, IVAN BURT, GEORGE MACLEOD v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (F.C.A.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci 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
Labour law - Unemployement insurance - Did the Federal Court of Appeal err in finding that payments under the Ontario Employee Wage Protection Program are “relief grants” under the Unemployment Insurance Regulations?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 18, 1995
Umpire (Simpson J.)
(1) Swannell group of Applicants’ appeals from Unemployment Insurance Commission’s decision allowed; finding that Employee Wage Protection Program payments are exempt earnings under the Unemployment Insurance Regulations; (2) Respondent’s appeal from Unemployment Insurance Commission’s decision dismissed; finding in (1) applied
April 10, 1996
Federal Court of Appeal
(Strayer, MacGuigan and Robertson JJ.A.)
Respondent’s application for judicial review of both May 18, 1995 decisions allowed
June 7, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
25442CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. DR. ROBERT R. ROSS -and- HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Procedural law - Pre-trial procedure - Subpoena duces tecum - Whether the Applicant should be required to produce for the Court and the Respondent a list of “out-takes” in its possession.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 14, 1996
Ontario Court (General Division) (Salhany J.)
Applicant ordered to provide a list of materials in its possession within 30 days
August 13, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
25447NORMAN WILLIAM HECKMAN v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Alta.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.
The application for extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Murder - Intent - Mens rea - Mental disorder - Charge to jury - Whether the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that they should decide first whether murder had been committed by the Applicant and then decide whether he was not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder - Whether the trial judge adequately related evidence of mental disorder to issue of intent.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
October 26, 1996 Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Girgulis J.) |
Conviction: second degree murder
|
October 4,1995 Court of Appeal for Alberta (Conrad, Coté, Hunt JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed
|
August 16, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal and motion for extension of time filed |
25184BRIAN GRAFF v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.
The application for extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Watch and beset - Whether the trial judge erred in law in finding that the Applicant had beset or watched the complainant’s residence or place of employment - Whether the trial judge erred in law in finding that the Applicant possessed the intent to compel the complainant to abstain from doing anything she has a lawful right to do, or to do anything which she has a lawful right to abstain - Whether the Applicant’s conduct was excused because his presence at the complainant’s was for the purpose of obtaining or communicating information - Whether the trial judge erred in law in applying the legal test for criminal harassment.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 3, 1993
Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division)
(Charles J.)
Conviction under s.423(1)(f) of the Criminal Code
May 31, 1994
Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) (Allen J.)
Appeal of summary conviction dismissed
October 6, 1995
Court of Appeal for Ontario
(McKinlay, Abella and Austin JJ.A.)
Further appeal dismissed
March 5, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
25229FLORINDO VOLPI v. INVESTORS GROUP TRUST CO. LTD. (Ont.)
CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major 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
Property Law - Mortgages - Action on a guarantee by a second mortgagee - Obligation of second mortgagee in possession to attempt to sell property and to inform or obtain consent of mortgagor before relinquishing possession of property to first mortgagee.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 2, 1994
Ontario Court (General Division) (Paisley J.)
Summary Judgment granted to Respondent
January 26, 1996
Court of Appeal for Ontario
(Morden A.C.J.O., Goodman and Finlayson JJ.A.)
Appeal dismissed
March 25, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
25276BRIAN PETERSON v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)
CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Evidence - Evidence of child witness - Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, s. 16 - Whether trial judge is required to personally ask witness questions when conducting s. 16 inquiry - Whether the trial judge had the jurisdiction to order that the child witness’ father be present while witness was testifying - Whether trial judge had jurisdiction to allow child witness to give testimony while seated on her father’s lap - Fresh evidence - Disclosure - Whether the prejudice test used in cases pertaining to ineffective assistance of counsel cases applies to non-disclosure cases - Whether Respondent’s non-disclosure compromised the Applicant’s right to make full answer and defence.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 14, 1993
Ontario Court (General Division)
(Poulin J.)
Conviction: two counts of sexual assault, one count of invitation of sexual touching and one count of sexual touching
February 29, 1996
Court of Appeal for Ontario
(Brooke, Osborne and Weiler JJ.A)
Appeal dismissed
April 18, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
25241KERRY DELAIR COLLINS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Alta.)
CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.
The application for extension of time is dismissed.
La demande de prorogation de délai est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Procedure - Trial - Self-Incrimination - Whether Crown’s reference to Applicant’s failure to testify violates s. 4(6) of the Canada Evidence Act - Whether the trial judge erred in denying Applicant’s motion to re-open trial to allow him to testify.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 17, 1994
Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta
(Perras J.)
Conviction:sexual assault with weapon, kidnapping, sexual assault causing bodily harm, anal intercourse and uttering threats
January 31, 1996
Court of Appeal of Alberta
(Belzil, O’Leary and Picard JJ.A.)
Appeal dismissed
April 29, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
25254QUANG HONG LE v . HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Alta.)
CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.
The application for extension of time is granted, and the motion to adduce fresh evidence and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed.
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée, et la requête pour déposer de nouvelles preuves et la demande d'autorisation d'appel sont rejetées.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Evidence - Fresh evidence - Applicant now confesses to having perjured himself at trial - Should Applicant be able to change his trial testimony - Whether the verdict was unreasonable or cannot be supported on the evidence.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 14, 1994
Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Sinclair J.)
Conviction: second degree murder (ss.235(1)); attempted murder (s.239)
October 5, 1995
Court of Appeal of Alberta
(Irving, Cote and Hunt JJ.A)
Appeal dismissed
April 3, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
25277J.M. WATTS POULTRY LTD., KIM SLACK, carrying on business as ONTARIO CHICKEN, DAC CHECKER PRODUCE LTD. and SCOTT HOLT, carrying on business as BRANT POULTRY v . THE ONTARIO CHICKEN PRODUCERS’ MARKETING BOARD (Crim.)(Ont.)
CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Seizure - Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1980, c.400 - Did the Court of Appeal fail to give effect to the statutory provisions and the common law jurisprudence with respect to the validity of the warrants in the circumstances of this case - Did the majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal err in characterizing the deponents’ failure to depose to their belief in the facts alleged or to indicate the source of the facts to which they deposed as a technical error - In the alternative, did the Court of Appeal err in failing to determine or rule on whether reasonable grounds to issue the search warrants existed - In the alternative, did the Court of Appeal err in failing to determine or rule that the information contained sufficient detail to conclude that the documents sought to be seized would afford evidence with respect to the commission of the offence alleged?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 30, 1995
Ontario Court (General Division) (Browne J.)
Application to quash a series of search warrants dismissed
February 16, 1995
Court of Appeal for Ontario
(Robins, Labrosse and Moldaver JJ.A)
Appeal dismissed
April 15, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
25257PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by TREASURY BOARD (F.C.A.)
CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major 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
Labour law - Administrative law - Collective agreement - Public Service Staff Relations Act - Identification of positions as managerial or confidential - Exclusion from bargaining unit - Anti-union animus - Judicial review - Standard of review - No privative clause.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 26, 1995 Public Service Staff Relations Board
|
Confirmed the identification of managerial or confidential positions pursuant to s. 5.2 Public Service Staff Relations Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.P-35 |
February 9, 1996 Federal Court of Appeal (MacGuigan [dissenting] Pratte and Stone JJ.A.) |
Application dismissed |
April 9, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
25264JAMES J. NOWLAN v. MIDLAND TRANSPORT LTD., a body corporate carrying on business under the name and style of POLAR BEAR TRANSPORT (N.B.)
CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.
The application for leave to appeal and the other related motions are dismissed with costs.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel et les autres requêtes connexes sont rejetées avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Contracts - Damages - Principal/Independant contractor - Material breach of contract.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 14, 1994
Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick (Trial Division, Savoie J.)
Applicant’s action dismissed
February 12, 1996
Court of Appeal of New Brunswick
(Rice [dissenting], Ayles and Bastarache JJ.A)
Appeal allowed
April 11, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
25204COMPANHIA SIDERURGICA NACIONAL v. CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL, DOFASCO INC., STELCO INC., SOREVCO AND CO. LTD. and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (F.C.A.)
CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major 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 - International law - Jurisdiction of administrative tribunal - Special Import Measures Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-15 - Cumulative multinational effect of dumping on Canadian steel industry - Whether Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in considering that dumping outside of the period of inquiry established by the Deputy Minister has caused, is causing or is likely to cause injury to the production in Canada of like goods - Whether tribunal erred in applying decision in Hitachi v. Anti-Dumping Tribunal - Whether Tribunal erred in failing to grant country exclusion to Applicant where Applicant’s exports negligible according to international standards.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 29, 1994 Canadian International Trade Tribunal (Eyton, Trudeau, Coates)
August 15, 1994 Canadian International Trade Tribunal (Eyton, Trudeau, Coates)
January 16, 1996 Federal Court of Appeal (Pratte, Marceau, Décary) |
Determination by Tribunal that dumping caused material injury
Determination by Tribunal that dumping caused material injury
Application for judicial review dismissed |
March 15,1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
25317LILY KAMPMAN v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (F.C.A.)
CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major 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 - Duty to act fairly - Whether a duty to act fairly arises when an administrative decision maker makes a recommendation when there is the potential for significant adverse consequences for the person concerned - Whether a duty of fairness arose in the context of a recommendation to release under s. 31 of the Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-33, as rep. S.C. 1992, c. 94 - If there was a duty of fairness, whether it was breached - Whether the right to procedural fairness was fully protected by the inquiry and hearing held pursuant to s. 31 of the Public Service Employment Act - Whether the internal grievance procedures prescribed by s. 91 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act served to rectify or cure the breach.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
September 15, 1994 Federal Court (Trial Division) (Strayer J.) |
Application for judicial review dismissed |
April 1, 1996 Federal Court of Appeal (Marceau, Linden and Robertson JJ.A) |
Appeal allowed |
May 18, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
25330RANDY MISIR v. WILLIAM J. McCORMACK, CHIEF OF POLICE, METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE FORCE (Ont.)
CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major 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
Procedural law - Summary dismissal of Applicant’s action - Whether Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in failing to admit the fresh evidence tendered by the Applicant - Whether lower courts erred in concluding that there was no genuine issue for trial - Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to apply principles of equity in the circumstances of this case.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 15, 1994 Ontario Court (General Division) (Wright J.) |
Actions against Respondents summarily dismissed |
March 25, 1996 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Osborne, Abella and Moldaver JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed |
May 24, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
25335CHIEF CHERI NOBLE, on her own behalf and on behalf of all the members of the KLAHOOSE FIRST NATION v. THE MINISTER OF FORESTS FOR THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, INTERNATIONAL FOREST PRODUCTS LTD. and WELDWOOD OF CANADA LTD. (B.C.)
CORAM: La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law - Judicial review - Prerogative writs - Quashing Minister’s consent - Whether the Court of Appeal for British Columbia erred in law in failing to find that the Chambers Judge at first instance erred: in misconstruing his discretion to decline to grant a remedy on the basis of a “balance of prejudice” test; in failing to give adequate weight to the prejudice to the Applicant caused by the Minister’s breach of his promise and his duty to act fairly; in assigning undue weight to the risk of prejudice to the Respondents.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
September 21, 1995
Supreme Court of British Columbia (MacKenzie J.)
Petition to quash Minister of Forests’s consent to transfer of tree farm licence dismissed
March 20, 1996
Court of Appeal for British Columbia
(Hinds, Prowse and Newbury JJ.A.)
Appeal dismissed
May 21, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
25231COMMUNAUTÉ URBAINE DE QUÉBEC, VILLE DE QUÉBEC ET VILLE DE STE-FOY c. SEARS CANADA INC. (Qué.)
CORAM: Les juges L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et McLachlin
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.
The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit municipal - Droit fiscal - Évaluation - Législation - Interprétation - Valeur locative d’une place d’affaires - Art. 190 de la Loi sur la fiscalité municipale, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. F-2.1 - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en décidant que les frais d’exploitation et les taxes foncières à inclure dans le calcul de la valeur locative, en vertu de l’art. 190 de la Loi, doivent être déterminés en fonction du marché et non en fonction des frais d’exploitation et taxes foncières réels de l’unité d’évaluation en litige?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 7 juillet 1989
Bureau de révision de l’évaluation foncière du Québec, section du Québec
Plaintes déposées par l’intimée à l’encontre de l’évaluation locative accueillies
Le 8 mars 1991
Cour du Québec, chambre civile (Verge j.c.q.)
Appel rejeté
Le 26 janvier 1996
Cour d’appel du Québec
(LeBel, Rousseau-Houle et Delisle jj.c.a.)
Appel rejeté
Le 26 mars 1996
Cour suprême du Canada
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée
Le 10 avril 1996
Cour suprême du Canada
Requête en prorogation de délai déposée
25232/25233/COMMUNAUTÉ URBAINE DE QUÉBEC ET VILLE DE STE-FOY c. HUDSON’S BAY
25234/25237 COMPANY et entre COMMUNAUTÉ URBAINE DE QUÉBEC ET VILLE DE QUÉBEC c. HUDSON’S BAY COMPANY et entre COMMUNAUTÉ URBAINE DE QUÉBEC ET VILLE DE SAINTE-FOY c. HUDSON’S BAY (ZELLERS INC.) et entre COMMUNAUTÉ URBAINE DE QUÉBEC ET VILLE DE QUÉBEC c. HUDSON’S BAY COMPANY (ZELLERS LTD) (Qué.)
CORAM: Les juges L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et McLachlin
Les demandes de prorogation de délai sont accordées et les demandes d'autorisation d'appel sont rejetées avec dépens.
The applications for an extension of time are granted and the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit municipal - Droit fiscal - Évaluation - Législation - Interprétation - Valeur locative d’une place d’affaires - Art. 190 de la Loi sur la fiscalité municipale, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. F-2.1 - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en décidant que les frais d’exploitation et les taxes foncières à inclure dans le calcul de la valeur locative, en vertu de l’art. 190 de la Loi, doivent être déterminés en fonction du marché et non en fonction des frais d’exploitation et taxes foncières réels de l’unité d’évaluation en litige?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 3 mai 1993
Bureau de révision de l’évaluation foncière du Québec, section du Québec
Plaintes déposées par l’intimée à l’encontre de l’évaluation locative accueillies
Le 27 mai 1994
Cour du Québec, chambre civile (St-Hilaire j.c.q.)
Appels rejetés
Le 26 janvier 1996
Cour d’appel du Québec
(LeBel, Rousseau-Houle et Delisle jj.c.a.)
Appels rejetés
Le 26 mars 1996
Cour suprême du Canada
Demandes d’autorisation d’appel déposées
Le 10 avril 1996
Cour suprême du Canada
Requête en prorogation de délai déposée
25235COMMUNAUTÉ URBAINE DE QUÉBEC ET VILLE DE QUÉBEC c. S.S. KRESGE CO. LIMITED (Qué.)
CORAM: Les juges L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et McLachlin
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.
The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit municipal - Droit fiscal - Évaluation - Législation - Interprétation - Valeur locative d’une place d’affaires - Art. 190 de la Loi sur la fiscalité municipale, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. F-2.1 - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en décidant que les frais d’exploitation et les taxes foncières à inclure dans le calcul de la valeur locative, en vertu de l’art. 190 de la Loi, doivent être déterminés en fonction du marché et non en fonction des frais d’exploitation et taxes foncières réels de l’unité d’évaluation en litige?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 28 octobre 1991
Bureau de révision de l’évaluation foncière du Québec, section du Québec
Plainte déposée par l’intimée à l’encontre de l’évaluation locative accueillie en partie
Le 2 septembre 1992
Cour du Québec, chambre civile (Cloutier j.c.q.)
Appel des demanderesses rejeté; appel de l’intimée accueilli
Le 26 janvier 1996
Cour d’appel du Québec
(LeBel, Rousseau-Houle et Delisle jj.c.a.)
Appel rejeté
Le 26 mars 1996
Cour suprême du Canada
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée
Le 10 avril 1996
Cour suprême du Canada
Requête en prorogation de délai déposée
25236COMMUNAUTÉ URBAINE DE QUÉBEC ET VILLE DE STE-FOY c. OSHAWA HOLDINGS LTD. (Qué.)
CORAM: Les juges L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et McLachlin
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.
The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit municipal - Droit fiscal - Évaluation - Législation - Interprétation - Valeur locative d’une place d’affaires - Art. 190 de la Loi sur la fiscalité municipale, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. F-2.1 - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en décidant que les frais d’exploitation et les taxes foncières à inclure dans le calcul de la valeur locative, en vertu de l’art. 190 de la Loi, doivent être déterminés en fonction du marché et non en fonction des frais d’exploitation et taxes foncières réels de l’unité d’évaluation en litige?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 28 octobre 1991
Bureau de révision de l’évaluation foncière du Québec, section du Québec
Plaintes déposées par l’intimée à l’encontre de l’évaluation locative accueillies en partie
Le 2 septembre 1992
Cour du Québec, chambre civile (Cloutier j.c.q.)
Appel des demanderesses rejeté; appel de l’intimée accueilli
Le 26 janvier 1996
Cour d’appel du Québec
(LeBel, Rousseau-Houle et Delisle jj.c.a.)
Appel rejeté
Le 26 mars 1996
Cour suprême du Canada
Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée
Le 10 avril 1996
Cour suprême du Canada
Requête en prorogation de délai déposée
25297GARRY HAYES v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Man.)
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Narcotics - Procedure - Jurisdiction - Whether Manitoba courts had jurisdiction over charge of importing narcotics when narcotics entered Canada at port outside of Manitoba - Whether offence of importing a narcotic occurred in Manitoba - R. v. Bell, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 471 - Sentencing - Whether Court of Appeal erred in offering Applicant option of choosing life imprisonment over 20 year prison term to benefit from earlier parole eligibility.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 19, 1992
Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench (De Graves J.)
Conviction: Importation of heroin
March 7, 1996
Court of Appeal of Manitoba
(Huband, Kroft and Monnin JJ.A.)
Appeal dismissed
May 3, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
25209A.D.M. v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.
The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Evidence - Fresh evidence - Medical records - Applicant suspects that medical record exists that would contradict complainant’s testimony - Whether Applicant can adduce purported medical report as fresh evidence.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 14, 1993
Ontario Court (General Division) (Bolan J.)
Conviction: sexual intercourse with a person under the age of fourteen years
September 13, 1994
Court of Appeal for Ontario
(Osborne, Laskin and Doherty JJ.A.)
Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed
March 19, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
25342RAYNALD BROCHU c. SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE (Qué.)
CORAM: Les juges L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et McLachlin
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.
The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - Droit criminel - Preuve - Droit à une défense pleine et entière - Choix de la poursuite de ne pas faire entendre le témoin expert - Le juge du procès a-t-il erré en rejetant la requête pour arrêt des procédures présentée par le procureur du demandeur à la clôture de la preuve de la poursuite? - Le juge du procès a-t-il erré en n’appelant pas lui-même le témoin expert par suite de la requête du procureur du demandeur qui voulait conserver son droit au contre-interrogatoire de l’expert? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en rejetant la requête pour preuve nouvelle et l’appel du demandeur? Application de l’arrêt R. c. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 R.C.S. 376.
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 13 janvier 1992 Cour du Québec, chambre criminelle et pénale (Millette J.C.Q.) |
Déclaration de culpabilité : menaces de causer la mort, agression sexuelle et séquestration
|
Le 8 mars 1996 Cour d’appel du Québec (Rothman, Proulx et Robert JJ.C.A.) |
Requête pour nouvelle preuve rejetée; appel rejeté |
Le 28 mai 1996 Cour suprême du Canada |
Demande d’autorisation d’appel et de prorogation de délai déposée |
25275PARKS WEST MALL LTD. v. TERRY JENNETT, STEVE SLAVIK and MARK’S WORK WEARHOUSE LTD. (Alta.)
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.
The application for leave to appeal as well as the application to cross-appeal are dismissed with costs.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel et la demande d’autorisation d’appel incident sont rejetées avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Contracts - Damages - Breach of shopping centre lease - Damages for inducing breach of lease - Mitigation of damages - Reletting of premises to new tenants - Whether Court of Appeal erred in reaching different findings of fact from those of the trial judge - Whether Court of Appeal erred in applying principles of mitigation in quantification of damages - Whether third party liable for inducing breach of lease in providing advice to party to contract.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 29, 1994 Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Perras J.) |
Judgment for Applicant |
December 12, 1994 Court of Appeal of Alberta (Lieberman, Foisy and Picard JJ.A.) |
Appeal allowed in part; damages reduced |
March 26, 1996 Court of Appeal of Alberta (Lieberman, Foisy and Picard JJ.A.) |
Judgment confirmed at rehearing
|
April 12, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
25322PETER LO v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(B.C.)
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.
The application for leave to appeal and the application for a stay of execution are dismissed.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel et la demande de sursis d’exécution sont rejetées.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law - Statutes - Statutory interpretation - Whether the Engineers and Geoscientists Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 109, s. 24.5(1)(a) requires the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of British Columbia to consider anew whether a criminal conviction entered against a certificate holder was correctly entered.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 29, 1995
Supreme Court of British Columbia (Esson J.)
Application for stay of judgment dismissed
March 18, 1996
Court of Appeal for British Columbia
(MacFarlane, Newbury and Proudfoot JJ.A)
Application to vary or discharge dismissed
May 14, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
25341TU-ELL LEASING LTD. AND GRIFFIN C. LAYNE v. INSURANCE CORPORATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (B.C.)
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin 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
Torts - Motor vehicles - Insurance - Statutes - Whether the Respondent had a duty to consult the Applicants prior to settling a third party action against the Applicants for which the Respondent would require indemnification under the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, R.S.B.C., 1979, c. 204 - Whether the onus was on the Applicants to prove they had been prejudiced by the settlement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 9, 1995
Supreme Court of British Columbia
(Hardinge J.)
Application to dismiss the Respondent’s claim for want of prosecution, dismissed: application for summary judgment granted, judgment for Respondent
March 13, 1996
Court of Appeal for British Columbia
(Goldie, Prowse and Newbury JJ.A.)
Application for leave to appeal the application to dismiss action for want of prosecution, dismissed: Appeal dismissed
May 10, 1996
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
25315CHARLES KIELING, SECURITY HOLDER AND GRAIN PRODUCER v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN, THE MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE OF SASKATCHEWAN, ROBERT MITCHELL A.G. M.L.A. OF SASKATCHEWAN AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CANADA, THE MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT OF CANADA (Sask.)
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin 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
Procedural Law - Pre-trial procedure - Whether Motions Judge properly applied discretion to strike out Statement of Claim and dismiss claim for failing to disclose reasonable cause of action, as an abuse of process and because the Court of Queen’s Bench of Saskatchewan lacked jurisdiction to grant some of the remedies specified in the Statement of Claim.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
September 20, 1995 Court of Queen’s Bench of Saskatchewan (Baynton J.) |
Application to strike out the statement of claim allowed |
March 5, 1996 Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan (Tallis, Vancise and Jackson JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed |
May 6, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
25213GORDON EDWARD ALLAN WADDELL v. MINISTER OF JUSTICE FOR CANADA (Crim.)(B.C.)
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Extradition - Procedure - Oaths - Whether Applicant should have been required to swear affidavit - Whether counsel should have been assigned pursuant to Criminal Code s. 684.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 15, 1995 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Tysoe J.) |
Application for habeas corpus dismissed. |
March 7, 1996 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (McEachern C.J.B.C. in Chambers) |
Application for the appointment of counsel dismissed. |
April 25, 1996 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Donald J.A. in Chambers) |
Motion to allow Applicant access to computer equipment and library dismissed. Application for production of a transcript dismissed. Application for declaration of indigent status dismissed. Motion for extension of time granted. |
May 29, 1996 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Goldie, Newbury and Williams JJ.A.) |
Motion to dismiss appeal for failure to pursue it diligently and for failure to comply with the Criminal Appeal Rules granted; Application for the appointment of counsel dismissed. |
June 18, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
25288GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 255-C AND DORAN ALLEN, WAYNE FITNESS, TIM GARDINER, ERIC GREY, LORNA HAMILTON, RICHARD LIPSCOMBE, DIANE MASKELL, RICH McLEOD, JOHN MERON, MEL OSADCHUK, STEWART ROBERTSON, ALFRED ROCH, TERRY SIMPSON, SHERILL STRAUS, DONALD TURN, BEN VERHOFF, TOM WHEATCROFT, CRAIG ZAWADA v. UNISOURCE CANADA INC. AND COAST PAPER LIMITED and REGINALD JAMES STANTON AND ASPEN HOLDINGS LTD. and RELIABLE PRINTING LTD., LACE PROPERTIES LTD. AND JAMES WALLACE (Alta.)
CORAM: L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and McLachlin 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
Commercial law - Receivership - Property law - Trusts and trustees - Fiduciary duty - Does an employer owe a fiduciary duty to its employees when that employer enters into a collective agreement which imposes an obligation to make severance payments to employees terminated without cause - Does the Court have the power to give priority to the severance payment claims of the employees, ahead of the claims of other unsecured creditors of the employer, as a remedy for the breach of that duty?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 18, 1994 Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Veit J.) |
Judgment for Applicants |
April 10, 1996 Court of Appeal for Alberta (Foisy, Côté and McFadyen JJ.A.) |
Judgment for Respondents |
April 26, 1996 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
24692A. F. V.d.A. v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN(Crim.)(Man.)
CORAM: Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.
The application for extension of time is granted and the application for rehearing is dismissed.
La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande visant à obtenir une nouvelle audition est rejetée.
MOTIONS |
REQUÊTES
|
3.10.1996
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file a reply to the respondent’s response
Regina Board of Police Commissioners
v. (25371)
Regina Police Association Inc. et al. (Sask.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer une réplique à la réponse de l'intimé
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to September 19, 1996.
4.10.1996
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the case on appeal and the appellant’s and respondent’s factum
R.D.S.
v. (25063)
Her Majesty The Queen (N.S.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le dossier d’appel et les mémoires de l’appelant et de l’intimée
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time is extended to file the case on appeal to October 10, 1996, the appellant’s factum to November 4, 1996 and the respondent’s factum to January 17, 1997.
4.10.1996
Before / Devant: LE REGISTRAIRE
Requête en acceptation d'un mémoire de demande d'autorisation de plus de 20 pages
Groupe Desjardins Assurances Générales
c. (25466)
Société canadienne des postes (Qué.)
Motion for acceptance of memorandum of argument on leave to appeal of over 20 pages
ACCORDÉE / GRANTED
7.10.1996
Before / Devant: LE REGISTRAIRE ADJOINT
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l’intervenant
PAR/BY:P.G. de la Saskatchewan
IN/DANS:Procureur général du Canada
c. (24652)
Hydro-Québec et al. (Qué.)
Motion to extend the time in which to file the interverner’s factum
ACCORDÉE / GRANTED Délai prorogé au 25 septembre 1996.
7.10.1996
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the case on appeal
Fotios Korkontzilas et al.
v. (24949)
Nick Soulos (Ont.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le dossier d’appel
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time is extended to October 2, 1996.
8.10.1996
Before / Devant: MAJOR J.
Motion to extend the time in which to file the interveners’ factum
BY/PAR:B.C. Tel. et al.
IN/DANS:Opetchesaht
v. (24161)
Her Majesty The Queen et al. (B.C.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire des intervenants
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time is extended to September 30, 1996.
8.10.1996
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the case on appeal
Husky Oil Operations Ltd.
v. (24855)
Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. et al. (Nfld.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le dossier d’appel
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to September 27, 1996.
8.10.1996
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent’s factum
Raymond Roy Izony
v. (25042)
Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l’intimée
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to October 7, 1996.
8.10.1996
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file a respondent’s response
C.B.C.
v. (25442)
Dr. Robert R. Ross et al. (Ont.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer la réponse d’un intimé
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to October 3, 1996.
7.10.1996
Before / Devant: SOPINKA J.
Motion to extend the time in which to apply for leave to appeal
Dragan Zagorac
v. (25107)
Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.)
Requête en prorogation du délai pour obtenir l'autorisation d'appel
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
The orders of the Registrar dated August 15, 1996 and the Deputy Registrar dated August 27, 1996, dismissing the application for leave as abandoned are hereby set aside.
The time for serving and filing the application for leave is hereby extended to September 21, 1996.
9.10.1996
Before / Devant: MAJOR J.
Motion for a stay of execution
Terence P. Ramsden
v. (25504)
The United Kingdom (Ont.)
Requête en vue de surseoir à l'exécution
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE The application for a stay is granted until such time as the Court has dealt with the application for leave to appeal.
10.10.1996
Before / Devant: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Motion to extend the time in which to file the appellant’s factum
Gerald Allan Naud
v. (25309)
Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l’appelant
With the consent of the parties.
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to October 7, 1996.
NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
AVIS D’APPEL DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
27.9.1996
Eddy Solomon
c. (25515)
Sa Majesté La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)
DE PLEIN DROIT
8.10.1996
Canadian Egg Marketing Agency
v. (25192)
Pineview Poultry Products Ltd. (N.W.T.)
8.10.1996
Paula Leeann Lewis et al.
v. (24999)
Her Majesty The Queen in right of the Province of B.C. (B.C.)
9.10.1996
R. West & Assoc. Inc. et al.
v. (25193)
Telecom Leasing Canada (TLC) Ltd. (B.C.)
10.10.1996
Locksley Washington Alphonso Senior
v. (25283)
Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.)
APPEALS HEARD SINCE LAST ISSUE AND DISPOSITION |
APPELS ENTENDUS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION ET RÉSULTAT
|
3.10.1996
CORAM:Chief Justice Lamer and La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
Andrew Sim Katz
v. (25014)
Vancouver Stock Exchange et al. (B.C.)
Gary S. Snarch and Murray Braithwaite, for the appellant.
Larry R. Jackie, for the respondent Vancouver Stock Exchange.
Mark L. Skwarok, for the respondent B.C. Securities Commission.
Donna Miller, for the intervener the A.G. of Manitoba.
George H. Copley, for the intervener the A.G. of B.C.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE (orally) -- It will not be necessary to hear from the respondents. The Court is ready to give judgment and I will ask Mr. Justice Iacobucci to deliver the judgment of the Court.
LE JUGE EN CHEF (oralement) -- Nous n’avons pas besoin d’entendre les intimés et les intervenants. Nous sommes prêts à rendre jugement dès maintenant. Le jugement de la Cour sera prononcé par Monsieur le juge Iacobucci.
IACOBUCCI J. -- We agree with the B.C.C.A. that the practice of the tribunal in question is one of the many factors to consider in determining whether the necessary degree of independence is present to avoid creating a perception of reasonable apprehension of biais. We also agree with the B.C.C.A. that the situation in this case, particularly its self-regulatory context, is quite different from that which was present in Matsqui.
LE JUGE IACOBUCCI -- Nous sommes d’accord avec la Cour d’appel de la Colombie-Britannique que la pratique du tribunal en question est un des nombreux facteurs qui doivent être pris en considération pour statuer sur l’existence du degré d’indépendance nécessaire pour éviter que naisse une crainte raisonnable de partialité. Nous sommes également d’accord avec la Cour d’appel de la Colombie-Britannique pour dire que, en l’espèce, particulièrement dans un contexte d’autoréglementation, la situation est très différente de celle qui existait dans l’arrêt Canadien Pacifique Ltée c. Bande indienne de Matsqui, [1995] 1 R.C.S. 3.
Consequently, for these reasons and substantially for the reasons of the B.C.C.A., we would dismiss the appeal with costs.
Par conséquent, pour ces motifs et substantiellement pour ceux de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie-Britannique, nous sommes d’avis de rejeter le pourvoi avec dépens.
4.10.1996
CORAM:Chief Justice Lamer and La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
Anne-Marie Parisé
v. (24824)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(N.B.)
Anne Dugas-Horsman, for the appellant.
Luc J. Labonté, for the respondent.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: (orally for the Court) -- We need not hear from you Ms. Dugas-Horsman. We are ready to hand down judgment immediately. Judgment of the Court will be delivered by my brother, Mr. Justice Sopinka.
LE JUGE EN CHEF (oralement pour la Cour) -- Nous n’avons pas besoin de vous entendre Madame Dugas-Horsman. Nous sommes prêts à rendre jugement immédiatement. Le jugement de la Cour sera prononçé par mon collègue le juge Sopinka.
SOPINKA J. -- In light of the findings of fact of the trial judge which we accept, there was no evidence in this case upon which a court properly instructed could reasonably find that the appellant’s conduct had created a risk of deprivation of an amount in excess of $1000.00.
LE JUGE SOPINKA -- À la lumière des conclusions de fait du juge du procès, conclusions que nous acceptons, il n’y avait en l’espèce aucune preuve sur le fondement de laquelle un tribunal s’étant formulé les directives appropriées aurait pu raisonnablement conclure que la conduite de l’appelante avait créé un risque de privation d’une somme supérieure à 1 000 $.
We are satisfied that the trial judge accepted the evidence of the appellant that she honestly believed that her circumstances had not changed so as to affect her entitlement to income assistance. In view of this finding, an essential element of the mens rea for the offence was negatived.
Nous sommes convaincus que le juge du procès a accepé le témoignage de l’appelante dans lequel elle disait croire sincèrement que sa situation n’avait pas changé d’une manière qui aurait influé sur son droit à l’aide au revenu. Cette conclusion a eu pour effet d’écarter un élément essentiel de la mens rea requise à l’égard de l’infraction.
Accordingly, the trial judge did not err in law in acquitting the appellant, and the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere.
En conséquence, le juge du procès n’a pas commis d’erreur de droit en acquittant l’appelante, et la Cour d’appel a fait erreur en intervenant.
The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the acquittal is restored.
Le pourvoi est accueilli, l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel est infirmé et l’acquittement est rétabli.
4.10.1996
CORAM:Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
Edward Michael Pittman
v. (25074)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.)
Jerome P. Kennedy, for the appellant.
Colin J. Flynn, Q.C., for the respondent.
GONTHIER J. (orally for the Court) -- This appeal comes to us as of right. We are all of the view that the trial judge’s instructions as to the defence of intoxication taken as a whole, including the second and the last recharge, were not in error nor misleading, though it was unnecessary to cover intoxication in general intent offences. We agree with the majority of the Court of Appeal in dismissing the issues raised as to unanimity and the judge’s remarks said to be inflammatory, and agree with its comments on the latter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
LE JUGE GONTHIER (oralement au nom de la Cour) -- Le présent pourvoi est formé de plein droit. Nous sommes tous d’avis que, dans l’ensemble, les directives du juge du procès relativement au moyen de défense fondé sur l’intoxication, y compris celles données dans ses deuxième et dernier exposés supplémentaires, n’étaient ni erronées ni de nature à induire en erreur, quoiqu’il ne fût pas nécessaire de traiter de l’intoxication dans le cas d’infractions requérant une intention générale. Nous sommes d’accord avec la Cour d’appel à la majorité pour rejeter les moyens invoqués touchant les directives sur l’unanimité et les remarques soi-disant incendiaires du juge, et nous souscrivons aux commentaires qu’elle a faits à ce dernier sujet. Le pourvoi est donc rejeté.
8.10.1996
CORAM:Chief Justice Lamer and La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
The Brant County Board of Education et al.
v. (24668)
Carol Eaton et al. (Ont.)
Christopher G. Riggs, Q.C., Andrea F. Raso and Brenda J. Bowlby, for the appellant the Brant County Board of Education.
Dennis W. Brown, Robert E. Charney and John Zarudny, for the appellant the A.G. for Ontario.
Isabelle Harnois, pour l’intervenant le Procureur général du Québec.
No one appearing, for the intervener the A.G. of B.C.
Brenday J. Bowlby, for the intervener the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association.
Stephen Goudge, Q.C. and Janet L. Budgell, for the respondents.
David W. Kent, Melanie A. Yach and Geri Sanson, for the interveners the Council of Canadians with Disabilities et al.
Philippe Robert de Massy, pour l’intervenante la Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse.
W.I.C. Binnie, Q.C. and Robert Fenton, for the intervener the Down Syndrome Association of Ontario.
Mary Eberts and Lucy K. McSweeney, for the intervener the Easter Seal Society of Canada.
Cheryl Milne, for the interveners the Canadian Foundation for Children, et al.
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights - Schools - Administrative law - Judicial Review - Statutes - Interpretation - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in proceeding, proprio motu, to review the constitutional validity of the Education Act, R.S.O., c. E-22 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Education Act gives school boards a discretion to violate the Charter - If the Court of Appeal properly reviewed the constitutional validity of the Education Act, do s. 8(3) of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, E.2, as amended, and s. 6 of Regulation 305 of the Education Act, infringe Emily Eaton’s equality rights under s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms -Are s. 8(3) of the Education Act, and s. 6 of Regulation 305 of the Education Act justified as a reasonable limit under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that parents have the right to choose whether their children’s equality rights will be overridden - Whether the Court of Appeal err in remitting the matter back to a differently constituted Tribunal.
Nature de la cause:
Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - Droits à l'égalité - Écoles - Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Lois - Interprétation - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en procédant proprio motu à l'examen de la validité constitutionnelle de la Loi sur l'éducation, L.R.O., ch. E-22? - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que la Loi sur l'éducation confère aux conseils scolaires un pouvoir discrétionnaire de contrevenir à la Charte? - Si la Cour d'appel a eu raison d'examiner la validité constitutionnelle de la Loi sur l'éducation, le par. 8(3) de la Loi sur l'éducation, L.R.O. 1990, ch. E-22, et modifications, et l'art. 6 du Règlement 305 de la Loi sur l'éducation contreviennent-ils aux droits à l'égalité garantis à Emily Eaton en vertu du par. 15(1) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés? - Le paragraphe 8(3) de la Loi sur l'éducation et l'art. 6 du Règlement 305 de la Loi sur l'éducation peuvent-ils se justifier en tant que limite raisonnable en vertu de l'article premier de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés? - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que les parents ont le droit de choisir s'il sera dérogé aux droits à l'égalité de leurs enfants? - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en renvoyant l'affaire à un tribunal de formation différente?
9.10.1996
CORAM:La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
Dell Holdings Ltd.
v. (24695)
Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority (Ont.)
Bryan Finlay, Q.C., Lynda C.E. Tanaka and J. Gregory Richards, for the appellant.
John D. Brownlie, Q.C. and Susan J. Heakes, for the respondent.
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Crown - Expropriation - Interpretation - Property law - Real property - Restitution - Remedies -Availability of damages for financial loss caused by delay in expropriating lands - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Dell’s losses were not compensable as disturbance damages or injurious affection under the Expropriation Act? - Whether the Court failed to give effect to the legislative intent of the compensation provisions of the Act by failing to interpret the Act in favour of indemnifying the owner for all losses caused by the expropriation - Alternatively, whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the standard of correctness in its review of the decision and order of the Ontario Municipal Board.
Nature de la cause:
Couronne - Expropriation - Interprétation - Droit des biens - Biens immobiliers - Restitution - Redressements - Possibilité d'obtenir des dommages-intérêts au titre d'une perte financière causée par un délai dans l'expropriation de terres - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en statuant que les pertes de Dell n'étaient pas indemnisables à titre de dommages-intérêts pour troubles de jouissance ou pour effet préjudiciable en vertu de la Loi sur l'expropriation? - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle omis de donner effet à l'esprit des dispositions relatives à l'indemnisation prévues dans la Loi du fait qu'elle n'a pas interprété la Loi de façon à indemniser le propriétaire de toutes les pertes causées par l'expropriation? - Subsidiairement, la Cour d'appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en appliquant la norme de la décision correcte dans son contrôle de la décision et de l'ordonnance de la Commission des affaires municipales de l'Ontario?
10.10.1996
CORAM:Chief Justice Lamer and La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and Major JJ.
Clayton Otis Jacquard
v. (24660)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.)
Joel E. Pink, Q.C. and Danny Graham, for the appellant.
William D. Delaney, for the respondent.
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Criminal law - Defence - Offences - Trial by jury - Insanity - Requisite intent required for murder and for planning and deliberation - Appellant found guilty of first degree murder and attempted murder - Did the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal err in holding that the trial judge had adequately instructed the jury on the essential elements of the various issues and related material evidence to those issues and in particular with respect to the issue of the Appellant’s capacity to plan and deliberate in relation to the shooting of Hurlburt - Did the Court of Appeal err in affirming the instructions of the trial judge to the jury that the evidence could support the inference that the Appellant wiped his fingerprints from the shotgun and the further inference that could be drawn from such conduct, namely that of consciousness of guilt?
Nature de la cause:
Droit criminel - Défense - Infractions - Procès devant jury - Aliénation mentale - Intention requise pour fins de meurtre et pour planification et préméditation - L'appelant a été déclaré coupable de meurtre au premier degré et de tentative de meurtre - La Cour d'appel de la Nouvelle-Écosse a-t-elle commis une erreur en statuant que le juge du procès avait donné au jury des directives appropriées sur les éléments essentiels des diverses questions et des éléments de preuve substantiels accessoires à ces questions, tout particulièrement relativement à la question de la capacité de l'appelant de planifier et de préméditer le meurtre de Hurlburt? - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en confirmant les directives que le juge du procès avait données au jury selon lesquelles la preuve permettait de déduire que l'appelant avait essuyé ses empreintes sur le fusil et, également, de déduire de cette conduite qu'il avait l'esprit coupable?
PRONOUNCEMENTS OF APPEALS RESERVED
Reasons for judgment are available |
JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES APPELS EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Les motifs de jugement sont disponibles
|
OCTOBER 9, 1996 / LE 9 OCTOBRE 1996
24668THE BRANT COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION v. CAROL EATON AND CLAYTON EATON and ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ONTARIO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARDS’ ASSOCIATION, COUNCIL OF CANADIANS WITH DISABILITIES, ET AL, COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DES DROITS DE LA JEUNESSE, THE DOWN SYNDROME ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO, THE EASTER SEAL SOCIETY OF CANADA AND CANADIAN FOUNDATION FOR CHILDREN, ET AL (Ont.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,
Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
The appeal is allowed with costs. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of the Divisional Court is restored, reasons to follow.
Le pourvoi est accueilli avec dépens. L’arrêt de la Cour d’appel est infirmé et le jugement de la Cour divisionnaire est rétabli. Les motifs suivront.
WEEKLY AGENDA |
ORDRE DU JOUR DE LA SEMAINE
|
AGENDA for the week beginning October 15, 1996.
ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 15 octobre 1996.
Date of Hearing/ Case Number and Name/
Date d'audition Numéro et nom de la cause
The Court is not sitting this week
La Cour ne siège pas cette semaine
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.
NOTICES TO THE PROFESSION AND PRESS RELEASE |
AVIS AUX AVOCATS ET COMMUNIQUÉ DE PRESSE |
|
|
Counsel are hereby notified of Rule 51.1, a new rule added to the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, registered as SOR/96-393 and published in Part II of the Canada Gazette on August 7, 1996.
Where a judge is satisfied that a party is conducting a proceeding in a vexatious manner, Rule 51.1 allows the judge to order a stay of proceedings on appropriate terms.
Similarly, where an application for leave to appeal has been dismissed, a judge may order that no further proceedings be filed relating to that leave application, where the judge is satisfied that the further proceedings would be vexatious or are brought for an improper purpose.
An application for an order under Rule 51.1 may be made by any party or by the Registrar.
Any inquiries about this rule should be addressed to Louise Meagher, Deputy Registrar, at (613) 996‐7520.
Les avocats sont avisés du nouvel article 51.1 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada, porté sous le DORS/96-393 et publié le 7 août 1996 dans la Gazette du Canada, partie II.
L’article 51.1 permet au juge, s’il est convaincu qu’une partie agit de manière vexatoire, d’ordonner la suspension de l’instance aux conditions qu’il estime appropriées.
De même, un juge peut ordonner qu’aucune autre procédure ne soit déposée relativement à une demande d’autorisation d’appel rejetée, s’il est convaincu que cette autre procédure serait vexatoire ou introduite dans un but illégitime.
L’article 51.1 stipule que l’ordonnance peut être demandée par toute partie ou par le registraire.
Toutes questions concernant le présent avis doivent être adressées à Louise Meagher, registraire adjoint, au (613) 996-7520.
Anne Roland
Registrar - Registraire
September, 1996 Septembre 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS / TABLE DES MATIÈRES
Date |
Notice to the Profession |
Date |
Avis aux avocats |
Sept. 1986 |
Use by counsel of the S.C.R. citations when available. |
Sept. 1986 |
Utilisation par les avocats de la référence des arrêts dans le R.C.S. quand ils y sont publiés. |
|
|
|
|
April 1987
Procedure upon completion of oral argument.
Avril 1987
Procédure à suivre lorsque la plaidoirie est terminée.
|
|
|
|
May 1989
Counsel information & file number.
Mai 1989
Information concernant les procureurs et numéro de dossier.
May 1989 |
Motions to expedite the hearing of an appeal. |
Mai 1989 |
Requêtes pour place spéciale sur le rôle. |
June 1990 |
Court's policy concerning applications for intervention. |
Juin 1990 |
Politique de la Cour relative aux demandes d'intervention. |
June 1990 |
Filing of factums in reply. |
Juin 1990 |
Production des mémoires en réponse. |
Jan. 1991 |
Counsel information and attendance by counsel at the Process Registry prior to the hearing of a motion or an appeal. |
Janv. 1991 |
Information concernant les procureurs et la présence des avocats au greffe avant l'audition d'une requête ou d'un pourvoi. |
April 1991 |
Timely prosecution of appeals. |
Avril 1991 |
Poursuite des appels dans les délais prescrits. |
October 1991 |
Court's video-conferencing service. |
Octobre 1991 |
Service de vidéo-conférence de la Cour. |
March 1992 |
Requirements of Rule 37 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada. |
Mars 1992 |
Exigences de l'article 37 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada. |
Dec. 1992 |
Amendments to the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada. |
Déc. 1992 |
Modifications aux Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada. |
June 1993 |
Compliance with section 677 of the Criminal Code regarding the formal order of the Court of Appeal in appeals as of right. |
Juin 1993 |
Respect de l'article 677 du Code criminel concernant le jugement formel de la cour d'appel lors des appels de plein droit |
Dec. 1993 |
Cross-appeals and applications for leave to cross-appeal. |
Dec. 1993 |
Appels incidents et demandes d'autorisation d'appel incident. |
Dec. 1993 |
Compliance with Rule 23 respecting applications for leave. |
Déc. 1993 |
Demandes d'autorisation d'appel et application de l'article 29 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada. |
Nov. 1994 |
Books of authorities. |
Nov. 1994 |
Recueils de jurisprudence et de doctrine. |
Nov. 1994 |
Compliance with s. 62 of the Supreme Court Act respecting the case on appeal. |
Nov. 1994 |
Respect de l'article 62 de la Loi sur la Cour suprême concernant le dossier. |
Nov. 1994 |
Filing reasons for judgment with notice of appeal as of right. |
Nov. 1994 |
Dépôt des motifs de la juridiction inférieure avec l'avis d'appel de plein droit. |
Jan. 1995 |
Time limits on leave applications. |
Jan. 1995 |
Délais concernant les demandes d'autorisation. |
Feb. 1995 |
Remand power; stay; entry of cases; section 677 of the Criminal Code. |
Fév. 1995 |
Pouvoir de renvoi; sursis; ordre des appels; l'article 677 du Code criminel.
|
April 1995 |
New tariffs. |
Avril 1995 |
Nouveaux tarifs. |
Aug. 1995 |
Filing deadlines; abandoned appeals. |
Août 1995 |
Délai de dépôt; appels abandonnés. |
Aug. 1995 |
Hours of hearings; time allowed for argument. |
Août 1995 |
Heures des audiences; durée des plaidories. |
Jan. 1996 |
Motions. |
Jan. 1996 |
Requêtes. |
May 1996 |
Use of initials. |
Mai 1996 |
Utilisation des initiales. |
May 1996 |
Advising Court of changes in the record. |
Mai 1996 |
Avis à la Cour des changements au dossier. |
Sept. 1996 |
Vexatious proceedings |
Sept. 1996 |
Procédures vexatoires |
INDEX TO NOTICES TO THE PROFESSION
APPEALS (INCLUDING APPEALS AS OF RIGHT)
Motions to expedite the hearing of an appeal - May 1989
Timely prosecution of appeals - April 1991
Court's video-conferencing service - Oct. 1991
Amendments to Rules 32, 18 and 38 of the Supreme Court of Canada - Dec. 1992
Compliance with s. 677 of the Criminal Code regarding appeals as of right -
- Formal order of Court of Appeal - June 1993
Books of authorities - Nov. 1994
Compliance with s. 62 of the Supreme Court Act respecting the case on appeal - Nov. 1994
Filing reasons for judgment with notice of appeal as of right - Nov. 1994
Remand power; stay; entry of cases; section 677 - Feb. 1995
New tariffs - April 1995
Filing deadlines; abandoned appeals - Aug. 1995
Hours of hearings; time allowed for argument - Aug. 1995; Jan. 1996
Use of initials - May 1996
Advising Court of changes in the record - May 1996
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
Compliance with Rule 23 respecting applications for leave - Dec. 1993
Time limits on leave applications - Jan. 1995
Remand power; stay - Feb. 1995
New tariffs - April 1995
Filing deadlines; abandoned appeals - Aug. 1995
Motions - Jan. 1996
Use of initials - May 1996
Advising Court of changes in the record - May 1996
Vexatious proceedings - Sept. 1996
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO CROSS-APPEAL
Amendment to Rule 29 of the Supreme Court of Canada - Dec. 1993
Time limits on leave applications - Jan. 1995
Filing deadlines; abandoned appeals - Aug. 1995
AUTHORITIES
Use by counsel of the S.C.R. citations when available - Sept. 1986
Books of authorities - Nov. 1994
Advising Court of changes in the record - May 1996
COUNSEL
Counsel information & file number - May 1989
Counsel information and attendance by counsel at the Process Registry - Jan. 1991
CROSS-APPEALS
Amendment to Rule 29 of the Supreme Court of Canada - Dec. 1993
FACTUMS
Use by counsel of the S.C.R. citations when available - Sept. 1986
Filing of factums in reply - June 1990
Requirements of Rule 37 - March 1992
Amendments to Rules 32, 18 and 38 of the Supreme Court of Canada - Dec. 1992
Filing deadlines; abandoned appeals - Aug. 1995
HEARING
Procedure upon completion of oral argument - April 1987
Counsel information & file number - May 1989
Counsel information and attendance by counsel at the Process Registry - Jan. 1991
Proposed length of oral submissions on appeal - Aug. 1991
Court's video‐conferencing service - Oct. 1991
Books of authorities - Nov. 1994
Entry of cases - Feb. 1995
Hours of hearings; time allowed for argument - Aug. 1995; Jan. 1996
Use of initials - May 1996
INTERVENTION
Court's policy concerning applications for intervention - June 1990
Amendments to Rules 32 and 18 of the Supreme Court of Canada - Dec. 1992; Jan. 1996
Filing deadlines; abandoned appeals - Aug. 1995
MOTIONS
Motions to expedite the hearing of an appeal - May 1989
Counsel information and attendance by counsel at the Process Registry - Jan. 1991
Stay - Feb. 1995
New tariffs - April 1995
Hours of hearings; time allowed for argument - April 1995; Jan. 1996
Motions - Jan. 1996
Use of initials - May 1996
Advising Court of changes in the record - May 1996
TARIFFS
New tariffs - April 1995
TIME LIMITS
Timely prosecution of appeals - April 1991
Time limits on leave applications - Jan. 1995
Filing deadlines; abandoned appeals - Aug. 1995
VIDEO-CONFERENCING
Court's video‐conferencing service - Oct. 1991
INDEX DES AVIS AUX AVOCATS
APPELS (Y COMPRIS LES APPELS DE PLEIN DROIT)
Requêtes pour place spéciale sur le rôle - Mai 1989
Poursuite des appels dans les délais prescrits - Avril 1991
Service de vidéo-conférence de la Cour- Oct. 1991
Modifications des articles 32, 18 et 38 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada - Déc. 1992
Respect de l'art. 677 du Code criminel concernant les appels de plein droit -
Jugement formel de la cour d'appel - Juin 1993
Recueils de jurisprudence et de doctrine - Nov. 1994
Respect de l'article 62 de la Loi sur la Cour suprême concernant le dossier - Nov. 1994
Dépôt des motifs de la juridiction inférieure avec l'avis d'appel de plein droit - Nov. 1994
Pouvoir de renvoi; sursis; ordre des appels; article 677 du Code criminel - Fév. 1995
Nouveaux tarifs - Avril 1995
Délai de dépôt; appels abandonnés - Août 1995
Heures des audiences; durée des plaidories - Août 1995; Jan. 1996
Utilisation des initiales - Mai 1996
Avis à la Cour des changements au dossier - Mai 1996
APPELS INCIDENTS
Modification de l'article 29 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada - Déc. 1993
AUDIENCES
Procédure à suivre lorsque la plaidoirie est terminée - Avril 1987
Information concernant les procureurs et numéro de dossier - Mai 1989
Information concernant les procureurs et la présence des avocats - Janv. 1991
Durée prévue des plaidoiries sur appel - Août 1991
Service de vidéo‐conférence de la Cour - Oct. 1991
Recueils de jurisprudence et de doctrine - Nov. 1994
Ordre des appels - Fév. 1995
AUDIENCES
Heures des audiences; durée des plaidories - Août 1995; Jan. 1996
Utilisation des initiales - Mai 1996
AVOCATS
Information concernant les procureurs et numéro de dossier - Mai 1989
Information concernant les procureurs et la présence des avocats - Janv. 1991
DÉLAIS
Poursuite des appels dans les délais prescrits - Avril 1991
Délais concernant les demandes d'autorisation - Jan. 1995
Délai de dépôt; appels abandonnés - Août 1995
DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION D'APPEL
Demandes d'autorisation d'appel et application de l'article 23 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada - Déc. 1993
Délais concernant les demandes d'autorisation - Jan. 1995
Pouvoir de renvoi; sursis - Fév. 1995
Nouveaux tarifs - Avril 1995
Délai de dépôt; appels abandonnés - Août 1995
Requêtes - Jan. 1996
Utilisation des initiales - Mai 1996
Avis à la Cour des changements au dossier - Mai 1996
Procédures vexatoires - Sept. 1996
DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION D'APPEL INCIDENT
Modification de l'article 29 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada - Déc. 1993
Délais concernant les demandes d'autorisation - Jan. 1995
Délai de dépôt; appels abandonnés - Août 1995
INTERVENTION
Politique de la Cour relative aux demandes d'intervention - Juin 1990
Modifications des articles 32, 18 et 38 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada - Déc. 1992; Jan. 1996
Délai de dépôt; appels abandonnés - Août 1995
MÉMOIRES
Renvois aux R.C.S. - Sept. 1986
Production des mémoires en réponse - Juin 1990
Exigences de l'article 37 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada - Mars 1992
Modifications des articles 32, 18 et 38 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada - Déc. 1992
Délai de dépôt; appels abandonnés - Août 1995
RECUEILS DE JURISPRUDENCE ET DE DOCTRINE
Renvois aux R.C.S. - Sept. 1986
Recueils de jurisprudence et de doctrine - Nov. 1994
Avis à la Cour des changements au dossier - Mai 1996
REQUÊTES
Requêtes pour place spéciale sur le rôle - Mai 1989
Information concernant les procureurs et la présence des avocats - Janv. 1991
Sursis - Fév. 1995
Nouveaux tarifs - Avril 1995
Heures des audiences; durée des plaidories - Août 1995; Jan. 1996
Requêtes - Jan. 1996
Utilisation des initiales - Mai 1996
Avis à la Cour des changements au dossier - Mai 1996
TARIFS
Nouveaux tarifs - Avril 1995
VIDÉO-CONFÉRENCE
Service de vidéo‐conférence de la Cour - Oct. 1991
DEADLINES: MOTIONS
|
DÉLAIS: REQUÊTES
|
BEFORE THE COURT:
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: |
DEVANT LA COUR:
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 : November 4, 1996
Service : October 28, 1996 Filing : October 21, 1996 Respondent : October 14, 1996 |
Audience du : 4 novembre 1996
Signification : 28 octobre 1996 Dépôt : 21 octobre 1996 Intimé : 14 octobre 1996
|
Motion day : December 2, 1996
Service : November 25, 1996 Filing : November 18, 1996 Respondent : November 11, 1996 |
Audience du : 2 décembre 1996
Signification : 25 novembre 1996 Dépôt : 18 novembre 1996 Intimé : 11 novembre 1996
|
DEADLINES: APPEALS
|
DÉLAIS: APPELS |
The winter session of the Supreme Court of Canada will commence September 30, 1996.
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:
Case on appeal must be filed within three months of the filing of the notice of appeal.
Appellant's factum must be filed within four months of the filing of the notice of appeal.
Respondent's factum must be filed within eight weeks of the date of service of the appellant's factum.
Intervener's factum must be filed within four weeks of the date of service of the respondent's factum.
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
|
La session d'hiver de la Cour suprême du Canada commencera le 30 septembre 1996.
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:
Le dossier d'appel doit être déposé dans les trois mois du dépôt de l'avis d'appel.
Le mémoire de l'appelant doit être déposé dans les quatre mois du dépôt de l'avis d'appel.
Le mémoire de l'intimé doit être déposé dans les huit semaines suivant la signification de celui de l'appelant.
Le mémoire de l'intervenant doit être déposé dans les quatre semaines suivant la signification de celui de l'intimé.
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. |
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE
CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME
- 1996 -
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 |
29 |
m 30 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
1 |
m 2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
|
3 |
m 4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
13 |
h 14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
|
10 |
h 11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
|
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
|
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
|
22 |
23 |
24 |
h 25 |
h 26 |
27 |
28 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
- 1997 -
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 |
|
|
|
h 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
|
2 |
m 3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
|
2 |
m 3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
|
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
|
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
|
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
|
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
|
|
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
h 28 |
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30 |
h 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 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
|
1 |
m 2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
|
4 |
m 5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
|
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
|
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
20 |
m 21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
|
18 |
h 19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
|
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sittings of the court: Séances de la cour: |
|
|
Motions: Requêtes: |
M |
|
Holidays: Jours fériés: |
H |
18 sitting weeks / semaines séances de la cour 83 sitting days / journées séances de la cour 8 motion and conference days / journées requêtes, conférences 1 holidays during sitting days / jours fériés durant les sessions |
|
|
|
|
|
|