Bulletins

Erreur ! Signet non défini.

          OF CANADA                                 DU CANADA   Erreur ! Signet non défini.

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

          PROCEEDINGS   PROCÉDURESErreur ! Signet non défini.

Erreur ! Signet non défini.Erreur ! Signet non défini.

March 29, 1996                                                 521 - 551       le 29 mars 1996Erreur ! Signet non défini.

CONTENTS                                                                                                               TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Ghassan Sleiman

                Teresa J. Glod

                Turnbull Boyes

                v. (25201)

Madeleine Sleiman (Alta.)

                Laura Lee Grant

FILING DATE 13.3.1996

La Métropolitaine, compagnie d’assurance-vie

                Marzia Frascadore

                Lafleur Brown

                c. (25202)

Raynald Meunier (Qué.)

                André Champagne

                Lapointe, Schachter, Champagne & Talbot

DATE DE PRODUCTION 15.3.1996

Her Majesty The Queen

                D. James Rout, Q.C.

                A.G. of Alberta

                v. (25203)

Bank of Canada et al. (Alta.)

                Robert M. Curtis

                McCuaig Desrochers

FILING DATE 15.3.1996

Companhia Siderurgica Nacional

                Melville O’Donohue, Q.C.

                O’Donohue & O’Donohue

                v. (25204)

Canadian International Trade Tribunal et al. (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

                Michael Granger

FILING DATE 15.3.1996

Miramichi Pulp & Paper Inc., (a body corporate)

                Dennis R. O’Connor, Q.C.

                Borden & Elliot

                v. (25205)

Director of Assessment (N.B.)

                C. Clyde Spinney

                A.G. of New Brunswick

FILING DATE 18.3.1996

Craig William Ryback

                Craig William Ryback

                v. (25206)

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

                Cal Deedman

                Min. of the Attorney General

FILING DATE 20.3.1996

Her Majesty The Queen

                Elizabeth A. Bennett, Q.C.

                Peck Tammen Bennett

                v. (25207)

Rodger Dale Stolz (B.C.)

                Brian Mason

                Maitland & Co.

FILING DATE 13.3.1996

Andre D. Martel

                Henry S. Brown, Q.C.

                Gowling, Strathy & Henderson

                v. (25209)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

                A.G. of Ontario (Ont.)

FILING DATE 19.3.1996

Fording Coal Ltd.

                Warren J. A. Mitchell, Q.C.

                Thorsteinssons

                v. (25057)

Her Majesty The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.)

                Kathleen T. Lyons

                Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 21.3.1996

Royal Bank of Canada et al.

                Colin L. Campbell, Q.C.

                McCarthy Tétrault

                v. (25216)

Bank of Canada et al. (Alta.)

                Robert M. Curtis

                McCuaig, Desrochers

FILING DATE 18.3.1996

Dennis Hahn

                Glen Orris, Q.C.

                v. (25217)

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

                Richard C.C. Peck, Q.C.

                Peck and Tammen

FILING DATE 20.3.1996

William Oppong

                Ian Stewart

                Rexdale Community Legal Clinic

                v. (25218)

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

                Kevin Lunney

                Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 18.3.1996

Maria Jackie Dasent

                Ian Stewart

                Rexdale Community Legal Clinic

                v. (25219)

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

                Kevin Lunney

                Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 18.3.1996

Myung Kap Kwon et al.

                Harvey T. Strosberg

                Gignac, Sutts

                v. (25220)

Alec Cooper (Ont.)

                Maxwell Steidman

FILING DATE 18.3.1996

Sa Majesté La Reine

                Pierre Lévesque

                Subs. du procureur général

                c. (25221)

Michel Cogger (Qué.)

                Raphaël Schachter

                Lapointe, Schachter, Champagne & Talbot

DATE DE PRODUCTION 21.3.1996

Lionel George Russell

                Gregory G. Walen

                Hnatyshyn Singer Thorstad

                v. (25222)

Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.)

                Daryl L. Rayner

                Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 20.3.1996

Dennis Ganpatt

                R.S. Prithipaul

                Gunn & Prithipaul

                v. (25227)

Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.)

                Jack Watson, Q.C.

                Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 25.3.1996

MARCH 22, 1996 / LE 22 MARS 1996

                                                CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ. /

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Gonthier et Iacobucci

                                                                                            Michael Elkins

                                                                                                v. (25133)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Defence - Trial - Self-defence - Instruction to the jury -  Did the Court of Appeal err in its conclusion that the s. 686(1)(b)(iii) Criminal Code , R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46  proviso should be applied, despite its holding that the trial judge had erred in his direction to the jury on the Applicant’s defence of self-defence under s. 34(2)  of the Criminal Code  - Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that questions about the Applicant’s subsequent lack of concern for the two men he shot were relevant to his state of mind at the time of the shooting - Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the trial judge did not err in his direction to the jury regarding evidence of consciousness of guilt.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

June 26, 1992

Ontario Court (General Division) (Taliano J.)

Conviction: Second degree murder and attempted murder

October 3, 1995

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Brooke, Griffiths and Doherty JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

February 2, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

                                                                                          Hercules Canada

                                                                                                v. (25012)

                                          Mobil Oil Corporation and Mobil Chemical Canada, Ltd. (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Patents - Whether a reissued patent is for the same invention as the original patent - Whether the specification of the original and reissued patents must be considered objectively - Whether the Court of Appeal was under a duty to reconstrue the original patent.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

September 21, 1994

Federal Court Trial Division

(Wetston J.)

Reissue of patent was proper; claims 12, 13 and 15 of the reissued patent were invalid; substantial infringement of the invalid claims found; no infringement order issued.

September 27, 1995

Federal Court of Appeal

(Marceau, Stone, Strayer JJ.A)

Appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed

December 15, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada

(Major J.)

Application to strike out an affidavit allowed; time for perfecting application for leave to appeal extended twenty days for each party

January 4, 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

                                                                Paula LeeAnn Lewis and Shannon Lee Lewis,

                                                               Infants by their Guardian Ad Litem, Diana Holt,

                                                               and Leeland Gordon James Holt, Bobbi-Jo Holt,

                                                            and Shayne Calvert Holt, Infants by their Guardian

                                                              Ad Litem, Gail Nachbar, and the said Diana Holt

                                                                                     and Jeffrey David Holt

                                                                                                v. (24999)

                                                                                    Her Majesty The Queen

                                                            in Right of the Province of British Columbia (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence - Vicarious Liability - Master/Servant - Vicarious or absolute nature of Crown liability for negligence of independent contractor who failed to remove a rock from the face of a cliff beside a provincial highway before it fell and killed a driver.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

February 11, 1994

Supreme Court of British Columbia (Smith J.)

Action allowed

September 18, 1995

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(McEachern, Southin, and Ryan JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed

November 17, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

                                                                                             Renwick Day

                                                                                                v. (25032)

                                                                       Her Majesty The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Civil rights - Pensions - Appeals - Contributions to Canada Pension Plan - Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in striking out notice of appeal - Does the Canada Pension Plan discriminate on the basis of age and thereby violate section 15  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , which discrimination is not a reasonable limit that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society pursuant to section 1  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

January 27, 1995

Tax Court of Canada (Rowe  J.)

Appeal struck out

October 17, 1995

Federal Court of Appeal

(Isaac C.J. and Stone and McDonald JJ.A.)

Section 28 application dismissed

December 11, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

                                                                                                Roy Gould

                                                                                                v. (25033)

                                                                       Her Majesty The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Civil rights - Taxation - Pensions - Appeals - Contributions to Canada Pension Plan - Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in striking out notice of appeal - Does the Canada Pension Plan discriminate on the basis of age and thereby violate section 15  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , which discrimination is not a reasonable limit that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society pursuant to section 1  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

January 27, 1995

Tax Court of Canada (Rowe  J.)

Appeal struck out

October 17, 1995

Federal Court of Appeal

(Isaac C.J. and Stone and McDonald JJ.A.)

Section 28 application dismissed

December 11, 1995

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

                                                                                       Sa Majesté la Reine

                                                                                                c. (25155)

                                                                             Gérard Kingsley (Crim.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Preuve - Meurtre - Complot de vol qualifié - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en considérant que la séquestration concomitante au vol qualifié commis par l’accusé et au cours duquel le meurtre est survenu ne tombait pas sous le coup de l’article 231(5) e) du Code criminel ? - Compte tenu de la décision à laquelle elle est venue et du verdict du jury, la Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en ne substituant pas au verdict rendu en première instance un jugement de culpabilité de meurtre au deuxième degré, en application de l’article 686(1) b)i) et (3)  du Code criminel ?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 16 novembre 1989

Cour supérieure du Québec (Guérin j.c.s.)

Déclaration de culpabilité: meurtre au premier degré

Le 18 décembre 1995

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Bisson et Deschamps jj.c.a. et Philippon j.c.a. ad hoc)

Appel accueilli; ordonnance d’un nouveau procès sur une accusation de meurtre au deuxième degré

Le 19 février 1996

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

                                                                                       Ivor Bremer Hansen

                                                                                                v. (25130)

                                                                       Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Sufficiency of trial judge’s reasons - R. v. Burns, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656 - Corroboration - Whether corroboration is required by common law in this case - Whether corroboration must specifically implicate the accused in a material particular or only confirm in a material way the testimony of a witness.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

May 25, 1995

Court of Queen’s Bench for Alberta (Moore J.)

Conviction: sexual assault (2 counts); gross indecency (2 counts); attempted buggery

December 5, 1995

Court of Appeal of Alberta

(Lieberman, Kerans and Fruman JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

February 2, 1996

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

                                                                   Myrna Catherine Coburn and Colleen Gale

                                                             Robertson, Executrices of the Estate of Catherine

                                                                Mahaffey, also known as Catherina Mahaffey,

                                                Deceased, and Myrna Catherine Coburn and Colleen Robertson

                                                                                                v. (25025)

                                                                     Joseph Anthony Cavadini, Carl Rudolph

                                          Cavadini, Randolph Ermese Cavadini and Erma Marcella Aikins (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Wills - Testator's moral duty to adult independent children - Whether lower courts erred in finding that the Testatrix failed in her moral duty towards the Respondents by failing to make adequate provision in her Will for their proper maintenance and support.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

August 29, 1994

Supreme Court of British Columbia (Coultas J.)

Application for variation of will allowed

October 5, 1995

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(Hinkson, Hollinrake,  and Donald JJ.A)

Appeal dismissed

December 1, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

MARCH 26, 1996 / LE 26 MARS 1996

CORAM: Chief Justice Lamer and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ. /

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Gonthier et Iacobucci

                                                                                          Andrew Sim Katz

                                                                                                v. (25014)

                                          Vancouver Stock Exchange, British Columbia Securities Commission

and Superintendent of Brokers (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative Law - Jurisdiction - Reasonable apprehension of bias based on the institutional independence of a tribunal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

May 11, 1995

British Columbia Securities Commission

Application dismissed

September 28, 1995

British Columbia Court of Appeal

(Hollinrake, Rowles and Prowse JJ.A)

Appeal dismissed

November 24, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

MARCH 28, 1996 / LE 28 MARS 1996

24979SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE  c.  SADEK SADEK (Crim.)(Qué.)

CORAM:               Le juge en chef et les juges Gonthier et Iacobucci

                                La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

                                The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Jury - Réponse du juge du procès à une question du jury portant sur le meurtre au premier degré  - La Cour d’appel a t-elle erré en droit en considérant la réponse du juge de première instance à une question du jury comme erronée, malgré le fait que la Cour, unanimement, a considéré l’ensemble des directives conformes, voire même “indiscutables”? - La Cour d’appel a t-elle erré en omettant de statuer sur l’application des dispositions curatives de l’article 686(1)b)(iii) du Code criminel  et en ne les appliquant pas dans cette cause? - Article 231(5)  du Code criminel . 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 17 janvier 1992

Cour supérieure, juridiction criminelle (Riopel j.c.s.)

Verdict: Intimé reconnu coupable de meurtre au premier degré, séquestration et voies de fait graves

Le 6 octobre 1995

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Vallerand, Baudouin et Robert jj.c.a.)

Appel accueilli; verdict cassé et nouveau procès sur l’accusation de meurtre au premier degré ordonné

Le 3 novembre 1995

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

24918HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN  v.  FIBRECO INC.; FIBRECO EXPORT INC. (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

Taxation - Statutes -  Interpretation - The use of administrative practice and Parliamentary debates for interpretation - Income Tax Act s. 127(9).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

24991CANSON ENTERPRISES LTD. and FEALTY ENTERPRISES LTD.  v.  BOUGHTON & COMPANY,  RALPH R. WOLLEN, GEORGE O. TREIT, TREIT LAND CONSULTANTS INC., PACIFIC MORTGAGE CORPORATION LIMITED, GORDON BERT WILKINS, SUN-MARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND PEREGRINE VENTURES INC. (B.C.)

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

Torts - Barristers and solicitors - Partnership - Breach of fiduciary duty - Liability to account for secret profits - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling that in an action against a partnership, in order to establish the liability of one of the partners and thus the partnership, it is necessary to name the partner as an individual defendant in the style of cause - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding the liability of a partnership to account for a secret profit taken by a third party with the assistance of the partners on the basis of the rationale for liability of a corporate director for a breach of trust by his company pursuant to Air Canada v. M& L Travel, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 787 - Whether the Court of  Appeal erred in ruling that subjective knowledge of a dishonest scheme was required of a partner before the partnership could be held liable to account for a secret profit taken by a third party with the assistance of a partner - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not holding a law firm jointly liable with a secret profiteer to account for a secret profit in circumstances where the secret profit was paid out of trust funds contrary to the instructions of the client.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

24919CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY  v. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY AND NATIONAL GYPSUM (CANADA) LIMITED (F.C.A.)

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

Commercial law - Constitutional law - Arbitration - Contracts - Respondent shipper applying to National Transportation Agency pursuant to s. 48 of the National Transportation Act, 1987, Chap. N-20.01, for Final Offer Arbitration in respect of the rate charged by Applicant carrier for the transportation of goods -Applicant carrier submitting that application For Final Offer Arbitration is null and void ab initio since the traffic to which it relates is governed by a confidential contract and should be dismissed and not referred to an arbitrator as it is contrary to subs. 120(6) of the NTA, 1987 - Whether the National Transportation Agency erred in law or jurisdiction in deciding that the matter submitted by National Gypsum for final offer arbitration was not governed by a confidential contract within the meaning of section 120(6) of the NTA, 1987? - Whether the final offer arbitration provisions in sections 48 to 57 of the NTA, 1987 are ultra vires the Parliament of Canada?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

March 9, 1995

National Transportation Agency

Decision: Canadian National Railway Company’s request to dismiss National Gypsum  (Canada) Limited’s application for Final Offer Arbitration denied

October 2, 1995

Federal Court of Appeal

(Isaac C.J. and Marceau and Roberston JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

Octobre 26, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

24854KAMIL TRABULSEY v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)

CORAM:               La Forest, Cory and Major 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 - Trespass - Whether provincial trespass legislation can be used to restrict access to federally-owned civilian international airport.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

24874WILLIAM JOHN DUBASZ v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Alta.)

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 - Sentencing - Whether sentence of 12 years was fit sentence for manslaughter in circumstances of this case.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

24833CAROLE L. BARRONS v. HYUNDAI AUTO CANADA INC. ("HYUNDAI CANADA") (Ont.)

CORAM:               La Forest, Cory and Major JJ.

                The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

                La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Civil procedure - Costs - Litigant acting in person -Section 36 of the Solicitors Act.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

24828ASCENZA SCAMOLLA, ADMINISTRATIX OF THE ESTATE OF VINCENZO SCAMOLLA, DECEASED, LOU SCAMOLLA, ANTONETTA SCAMOLLA AND VICTORIA ASHLEY SCAMOLLA, BY HER LITIGATION GUARDIAN, LOU SCAMOLLA v. TENAX LIMITED, ALEX DELIULIS, UNICRANE INC., BATTISTA DAMATTO, BURRELL ENGINEERING LTD., MICHAEL BURRELL, KROLL CRANES A/S, ASX 9472 A/S, KROLL GIANT CRANES A/S, THOMAS SCHMIDT A/S, BAGSVAERD AND AKTIESELSKABET VOELUND (Ont.)

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

Torts - Negligence - Damages - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reducing the amounts of non-pecuniary general damages awarded by the jury following the trial of an action for wrongful death - Whether there should be a cap on non-pecuniary damage awards made to claimants under wrongful death legislation?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

24982JOSEPH REED v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (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

Canadian Charter  - Criminal law - Prosecutorial discretion - Whether Crown obliged to formally charge Applicant and proceed with trial after arrest.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

January 31, 1995

Supreme Court of British Columbia (Fraser J.)

Petition for mandamus dismissed

September 12, 1995

Court of Appeal for British Columbia

(McEachern C.J., and Rowles and Donald JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

November 6, 1995

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

24952PATRICK O’CONNOR v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)

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 - Evidence - Admissibility - Prior consistent statements - Expert evidence - Evidence of complainant's emotional state - Application of Criminal Code  s. 686(1) (b)(iii).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

24747NURUL I. CHOUDHURY M.D.  c.  COUR SUPÉRIEURE, L'HONORABLE PIERRE VIAU, TRIBUNAL DES PROFESSIONS, L'HONORABLE JUGE JACQUES BIRON, DR. ROCK BERNIER, DR. AUGUSTIN ROY, DR. SUZANNE RICHER, DR. MICHEL LÉVEILLÉ, DR, JACQUES BRIÈRE ET DR. ANDRÉ LAPIERRE  (Qué.)

CORAM:               Le Juge en chef et les juges  L'Heureux-Dubé et Gonthier

                La demande de réexamen est  rejetée avec dépens.

                The motion for reconsideration is denied with costs.

21.3.1996

Before / Devant: McLACHLIN J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:Attorney General of B.C.

IN/DANS:Greenpeace Canada et al.

                                                v. (24437)

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. (B.C.)

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

21.3.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file an intervener’s factum

BY/PAR:Canadian Human Rights Commission

IN/DANS:Battlefords and District Co-operative Ltd.

                                                v. (24342)

Betty-Lu Clara Gibbs (Sask.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de dépôt du mémoire d’un intervenant

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to April 4, 1996.

21.3.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file the respondent’s factum

William Goldhart

   v. (24835)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de dépôt du mémoire de l’intimée

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to March 20, 1996.

26.3.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file the case on appeal and the appellant’s factum

Northeast Marine Services Ltd.

   v. (24629)

Atlantic Pilotage Authority (N.S.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de dépôt du dossier d’appel et du mémoire de l’appelante

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to May 17, 1996.

28.3.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file an intervener’s factum

BY/PAR:A.G. of Manitoba

IN/DANS:Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

                                                v. (24305)

Attorney General for New Brunswick et al. (N.B.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de dépôt du mémoire d’un intervenant

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to March 18, 1996.

28.3.1996

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file an intervener’s factum

BY/PAR:A.G. of Saskatchewan

IN/DANS:Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

                                                v. (24305)

Attorney General for New Brunswick et al. (N.B.)

Requête en prorogation du délai de dépôt du mémoire d’un intervenant

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to March 7, 1996.

28.3.1996

Before / Devant: LE JUGE McLACHLIN

Requête en prorogation du délai pour obtenir l'autorisation d'appel et requête en substitution de signification

Sa Majesté La Reine

   c. (25215)

Terry C. Cobb et al. (Qué.)

Motion to extend the time in which to apply for leave to appeal and motion for substitutional service

ACCORDÉE / GRANTED

28.3.1996

Before / Devant: McLACHLIN J.

Motion to adduce new evidence

A.M.

   v. (24612)

Clive Ryan et al. (B.C.)

Requête pour déposer d'autres éléments de preuve

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

26.3.1996

Hercules Managements Ltd., Guardian Finance of Canada Ltd. et al.

   v. (24882)

Friendly Family Farms Ltd. et al. (Man.)

20.3.1996

Henry Lewis Bramwell

   v. (25211)

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

AS OF RIGHT

20.3.1996

Cameron Lee Russell

   v. (25214)

Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.)

AS OF RIGHT

27.3.1996

Delmain Aiken Cuthbert

   v. (25230)

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

AS OF RIGHT

27.3.1996

Emma Nieto Bablitz

   v. (25239)

Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.)

AS OF RIGHT

27.3.1996

Damon Gregory Horne

   v. (25240)

Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.)

AS OF RIGHT

BY/PAR:Attorney General of British Columbia

Attorney General for Ontario

IN/DANS:Brant County Board of Education

                                                v. (24668)

Carol Eaton et al. (Ont.)

22.3.1996

Selkirk Springs International Corp et al.

    v. (24970)

Sawridge Manor Ltd. (B.C.)

(motion)

21.3.1996

CORAM:Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

Adrian Franciscus Van Der AA

   v. (24692)

Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Man.)

George A. Derwin, for the appellant.

Richard A. Saull, for the respondent.

SOPINKA J.  (orally for the Court) -- This is an appeal as of right.  Substantially for the reasons of Kroft J.A., we are all in agreement that the judgment at trial was not unreasonable.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

LE JUGE SOPINKA  (oralement pour la Cour) -- Il s'agit d'un appel de plein droit. Nous sommes tous d'accord, essentiellement pour les motifs formulés par le juge Kroft de la Cour d'appel, que le jugement rendu au procès n'était pas déraisonnable. En conséquence, l'appel est rejeté.

21.3.1996

CORAM:L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

Her Majesty The Queen

   v. (24732)

Falah Saleh Majid (Crim.)(Sask.)

Kenneth W. Mackay, Q.C., for the appellant.

Richard W. Elson and Mark Brayford, Q.C., for the respondent.

L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ J. (orally for the Court) -- This is an appeal as of right.  The majority of the Court is of the view that this appeal should be dismissed substantially for the reasons of Cameron J.A. in the Court of Appeal.  Madame Justice L’Heureux-Dubé, dissenting, would have allowed the appeal substantially for the reasons of Gerwing J.A.

                Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

LE JUGE L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ (oralement au nom de la Cour) -- Il s’agit d’un appel de plein droit. La Cour à la majorité est d’avis de rejeter le présent appel, essentiellement pour les motifs formulés par le  juge Cameron en Cour d’appel. Madame le juge L’Heureux-Dubé, dissidente, aurait accueilli le pourvoi, essentiellement pour les motifs du juge Gerwing de la Cour d’appel.

                En conséquence,  l’appel est rejeté.

25.3.1996

CORAM:Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges  La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin et Major

J.L.D.

   c. (24028)

René Vallée et al. (Qué.)

Guy Bertrand, pour l’appelant.

Bernard Vézina, pour l’intimé René Vallée.

Jean-Yves Bernard, pour l’intimé le procureur général du Québec.

Marc-André Blanchard et Jacques R. McLaren, pour les intervenantes la Société Radio-Canada et al.

LE JUGE EN CHEF: (oralement) -- Le pourvoi à l’encontre de la décision de la Cour d’appel en révision du jugement de M. le juge Chouinard est rejeté sans frais.  Il en est de même, vu l’absence de compétence, du pourvoi à l’encontre du jugement de M. le juge De Blois.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE --  The appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal on a motion to revise the judgment of Chouinard J.A. is dismissed without costs.  The same applies, given the lack of jurisdiction, to the appeal from the judgment of De Blois J.

Le pourvoi à l’encontre de la décision de M. le juge Chouinard est accueilli, et la Cour autorise la permission recherchée devant la Cour d’appel du Québec, aux motifs que le jugement de première instance soulève des questions d’importance et d’intérêt public qui justifient d’être examinées par la Cour d’appel.

The appeal from the decision of Chouinard J.A. is allowed, and the Court grants the leave sought in the Quebec Court of Appeal, on the grounds that the judgment at first instance raises questions of public importance and interest that warrant consideration by the Court of Appeal.

Le sursis accordé par M. le juge Cory est maintenu en vigueur jusqu’à ce que la Cour d’appel se prononce au fond sur la requête, le tout avec dépens.

The stay granted by Cory J. shall remain in effect until the Court of Appeal rules on the merits of the motion, the whole with costs.

26.3.1996

CORAM:Chief Justice Lamer and La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

Boma Manufacturing Ltd. et al.

   v. (24520)

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (B.C.)

Bruce B. Clark, for the appellants.

Keith E.W. Mitchell, for the respondent on appeal.

H. Rhys Davies, for the appellant on cross-appeal.

Bruce B. Clark, for the respondents on cross-appeal.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Commercial law - Bills of Exchange - Statutes - Interpretation - Fraud - Damages - Defence - Action against a collecting bank in conversion - Whether the cheques in question were made payable to a person considered a "fictitious or non-existing person" within the meaning of s. 20(5)  of the Bills of Exchange Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. B-4 ? - Whether the cheques in question were "delivered" to the Respondent Bank? - Whether the Respondent as a "collecting" bank prima facie liable to the Appellants in conversion so that the cheques had to be properly negotiated to them in order for it to obtain title to those cheques and thereby escape liability in conversion? - Whether the defence of contributory negligence is available to the Respondent, and if so, how should it be applied? - Whether the cheque must be deposited to the credit of its payee for s. 165(3) of the Act to apply - Whether the cheque must be endorsed before the bank can credit the person with the amount of the cheque? - Whether simply handing a cheque to the bank teller for deposit was sufficient for "delivery" to apply.

Nature de la cause:

Droit commercial - Lettres de change - Lois - Interprétation - Fraude - Dommages‐intérêts - Défense - Action en appropriation illégale intentée contre une banque d'encaissement - Les chèques en question étaient‐ils payables à une personne jugée «fictive ou qui n'existe pas» au sens du par.  20(5)  de la Loi sur les lettres de change , L.R.C. (1985), ch. B‐4 ? -  Les chèques en question ont‐ils été «livrés» à la banque intimée? - À titre de banque d'encaissement, l'intimée est‐elle à première vue responsable envers les appelantes d'appropriation illégale, de sorte que les chèques devaient être régulièrement négociés à leur égard pour qu'elle en obtienne le titre et échappe ainsi à toute responsabilité en appropriation illégale? - L'intimée peut‐elle invoquer en défense la négligence contributive et, dans l'affirmative, comment cette défense devrait‐elle être appliquée? - Le chèque doit‐il être déposé au compte de son preneur pour que le par. 165(3) de la Loi s'applique? - Le chèque doit‐il être endossé avant que la banque puisse en porter le montant au compte de la personne? - Le simple fait de remettre un chèque à un caissier de banque pour dépôt est‐il suffisant pour qu'il y ait «livraison»?

27.3.1996

CORAM:Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci et Major

Procureur général du Québec et al.

   c. (24309)

2747-4174 Québec Inc. (Qué.)

Jean-Yves Bernard et Benoit Belleau, pour les appelants.

Simon Venne et Marie Paré, pour l’intimée.

EN DÉLIBÉRÉ / RESERVED

Nature de la cause:

Libertés publiques - Droit administratif - Portée de l'art. 23 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. C-12, qui prévoit que toute personne a droit à une audition publique et impartiale de sa cause par un tribunal indépendant et qui ne soit pas préjugé - Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec cumulant des fonctions de réglementation, d'enquête et d'adjudication - Cour d'appel concluant à l'existence de liens très étroits entre les régisseurs, les policiers et les avocats de la Régie, lesquels dépendent tous du même ministre de la Sécurité publique - La Cour d'appel, à la majorité, a-t-

Nature of the case:

Civil rights - Administrative law - Scope of s. 23 of the Charter of human rights and freedoms, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-12, which provides that every person has a right to a public and fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal - Régie des permis d’alcool du Québec having regulatory, investigative and adjudicative functions - Court of Appeal finding that there were very close ties among the commissioners, the police and the Régie’s lawyers, who were all responsible to the  Minister of

 elle erré en invalidant la référence à l'art. 75 contenue à l'art. 86(8) de la Loi sur les permis d'alcool, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. P-9.1, au motif que lorsque la Régie procède à la révocation ou suspension d'un permis pour cause d'atteinte à la tranquillité publique, sa structure institutionnelle n'offre pas les garanties d'impartialité et d'indépendance exigées par l'art. 23  de la Charte?

Public Security - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in striking down the reference to s. 75 in s. 86(8) of the Act respecting liquor permits, R.S.Q. 1977, c. P-9.1, on the ground that when the Régie cancelled or suspended a permit because of a disturbance of public tranquillity, its institutional structure did not provide the guarantees of impartiality and independence required by s. 23  of the Charter.

27.3.1996

CORAM:Chief Justice Lamer and La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

Her Majesty The Queen

   v. (24835)

William Goldhart (Crim.)(Ont.)

Scott K. Fenton, for the appellant.

Timothy E. Breen, for the respondent.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Criminal law - Evidence - Exclusion pursuant to s. 8  of the Charter - Whether evidence of witness  connected to an illegal search in a manner that infringed Respondent’s Charter rights - Whether admission of evidence of witness could bring administration of justice into disrepute pursuant to s. 24(2) .

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel - Preuve - Exclusion conformément à l'art. 8  de la Charte - La déposition d'un témoin est‐elle liée à une fouille illégale d'une façon qui porte atteinte aux droits que la Charte garantit à l'intimé? - L'utilisation de la déposition du témoin est‐elle susceptible de déconsidérer l'administration de la justice aux termes du par. 24(2) ?

28.3.1996

CORAM:Le juge en chef  Lamer et les juges  La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin et Major

William Knox

   c. (24690)

Sa Majesté La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

Robert B. Carew, pour l’appelant.

Martin Lamontagne, pour l’intimée.

EN DÉLIBÉRÉ / RESERVED

Nature of the case:

Criminal law - Impaired driving - Evidence -Taking of  blood sample - Section 254(4)  of the Criminal Code  - Whether consent of accused essential element to be proved by Crown - Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding sample demand by police officer did not comply with s. 254(4) and decision in R. v. Green ,[1992] 1 S.C.R. 614 - Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding consent to provide sample need not be proved by Crown, and that sample results should not be excluded from evidence - Unreasonable delay in advising Appellant of charges against him - Stay of proceedings - Whether ss. 7, 11(a) and 11(d) Charter rights violated.

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel - Conduite avec facultés affaiblies - Preuve - Prélèvement d'un échantillon de sang - Paragraphe 254(4)  du Code criminel  - Le consentement de l'accusé est‐il un élément essentiel que le ministère public doit prouver? - La Cour d'appel a‐t‐elle commis une erreur en concluant que la demande d'échantillon du policier n'était pas conforme au par. 254(4) et à l'arrêt R. c. Green, [1992] 1 R.C.S. 614? - La Cour d'appel a-t‐elle commis une erreur en concluant que le consentement au prélèvement de l'échantillon ne doit pas nécessairement être prouvé par le ministère public, et que les résultats de l'analyse de l'échantillon ne devraient pas être exclus de la preuve? - Délai déraisonnable à informer l'appelant de la nature des accusations portées contre lui - Arrêt des procédures - Les droits garantis par l'art. 7 et les al. 11 a )  et d) de la Charte ont‐ils été violés?

28.3.1996

CORAM:Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

Her Majesty The Queen

   v. (24788)

Alfred Nicholas Richard (Crim.)(N.S.)

S. Ronald Fainstein, Q.C. and Paula Taylor, for the appellant.

Warren K. Zimmer, for the respondent.

ALLOWED / ACCUEILLI

Nature of the case:

Criminal law - Search and seizure - Narcotics - Evidence - Validity of warrant - Whether police had reasonable grounds to conduct a warrantless search in the circumstances - Whether real evidence admissible in light of Charter violation - Whether Court of Appeal erred in applying Debot and Collins criteria and tests - Whether Court of Appeal erred in excluding evidence pursuant to s. 24(2)  of the Charter ?

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel - Fouilles, saisies et perquisitions - Stupéfiants -Preuve - Validité d'un mandat - La police avait‐elle des motifs raisonnables d'effectuer une fouille sans mandat dans les circonstances? - La preuve matérielle est‐elle admissible compte tenu de la violation de la Charte? - La Cour d'appel a‐t‐elle commis une erreur en appliquant les critères énoncés dans les arrêts Debot et Collins? - La Cour d'appel a‐t-elle commis une erreur en écartant des éléments de preuve conformément au par. 24(2)  de la Charte?

AGENDA for the week beginning April 1, 1996.

ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 1 avril 1996.

Date of Hearing/                                     Case Number and Name/    

Date d'audition                                        Numéro et nom de la cause

01/04/96Motions - Requêtes

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.

                                                                     SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

                                                             CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA

- 1996 -

Journée d’audition de pourvois:                                                                                                                                                                                      

Motion days:

Journées de requêtes:

Holidays:

Congés statutaires: