Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

February 14, 2003 227 - 267                                                                le 14 février 2003

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Philippe Vigneault

Christian Lachance

Des Longchamps, Bourrasse & Trudeau

c. (29574)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)

Hélène DesParois

P.G. du Québec

DATE DE PRODUCTION 17.1.2003

Chambre des notaires du Québec

Manon Talbot

Talbot Charbonneau

c. (29575)

Yves Dugas (Qué.)

Yves Dugas

DATE DE PRODUCTION 17.1.2003

James Blair Down

Charles F. Willms

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin

v. (29576)

Interclaim Holdings Limited and the

Co-petitioners listed in Schedule “B” to the Petitions (B.C.)

Robert W. Grant

Heenan Blaikie

FILING DATE 20.1.2003

Donald Pearson, et al.

David A. Klein

Klein Lyons

v. (29578)

Boliden Limited, et al. (B.C.)

Elliot M. Myers

Bull, Housser & Tupper

FILING DATE 20.1.2003

Michael Pochay

Michael Pochay

v. (29550)

The Commissioner of Corrections Canada (Ont.)

Jeff Anderson

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 23.1.2003

Holly Big Canoe, Inquiry Officer

William S. Challis

Information and Privacy Commissioner/

Ontario

v. (29572)

Attorney General of Ontario, et al. (Ont.)

Luba A. Kowal

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 24.1.2003

Her Majesty the Queen

Peter P. Rosinski

Public Prosecution Service

v. (29579)

Bernard Edgar Moore (N.S.)

Philip J. Star

Pink Nickerson Star

FILING DATE 24.1.2003

Zurich Insurance Company

Steven Stieber

Stieber Berlach Gibbs

v. (29577)

686234 Ontario Limited (Ont.)

John A. Campion

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin

FILING DATE 27.1.2003

St. James-Assiniboia Teachers’ Association of the Manitoba Teachers’ Society

Mel Myers, Q.C.

Myers Weinberg

v. (29581)

St. James-Assiniboia School Division (Man.)

Kristin Gibson

Aikins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson

FILING DATE 27.1.2003

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the province of Alberta as represented by the Minister of Infrastructure (formerly the Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services)

Gavin S. Fitch

Rooney Prentice

v. (29580)

Thor William Nilsson (Alta.)

Brian Kaliel

Cobertt Smith Bresee

FILING DATE 28.1.2003

House of Commons, et al.

Neil Finkelstein

Blake, Cassels & Graydon

v. (29564)

Satnam Vaid, et al. (F.C.)

Satnam Vaid

FILING DATE 31.1.2003

La Compagnie d’assurance générale Kansa International, et autre

Réjean Lizotte

Desjardins Ducharme Stein Monast

c. (29573)

Corporation de la Ville de Hawkesbury (Qué.)

Jean Bélanger

Lavery, de Billy

DATE DE PRODUCTION 31.1.2003

Benjamin Krela, et autre

Marzia Frascadore

Gowling Lafleur Henderson

c. (29567)

Sulzer Medica AG, et autres (Qué.)

Douglas C. Mitchell

Irving Mitchell & Associates

DATE DE PRODUCTION 3.2.2003

Raynald Jean

François Marchand

Daignault & Associés

c. (29582)

Ville de Val-Bélair (Qué.)

Roger Pothier

Pothier Delisle

DATE DE PRODUCTION 3.2.2003

W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.

George E. Fisk

Blake Cassels & Graydon

v. (29583)

David Goldfarb (F.C.)

Joan Clark, Q.C.

Ogilvy Renault

FILING DATE 3.2.2003

FEBRUARY 10, 2003 / LE 10 FÉVRIER 2003

                                        CORAM:  Chief Justice McLachlin and Bastarache and Deschamps JJ. /

La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Bastarache et Deschamps

Steve Brian Ewanchuk

v. (29460)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non Charter) - Sentencing - Whether Court of Appeal erred in assessing  fitness of the sentence - Whether courts below failed to take into account and give appropriate weight to the unique circumstances particular to this case - Whether courts below erred in refusing a conditional sentence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Deloitte & Touche Inc. (formerly Arthur Andersen Inc.)

v. (29459)

Artisan Corporation (Sask.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Mechanics’ liens -  General liens - Statutes - Interpretation - Respondent registering builders’ lien pursuant to The Builders’ Lien Act, S.S. 1984-85-86, c. B-7.1 - Whether chambers judge erred in holding that Respondent had a valid general lien pursuant to s. 29 of Act - Whether a general lien can attach the property of third parties who do not have an interest in all improved properties covered by the lien - Whether the question of entitlement to a general lien is a threshold determination for application of the relevant lien legislation, thereby requiring a strict statutory interpretation.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Robert Kenneth Hartshorne

v. (29531)

Kathleen Mary Mildred Hartshorne (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Family law - Division of property - Marriage agreement - Parties  electing separate property regime in marriage agreement - Wife giving up career to raise family - Whether marriage contract unfair - Whether Court of Appeal erred in applying the same test for fairness to the marriage agreement as would be applied to a separation agreement - Whether Court of Appeal erred in reapportioning the parties’ assets in a manner which gave no effect to the marriage agreement, or to the express intention of the parties that the appellant would retain the assets he held prior to the marriage - Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 128, s. 65(1)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Cumberland Asset Management, Berner & Company Inc., Global Securities Corporation,

Peel Brooke Inc., Inukshuk Resources Inc., Robert N. Granger and Adrian M.S. White

v. (29395)

Deloitte & Touche Inc., Interim Receiver of Anvil Range Mining Corporation and Anvil Mining

Properties Inc., Cominco Ltd., Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,

Yukon Territorial Government, Ross River Dena Council (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial Law - Receivership - Insolvency - Procedural Law - Costs - Whether Companies Creditors Arrangement Act can be used to approve liquidation of the assets of an insolvent company on behalf of only secured creditors - How federal government department’s secured claim against assets of insolvent company should be affected by federal government’s right to recover environmental remediation funds from other sources - How unsecured creditors’ alternate plan of arrangement to maintain and protect corporation should have had been valued - Whether costs award an error.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Normand Cléroux

c. (29350)

Procureur général du Canada (C.F.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Compétence - Contrôle judiciaire - Recours - Griefs accusant l’intimé de harcèlement, complot, traitement préférentiel, bris de carrière, d’avoir imposé des audiences de genre militaires et injustes et d’abus de pouvoir - Compétence des tribunaux sur griefs réglés à l’arbitrage selon convention collective.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Elizabeth Balanyk

v. (29423)

The Greater Niagara General Hospital, Ontario Nurses' Association

and The Ontario Labour Relations Board (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Standard of review - Decision of Labour Relations Board - Labour law - Labour relations - Parties signing Minutes of Settlement to settle Applicant’s grievance - Applicant repudiating Minutes of Settlement and taking legal actions against Respondents for 11 years - Applicant then seeking to enforce settlement - Whether Board properly exercised its discretion in refusing to enforce settlement - Whether Board considered proper factors in exercising its discretion

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM:  Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Major et Arbour

Magnaflex Industries Inc.

v. (29448)

Victoria Park Avenue Associates Limited Partnership and Regentor IC Properties Inc. (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Landlord tenant - Commercial lease - Parties signing proposal to lease containing clause obliging them to execute landlord’s standard form of lease - Whether bad faith conduct of a party in a commercial transaction can constitute or have the same effect as a fundamental breach, when considered with breaches that are determined not to be fundamental

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Karen L. Turner‑Lienaux and

Smith's Field Manor Development Limited

v. (29407)

Wesley G. Campbell (N.S.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law – Fraud – Fiduciary duty – Disclosure – Equity contributions of individuals investing in development of retirement home partly in form of corporate loan – Applicants, also investors, believed investment was from personal resources – Whether failure to disclose the source of funds constitutes a material non‑disclosure amounting to fraud and breach of a fiduciary duty – Whether investment funding met legal requirements to qualify as equity capital –  Whether lower courts erred in finding no breach of fiduciary duty or fraud.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Sinclair‑Cockburn Insurance Brokers Limited

v. (29431)

Linda Anne Richards (Ont.)

- and -

Wiggins Mechanical Contractors and Rudolph Schrempf

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Civil procedure - Actions - Pre-trial procedure - Stay of proceedings - Motion to stay part of Applicant’s claims granted - Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to reverse finding of motions judge that it was just and appropriate in all of circumstances to grant a stay - Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 106 - Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, rule 21.01(3).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Guangshu Li, Guangxia Li and Guanghwa Li

v. (29478)

Nina Li, Kiki Li and Karen Li (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law – Estates – Real property – Partnership agreement – Joint tenancy – Deceased entered partnership agreement governing real property consisting of forty-six townhouses – Children of deceased living in China residual beneficiaries under deceased will, along with spouse and children in Canada – Whether partnership agreement provided property interests held in joint tenancy such that property excluded from residue of deceased’s estate.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Barbara Parravano and Mario Parravano

v. (29464)

KPMG Incorporated and Laurentian Bank of Canada (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law – Receivership – Procedural law – Courts – Bias – Assessment of court-appointed receiver’s accounts, including fees and disbursements of solicitors – Motions judge approving receiver’s accounts in entirety as fair and reasonable – Motions judge refused to allow applicant to cross-examine receiver – Whether motions judge correct in refusing to allow cross examination of receiver – Whether motion judge demonstrated reasonable apprehension of bias such that fair hearing denied.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Daniel Edward Webb

v. (29397)

Waterloo Regional Police Services Board, Chief R. Larry Gravill, P.C.

George Gillingham, P.C. P. Foy and P.C. Dickson (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Civil - Canadian Charter  - Criminal - Police - Sting operations - Evidence - Torts - Negligence - Abuse of process - Malicious prosecution - Whether conduct of police in response to alleged complaints of gay public sex in public park violated Charter  or was tortious conduct - Whether applicant committed sexual assault - Whether undercover police operation was a sting  operation that resulted in charges of sexual assault inconsistently with Charter  - Whether police policy to identify to the media and public the names of persons arrested on allegations of criminal conduct prior to swearing  Information or issuance of warrant violates Charter  - Whether Charter violated by refusal to allow testimony from experts on  standards of police practice or discriminatory differences in policing of sexual activity or social organization of sexual interaction among gay men  or human rights issues in social action connecting police, media and employers- Test for admission of expert evidence in constitutional litigation - Whether harmful non-consensual disclosure of an individual’s homosexuality by a state actor gives rise to liability under the Charter  or common law - Whether it was an error to decline jurisdiction to adjudicate s. 15  Charter  claim - Whether Courts erred in interpreting Charter  restrictively and in making conclusions not supported by the record - Whether Courts erred in reversing or disregarding long lines of authority.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                  CORAM:  Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ. /

Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et LeBel

Frank Lambert et Front commun des assistés sociaux du Québec

c. (29227)

Le Procureur général du Québec (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Libertés publiques - Aide sociale - Droit administratif - Appel - Compétence - Loi sur la sécurité du revenu, L.R.Q., ch. S-3.1.1, excluant le demandeur de l’application de la Loi sur les normes du travail, L.R.Q., ch. N-1.1 - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle exercée la retenue judiciaire exigée envers la décision d’un tribunal spécialisé? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré lorsqu’elle a conclu qu’il était nécessaire, outre la distinction, exclusion ou préférence fondée sur un des motifs énumérés ayant comme effet de compromettre l’exercice et la reconnaissance des droits et libertés, de démontrer que le droit à la dignité est compromis? - Si l’atteinte à la dignité est un élément nécessaire, la Cour d’appel a-t-elle mal appliqué les critères développés dans l’arrêt Law c. Canada (Ministre de l’emploi et de l’immigration), [1999] 1 R.C.S.497? - La Loi sur les normes du travail, loi impérative et d’ordre public, n’est-elle pas la mise en oeuvre des conditions de travail justes et raisonnables énoncées à l’art. 46 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., ch. C-12? - Le demandeur a-t-il été victime de discrimination au sens des art. 10 et 16 de la Charte québécoise? - Dans l’affirmative, la Cour d’appel, dans le jugement Communauté urbaine de Montréal c. Cadieux, no 500-09-007230-980, commet-elle une erreur en concluant que lorsqu’une disposition législative contrevient à la Charte québécoise, le seul remède est un constat d’inopérabilité s’il n’y a pas de faute civile?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

La Capitale Assurances MFQ Inc.

c. (29199)

Henri‑Louis Dumas (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Procédure civile - Jugements et ordonnances - Recours collectif - Code de procédure civile, L.R.Q., ch. C-25, articles 199, 1010, 1016 - Appel - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en limitant le droit d'un défendeur de faire valoir tous les moyens de contestation qui s'imposent avant l'audition de la requête pour autorisation d’un recours collectif, niant ainsi le droit d'un justiciable de faire valoir une défense pleine et entière? - La Cour d'appel a‑t‑elle commis une erreur en ne rejetant pas l'appel d'un jugement qui accueille en partie une requête en amendement d’une requête en autorisation d’un recours collectif? - La Cour d'appel a‑t‑elle commis une erreur de droit en reconnaissant l'existence d'un type de jugement qui ne soit ni interlocutoire, ni final?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 7 juin 2001

Cour supérieure du Québec

(Meyer j.c.s.)

Requête verbale de l’intimé Henri-Louis Dumas visant à modifier une requête en autorisation d’exercer un recours collectif et pour être représentant, accueillie en partie.

Le 5 décembre 2001

Cour supérieure du Québec

(Viau j.c.s.)

Requête ré-amendée de l’intimé Henri-Louis Dumas en autorisation d’exercer un recours collectif et pour être représentant, rejetée.

Le 7 mars 2002

Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal)

(Michaud j.c.q., Forget et Rochon jj.c.a.)

Requête de la demanderesse La Capitale Assurance, en rejet d’appel, rejetée.

Le 3 mai 2002

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée

Canadian Association of Internet Providers and Canadian Cable Television Association

and Bell/Expressvu and Telus Communications Inc. and Bell Canada and

Aliant Inc. and MTS Communications Inc.

v. (29286)

Society of Composers and Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (F.C.A.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property - Copyright - Statutes - Interpretation - Administrative law - Judicial review - Whether an Internet service provider (ISP) using a cache server can rely on s. 2.4  of the Copyright Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42  - Whether the transmission of copyright works from a cache server constitutes a communication to the public under s. 3(1)(f) of the Act - Test to determine whether communication of a work over the Internet takes place in Canada - Standard of judicial review - Whether an ISP operating a host server and transmitting musical works to an end user communicates the works to the public or authorizes communication under s. 3.1 - Whether an ISP which provides public access to the Internet and transmits musical works received from a host server to an end user communicates the works to the public or authorizes their communication under s. 3.1.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Nova Growth Corp., Win North Gaming Corporation, Brian Hamm,

William Hamm, Marco Durante and Peter Tassiopoulos

v. (29334)

Andrzej Roman Kepinski, 1021862 Ontario Ltd. and A. Kepinski & Associates,

Richard J.G. Boxer, 867214 Ontario Limited,

Buckingham Capital Corporation and Falls Entertainment Corporation (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Solicitor-client privilege - Whether a party to a lawsuit can be prohibited by Court Order from communicating specific information to its lawyer thereby denying the entitlement of the client to obtain informed legal advice.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse en faveur de Jean‑Marc Larocque

c. (29231)

Communauté urbaine de Montréal (Qué.)

- et -

Le Procureur général du Québec

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Jugements et ordonnances - Discrimination - Réparation appropriée - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en décidant qu’aucune réparation ne pouvait être accordée au candidat puisque les normes discriminatoires appliquées en l’espèce découlaient de l’exercice d’un pouvoir de nature réglementaire? - La Commission des droits de la personne pouvait-elle obtenir une réparation en vertu des articles 80 et 111 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., c. C-12, compte tenu de l’intérêt public?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Walter A. Conohan and Eastern Marine Underwriters Inc.

v. (29154)

The Cooperators (F.C.A.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes ‑ Maritime Insurance Act, S.C. 1993, c. 22  ‑ Interpretation‑ Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to ignore specific words in a contract that contradict the underlying intention and whole purpose of the contract itself, especially where taking into account such words would lead to unnatural, inequitable and unjust results.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

FEBRUARY 13, 2003 / LE 13 FÉVRIER 2003

CORAM:  Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Major et Arbour

Susan Lynn Czaban

v. (29481)

Brandy Rai MacPherson (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Civil procedure - Trial - Jury - Chambers judge striking defendant’s notice requiring trial by jury - Court of Appeal upholding decision - Whether, in determining if a jury notice should be struck, the chambers judge should have regard only for whether the issues before the court are complex, with respect to both the evidence and the issues - Whether, in the alternative, a chambers judge should also seek to place the onus on the party seeking to strike to explain why the alleged complexities cannot be simplified and made understandable.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

FEBRUARY 13, 2003 / LE 13 FÉVRIER 2003

29360                    Leo Henry Pilotte v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal) (29360)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache and Deschamps JJ.

The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C28618, dated March 5, 2002, is dismissed.

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C28618, daté du 5 mars 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law  - Can a trial judge ever, during the course of a trial, hold an in camera hearing on issues of disclosure at which neither party to the trial is present? - How should juries be instructed when the evidence reveals that another person may have committed the crime?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29111                    The Canada Life Assurance Company c. The Halifax Insurance Company (Qué.) (Civile)

Coram :                   La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Bastarache et Deschamps

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‑09‑007923‑998, daté du 9 janvier 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‑09‑007923‑998, dated January 9, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Assurance - Prêt- Hypothèques - Dation en paiement - Clause de diminution de garantie hypothécaire  - Un créancier hypothécaire, dont la créance assurée aux termes d’une police d’assurance de diminution de garantie hypothécaire, est-il toujours en droit de réclamer la perte monétaire qu’il a subie après qu’il ait repris la propriété endommagée par voie de dation en paiement?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29050                    Grill Newman Inc. c. Entreprises Cara Ltée, Pitco Frialator Inc., Embouteillage Coca‑Cola Ltée, Summit Food Service Distributors Inc. and Sound Products Limited (Qué.) (Civile)

Coram :                   La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Bastarache et Deschamps

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‑09‑011290‑012, daté du 3 décembre 2001, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimées Entreprises Cara Ltée et Pitco Frialator Inc.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‑09‑011290‑012, dated December 3, 2001, is dismissed with costs to Entreprises Cara Ltée and Pitco Frialator Inc.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel ‑ Injonction - Les ristournes, rabais-volume et/ou commissions versées à l’agent par les différents fournisseurs du commettant constituent-elles une contravention de l’article 426  du Code criminel  lorsque celles-ci ne sont pas divulguées de façon appropriée et en temps opportun au commettant? - L’injonction est-elle un recours recevable en droit pour empêcher la violation de l’article 426  du Code criminel ?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29377                    Dr. Jozef Krop v. Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (Ont.) (Civil)

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache and Deschamps JJ.

The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number M28272, dated June 25, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro M28272, daté du 25 juin 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative Law - Physicians & surgeons - Whether the Divisional Court erred in holding that the Discipline Committee for the College of Physicians and Surgeons did not err in its application of the test in law for determining a violation of the standard of practice of the profession

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29270                    Corey Allan Hall v. Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (Alta.)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Number 00‑18651, dated October 31, 2001, is dismissed.

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l'Alberta (Calgary), numéro 00‑18651, daté du 31 octobre 2001, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non-Charter) - Murder - Jury Charge - Causation - Intervening cause - Lawfulness of a conviction for murder where the accused has assaulted the victim and rendered him unconscious but where the victim is breathing after the family decides to withdraw a feeding tube providing the nourishment necessary to sustain life. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29267                    Calvin Boyd Colby v. Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (Sask.)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan, Number 321, dated April 23, 2002, is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Saskatchewan, numéro 321, daté du 23 avril 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non Charter) - Pre-trial procedure - Informations - Whether counts in Informations charging offences predicated on prior conviction disclose the existence of a prior criminal offence - Whether charge of breach of probation on multi-count Information should be severed from counts alleging offences for which accused’s criminal record is not admissible.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

January 7, 1999

Provincial Court of Saskatchewan

(Ebert J.)

Application to stay charges or quash Information dismissed

October 22, 1999

Provincial Court of Saskatchewan

(Ebert J.)

Convictions for refusing to provide breath sample, breach of probation, and assault.

December 2, 1999

Provincial Court of Saskatchewan

(Ebert J.)

Sentences: Fines; suspended sentence; 15 months probation; driving privileges suspended; prohibited from operating  motor vehicle for 3 months

June 1, 2001

Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan

(Dielschneider J.)

Summary conviction appeal allowed, convictions set aside

April 23, 2002

Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

(Tallis, Vancise and Jackson JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed, convictions restored

June 24, 2002

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

29192                    Affordable Cottages Inc. v. 772592 Ontario Inc. (Ont.)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C36340, dated April 3, 2002, is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l'Ontario, numéro C36340, daté du 3 avril 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Bills of exchange - Promissory note - Whether the defence of equitable set-off available as between immediate parties to a bill of exchange.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29235                    The Toronto‑Dominion Bank and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Metroland Printing, Publishing and Distribution Ltd. (Ont.)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C36371, dated April 2, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l'Ontario, numéro C36371, daté du 2 avril 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Bills of Exchange - Tort - Conversion - Whether the cheques were valid bills of exchange - Whether the “fictitious or non-existing payee” defence in s. 20(5)  of the Bills of Exchange Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. B-4  is available - Whether the cheques, which bore facsimile signatures, did not contain forged or unauthorized signatures of the drawer and were worthless piece of paper in accordance with s. 48(1) of the BEA - Whether the operation of account agreement between CIBC and the respondent provides a complete defence to the claims - Application of the principles in Boma Manufacturing Ltd. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 727 - Whether the court of appeal erred - Whether there are issues of public importance raised.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29424                    The Honourable Robert H. Nelson, Founder President of Public Defenders for himself and as representative of all those improperly denied benefits v. Her Majesty the Queen, as represented by the Honourable Martin Cauchon, Minister of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (F.C.)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‑88‑02, dated September 25, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale, numéro A‑88‑02, daté du 25 septembre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing a motion brought by the Applicant requesting leave to file a claim for $1,500,000,000,000 in punitive damages against Her Majesty the Queen, and various representatives of Her Majesty the Queen.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29283                    Her Majesty the Queen v. Abraham Robert Cooper (Crim.) (Alta.)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Edmonton), Number 0103‑0132‑A, dated May 7, 2002, is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l'Alberta (Edmonton), numéro 0103‑0132‑A, daté du 7 mai 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non Charter) - Procedural Law - Courts - Jurisdiction - DNA samples - DNA data bank - Order to seize blood sample for submission to DNA data bank after conviction stayed pending outcome of appeal - Whether provincial superior court has jurisdiction to stay order - Whether Criminal Code removes jurisdiction.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29264                    Terrance Parker v. Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (Ont.)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The motion for a stay and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C38113, dated May 3, 2002, are dismissed.

La requête en sursis d’exécution et la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l'Ontario, numéro C38113, daté du 3 mai 2002, sont rejetées.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Criminal - Criminal law - Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , S.C. 1996, c. 19  - Medical marihuana - Whether the doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel prevented Chapnik J. from handing down a decision inconsistent with the ruling of Pitt J. - Whether the Applicant’s section 7 right to life is being infringed.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

March 15, 2002

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

(Pitt J.)

Order extending constitutional exemption to the Applicant granted

April 19, 2002

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

(Chapnik J.)

Respondent’s motion to set aside the order  of March 15, 2002 allowed; Applicant’s cross-motion adjourned

May 3, 2002

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Feldman J.A.)

Appeal dismissed

July 9, 2002

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal and motion for stay filed

August 27, 2002

Supreme Court of Canada

(Gonthier J.)

Motion to expedite application for leave to appeal denied

29302                    George Kingfisher, Ben Weenie, Leslie Angus, Larry Chickness, Lola Okeeweehow and Donald Higgins for themselves and on behalf of the descendants of the Chief Chipeewayan Band v. Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‑541‑01, dated May 27, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale, numéro A‑541‑01, daté du 27 mai 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Native law - Indian Act, S.C. 1876, c.18 - Statutes - Interpretation - Treaty rights - Breach of fiduciary duty - Compensation - Standing - Whether collective rights under 1876 Treaty can only be asserted by claimants who are direct descendents of members of the Young Chipeewayan Band -  - Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010 - Housen v. Nikolaissen, [2002] S.C.R. 33

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29324                    Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. Inc. and Merck Frosst Canada Inc. (F.C.)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‑120‑01, dated May 28, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale, numéro A‑120‑01, daté du 28 mai 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Licences - Patents - Patented medicines - Estoppel - Whether the public interest in finality of litigation should be allowed override the competing public interest in ensuring that justice is done between the parties on the particular facts of a given case - Whether the existence of demonstrable injustice will, as a matter of law, prevent the enforcement of any estoppel that might be found to exist using the traditional three-step analysis.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29291                    Flint F. Kaya v. The Gazette Newspaper of Montreal and Lisa Fitterman (Que.)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‑09‑012171‑021, dated May 10, 2002, is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‑09‑012171‑021, daté du 10 mai 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedure - Prescription - Whether lower courts erred in finding that the Applicant’s action for libel was prescribed despite his alleged impossibility to act.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29357                    Nuri Jazairi v. Scott & Aylen (Ont.)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C37475, dated July 2, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l'Ontario, numéro C37475, daté du 2 juillet 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Costs - Offer to settle - Whether the motions judge misapplied Rule 49.10 of the  “Offer to Settle” costs to the detriment of the Applicant.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29353                    Dr. Brenlee Kemp v. Dr. Gerald Wittenberg and Dr. Wittenberg Inc., a Professional Corporation (B.C.)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA025305, dated June 17, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie‑Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA025305, daté du 17 juin 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Civil procedure - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by applying the wrong test in order to determine whether or not to grant a rehearing of the cross-appeal of the Applicant - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by applying the wrong test in order to determine whether oral argument should be permitted with respect to the Applicant’s request for a rehearing.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29373                    Earl M. Shuman v. Ontario New Home Warranty Program (Ont.)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C‑373‑23, dated June 21, 2002, is dismissed without costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l'Ontario, numéro C‑373‑23, daté du 21 juin 2002, est rejetée sans dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property - Real property - Remedies - Ontario New Home Warranty Program - Procedural law - Actions - Actions in misfeasance in public office and spoliation of public evidence -  Whether a home owner was entitled to compensation under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.31 for defects affecting the home - Whether the Courts have a duty to the public to provide rational decisions based on rational principles - Whether lawyers representing delegated administrative authorities have a duty to the Court and to the public to make honest arguments to assist the Court in making rational decisions - Whether individuals representing delegated administrative authorities, government tribunals and the Court together effect a perverse and irrational change in the law which sets an irrational and unfair principle in law

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29470                    Vasundara Raghavan and Gopalachari Raghavan v. The Attorney General of Canada (F.C.)

Coram:                    Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‑350‑01, dated September 24, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale, numéro A‑350‑01, daté du 24 septembre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Marital status - Ss. 252(4)  of the Income Tax Act , R.S.C. 1985, (5 ^th  Supp.) c.1  - Procedural law - Tax Court of Canada - Notice requirement of a constitutional question - S. 57  of the Federal Court Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7  - Whether the Informal Procedure of the Tax Court of Canada is conducive to vagueness of findings of credibility, to the admissibility of stereotyped behaviour as evidence and to the imposition of stricter standards of proof? - Whether the Informal Procedure of the Tax Court of Canada compromise the accessibility to the justice system and the right to privacy of the parties involved? - Whether violations of Charter rights be considered non-violations because an unrepresented party  in the Tax Court of Canada did not recognize or object at the time the court caused such violations to happen? - What is the remedy when a constitutional question goes unanswered by the Federal Court of Canada?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29482                    Jean Hébert c. Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)

Coram :                   Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et LeBel

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Québec (Québec), numéro 200‑10‑001376‑024, daté du 30 septembre 2002, est rejetée.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Quebec), Number 200‑10‑001376‑024, dated September 30, 2002, is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Fraude - Prorogation de délai - Allégations par le demandeur portant sur la divulgation de la preuve, le comportement des avocats et policiers, et son droit à une défense pleine et entière lorsqu’en détention préventive.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29255                    Régent Millette c. Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)

Coram :                   Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et LeBel

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale, numéro A‑84‑99, daté du 17 avril 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‑84‑99, dated April 17, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure  - Appel - La Cour canadienne de l’impôt a-t-elle erré en refusant d’inclure certaines déductions dans les revenus du demandeur?  Droit fiscal - Impôts - Inclusions - Déductions - La Cour d’appel fédérale a-t-elle commis une erreur en refusant au demandeur de produire de la nouvelle preuve?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29099                    Palma Olii c. Fonds d'assurance responsabilité professionnelle de la Chambre des notaires du Québec (Qué.)

Coram :                   Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et LeBel

La demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‑09‑007706‑997, daté du 7 janvier 2002, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur du Fonds d’assurance responsabilité professionnelle de la Chambre des notaires du Québec.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‑09‑007706‑997, dated January 7, 2002, is dismissed with costs  to Fonds d’assurance responsabilité professionnelle de la Chambre des notaires du Québec.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Responsabilité civile - Droit des professions - Compte en fidéicommis - Un notaire qui reçoit une somme d’argent dans son compte en fidéicommis par voie de transfert électronique sans en connaître la provenance doit-il faire des vérifications et obtenir le document bancaire qui indique le nom de l’émetteur, le montant et le motif de l’envoi, et s’enquérir des instructions de l’émetteur, avant de remettre les sommes reçues à son client qui en revendique la propriété? - Une Cour d’appel omet-elle d’exercer sa juridiction en refusant d’intervenir dans un jugement en invoquant qu’il s’agit d’une question de faits, alors que la question posée en première instance était une question de droit à savoir, les obligations de vérification d’un notaire?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

5.2.2003

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

J.H.K.

v. (29495)

United States of America, et al. (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la réponse des intimés

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to January 29, 2003.

5.2.2003

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Miscellaneous order

BY/PAR:                Procureur général du Québec

IN/DANS:              Canadian Cable Television Association

v. (28826)

Barrie Public Utilities, et al. (F.C.)

Autre ordonnance

APRÈS AVOIR LU le mémoire déposé par le Procureur général du Québec, qui est intervenu  en vertu du par. 61(4) des Règles, et compte tenu de l’alinéa 71(5)c) des Règles;

LA COUR accorde au Procureur général du Québec l’autorisation de présenter une plaidoirie orale dont la durée ne pourra dépasser dix (10) minutes au total lors de l’audition de l’appel.

HAVING READ the factum filed by the intervener, the Attorney General of Québec; who intervened by virtue of Rule 61(4) and having regard to the provisions of Rule 71(5)(c);

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Attorney General of Québec is granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding ten (10) minutes in total at the hearing of the appeal.

5.2.2003

Before / Devant:   THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Motion for additional time to present oral argument

In the matter of Earth Future Lottery: Attorney General for the Province of Prince Edward Island, and Earth Fund/Fond pour la terre

v. (29213)

Attorney General of Canada, et al. (P.E.I.)

Requête en prorogation du temps alloué pour les plaidoiries

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the appellants for additional time for oral argument in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The application on behalf of the appellants for additional time for oral argument is dismissed.

6.2.2003

Before / Devant:   IACOBUCCI J.

Motion for a stay of execution

Earl Cameron Creighton

v. (29558)

Charlotte Bjornson (Ont.)

Requête en vue de surseoir à l'exécution

DISMISSED WITH COSTS / REJETÉE AVEC DÉPENS

UPON APPLICATION by the applicant for an order granting a stay of execution;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The application for a stay of execution is refused with costs and without prejudice to apply to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

6.2.2003

Before / Devant:   IACOBUCCI J.

Further order on motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Ontario

IN/DANS:              In the matter of Earth Future Lottery: Attorney General for the Province of Prince Edward Island, et al.

v. (29213)

Attorney General of Canada, et al. (P.E.I.)

Autre ordonnance sur une requête en autorisation d'intervention

UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General of Ontario for leave to intervene in the above appeal and pursuant to the order of November 13, 2002;

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said intervener is granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding fifteen (15) minutes in total at the hearing of the appeal.

À LA SUITE DE LA DEMANDE du Procureur général du Québec visant à obtenir l’autorisation d’intervenir dans l’appel susmentionné et suite à l’ordonnance du 2 décembre 2002;

LA COUR accorde au Procureur général du Québec l’autorisation de présenter une plaidoirie orale dont la durée ne pourra dépasser quinze (15) minutes au total lors de l’audition de l’appel.

6.2.2003

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Her Majesty the Queen

v. (29053)

Yu Wu (Crim.)(Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les dossier, mémoire et recueil de jurisprudence et de doctrine de l’appelante

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to February 21, 2003.

6.2.2003

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion on behalf of the applicants to file supplementary materials

Karen L. Turner-Lienaux, et al.

v. (29407)

Wesley G. Campbell (N.S.)

Requête des demandeurs pour déposer des documents supplémentaires

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

11.2.2003

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour JJ.

R. R.

v. (28933)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal) (As of Right) 2003 SCC 4 / 2003 CSC 4

William R. Gilmour for the appellant.

Karen Shai for the respondent.

DISMISSED / REJETÉ

The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C34000, dated November 5, 2001, was heard this day and the following judgment was rendered:

Iacobucci J. (orally) —

This is an appeal as of right that comes to the Court as a result of the dissenting judgment of Feldman J.A. in the Ontario Court of Appeal on the issue of necessity regarding the admissibility of hearsay evidence of the complainant in a sexual assault case.  Feldman J.A. reasoned that the trial judge erred in law because, although the complainant was unavailable to attend on the trial date, she may have been available in a few weeks and so an adjournment was in order to safeguard the rights of the accused.

Neither party requested an adjournment. Viewed narrowly, the trial judge was required to determine, on the issue of necessity, whether the complainant was available to testify on the date all parties agreed to proceed.  The evidence was clear and uncontradicted that for medical reasons she could not testify on that date.

Viewed more broadly, although we share the concerns identified by Feldman J.A. on the matter, particularly in cases of this kind, we are of the view that when one considers all the circumstances and evidence before the trial judge, there is no reason to interfere with his discretionary decision to find necessity and admit the statement.

L’appel interjeté contre l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C34000, en date du 5 novembre 2001, a été entendu aujourd’hui et le jugement suivant a été rendu :

Le juge Iacobucci (oralement) :

[Traduction] Le présent appel interjeté de plein droit devant notre Cour émane des motifs dissidents que la juge Feldman de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario a rédigés sur la question de la nécessité en matière d’admissibilité du ouï‑dire de la plaignante dans une affaire d’agression sexuelle.  La juge Feldman a estimé que le juge du procès avait commis une erreur de droit étant donné que, même si la plaignante n’était pas disponible pour comparaître le jour du procès, elle aurait pu éventuellement l’être quelques semaines plus tard, de sorte qu’il convenait d’ordonner un ajournement pour protéger les droits de l’accusé.

Ni l’une ni l’autre partie n’a sollicité un ajournement.  D’un point de vue strict, le juge du procès était tenu de décider, relativement à la question de la nécessité, si la plaignante était disponible pour témoigner à la date convenue par toutes les parties.  La preuve claire et non contredite indiquait que, pour des raisons médicales, la plaignante n’était pas en mesure de témoigner à cette date.

D’un point de vue général, quoique nous partagions les inquiétudes exprimées à ce propos par la juge Feldman, particulièrement dans une affaire de ce genre, nous sommes d’avis que, compte tenu de toutes les circonstances et de la preuve soumise au juge du procès, rien ne justifie de modifier sa décision discrétionnaire

In particular, there was evidence before the trial judge on which he could conclude that there was no reasonable possibility that the complainant would be available to testify within an acceptable period of time.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

de conclure à l’existence de nécessité et d’admettre la déclaration en question.

En particulier, le juge du procès disposait d’une preuve qui lui permettait de conclure à l’inexistence de toute possibilité raisonnable que la plaignante soit disponible pour témoigner à l’intérieur d’un délai acceptable.  En conséquence, l’appel est rejeté.

Nature of the case:

Criminal law - Evidence - Hearsay - Exceptions to the rule - Necessity - Complainant institutionalized and unavailable to testify at time of the trial - Crown seeking to introduce videotaped statements of complainant in absence of complainant - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial judge properly admitted the hearsay statement under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel - Preuve - Ouï‑dire - Exceptions à la règle - Nécessité - La plaignante est internée et n’est pas en mesure de témoigner au moment du procès - Le ministère public cherche à introduire en l’absence de la plaignante l’enregistrement magnétoscopique de ses déclarations. - La Cour d’appel a‑t‑elle commis une erreur en concluant que le juge du procès avait admis à bon droit la déclaration relatée en application de l’exception de principe à la règle du ouï‑dire?

11.2.2203

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache JJ.

Allan Harriott

v. (29118)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal) (As of Right) 2003 SCC 5 / 2003 CSC 5

Christopher Hicks and Victor Giourgas for the appelant.

Christine Bartlett-Hughes for the respondent.

DISMISSED, IACOBUCCI AND MAJOR JJ. DISSENTING /

REJETÉ, LES JUGES IACOBUCCI ET MAJOR SONT DISSIDENTS

The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C33886, dated February 7, 2002, was heard this day and the following judgment was rendered:

The Chief Justice (orally) — This is an appeal as of right.  The majority of the Court would dismiss the appeal for the reasons of MacPherson J.A. in the Court of Appeal,  Iacobucci and Major JJ. dissenting.

Iacobucci and Major JJ. (orally)  — We agree with our colleagues on the issue of the alibi instructions. 

L’appel interjeté contre l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C33886, en date du 7 février 2002, a été entendu aujourd’hui et le jugement suivant a été rendu :

[Traduction] La Juge en chef (oralement) — Le présent appel a été interjeté de plein droit.  La majorité de la Cour rejette l’appel pour les motifs exposés par le juge MacPherson de la Cour d’appel.  Les juges Iacobucci et Major sont dissidents.

Les juges Iacobucci et Major (oralement) — Nous partageons l’opinion de nos collègues sur la question

However, in our opinion the testimony of the young offender witness and Ms. Divito required, in the words of Dickson J. (as he then was) in Vetrovec v. The Queen,  “a clear and sharp warning to attract the attention of the juror to the risks of adopting, without more, the evidence of the witness” ([1982] 1 S.C.R. 811, at p. 831).  We agree with Doherty J.A., dissenting in the Ontario Court of Appeal, that the charge of the trial judge when read as a whole did not meet this standard.  Accordingly, we would allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and order a new trial.

des instructions concernant l’alibi.  À notre avis, toutefois, le témoignage du jeune contrevenant qui a déposé et celui de M^lle Divito commandaient, pour reprendre les propos prononcés par le juge Dickson (plus tard Juge en chef) dans l’arrêt Vetrovec c. La Reine, « une mise en garde claire et précise pour attirer l’attention du jury sur les dangers de se fier à la déposition d’un témoin sans plus de précautions » ([1982] 1 R.C.S. 811,  p. 831).  Nous souscrivons à l’opinion dissidente du juge Doherty de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario selon laquelle, considéré globalement, l’exposé du juge du procès ne respectait pas cette norme.  Par conséquent, nous sommes d’avis d’accueillir le pourvoi, d’annuler l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel et d’ordonner un nouveau procès.

Nature of the case:

Criminal law - Alibi - Vetrovec warning - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the Appellant’s appeal in respect of the direction given by the trial judge regarding the Appellant’s alibi - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the Appellant’s appeal in respect of the direction given by the trial judge regarding the approach to be taken in considering the evidence of Mr. Hansen and Ms. Vagadia.

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel - Alibi - Mise en garde de type Vetrovec - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en rejetant l’appel interjeté par l’appelant relativement à la directive du juge du procès concernant l’alibi de l’appelant? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en rejetant l’appel de ce dernier concernant la directive du juge du procès quant à l’approche à suivre pour l’examen du témoignage de M. Hansen et de M^me Vagadia?

12.2.2203

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta

v. (28261)

Devon Gary Ell, et al (Alta.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Robert C. Maybank and Christine Enns for the appellant.

Alan D. Hunter, Q.C., Sheilah L. Martin, Q.C., and James T. Eamon for the respondents.

David Sgayias and Jan Brongers for the intervener Attorney General of Canada.

Janet E. Minor and Sean Hanley for the intervener Attorney General for Ontario.

Monique Rousseau et Julie Dassylva pour l’intervenant Procureur général du Québec.

George H. Copley, Q.C. for the intervener Attorney General of British Columbia.

Graeme G. Mitchell, Q.C. for the intervener Attorney General for Saskatchewan.

Paul B. Schabas and Catherine Beagan Flood for the intervener Association of Justices of the Peace of Ontario.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Constitutional law - Judicial independence - Justices of the peace - Legislative amendments affecting statutory tenure - Whether s. 2.4(8) of the Justice of the Peace Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. J‑3, as amended, interferes with the tenure of non‑sitting justices of the peace and thereby violates the principle of judicial independence guaranteed by the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867 , or s. 11(d)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - If the provision violates s. 11(d), is the Act demonstrably justified as a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1  of the Charter? - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the essential element of security of tenure is “removal only for cause” - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding appellate costs on a solicitor-client basis on the basis that judicial independence cases are an exception to the common law rule.

Nature de la cause:

Droit constitutionnel - Indépendance judiciaire - Juges de paix - Modifications législatives touchant l’inamovibilité prévue par la loi - Le paragraphe 2.4(8) de la Justice of the Peace Act, R.S.A. 1980, ch. J‑3 et ses modifications, porte-t-il atteinte à l’inamovibilité des juges de paix qui ne siègent pas et contrevient-il, de ce fait, au principe de l’indépendance judiciaire garanti par le préambule de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867  ou par l’al. 11 d )  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ? - Si la disposition en cause viole l’al. 11d), s’agit-il d’une loi dont la justification peut se démontrer en tant que limite raisonnable prescrite par une règle de droit, au sens de l’article premier de la Charte? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que la caractéristique essentielle de l’inamovibilité est le fait qu’il peut y avoir [traduction] « destitution seulement pour un motif suffisant »? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en accordant des dépens procureur-client en appel pour le motif que les affaires concernant l’indépendance judiciaire sont une exception à la règle de common law?

13.2.2203

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79

v. (28840)

City of Toronto, et al (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Douglas J. Wray and Harold F. Caley for the appellant.

Jason Hanson, Mahmud Jamal and Kari M. Abrams for the respondent City of Toronto.

Sean Kearney, Mary Gersht and Meredith Brown for the intervener Attorney General of Ontario.

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

Nature of the case:

Administrative law - Labour law - Arbitration - Judicial review - What is the appropriate standard of judicial review of the Arbitrator’s decision(s) - Whether the Arbitrator erred in his decision(s) - Whether the court should substitute its view and quash the Arbitrator’s award(s), without remitting the matter to the Arbitrator.

Nature de la cause:

Droit administratif - Droit du travail - Arbitrage - Contrôle judiciaire - Quelle norme de contrôle judiciaire convient-il d’appliquer aux décisions de l’arbitre? - L’arbitre s’est‑il trompé dans ses décisions? - La Cour devrait‑elle substituer sa propre opinion et annuler les sentences arbitrales sans renvoyer l’affaire à l’arbitre?

13.2.2203

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union